|
"The Old Testament
scriptures were lodged in Paul’s memory, and he quotes from
them again to explain the “need for endurance” (36).
“FOR YET IN A VERY LITTLE WHILE, THE ONE COMING WILL COME,
AND WILL NOT DELAY.” Quoting from the Greek Old
Testament, the Septuagint (LXX), as he does
throughout this epistle, Paul allows the words of Habakkuk
2:3 to speak to the situation of the Jerusalem Christians.
The delayed consummation of Christ’s victory to be revealed
in the second advent created an “enigma of the interim” for
the early Christians, but Paul uses Habakkuk’s words as his
words to indicate that “the Coming One,” Jesus, will come
“in a very little while,” very soon, i.e. imminently. This
may refer to the “second coming of the parousia, as in
Revelation 2:25, “Hold fast until I come.” More likely, Paul
is referring to the imminent coming of Christ in judgment,
when (perhaps within a year after the receipt of this
letter) the Romans came against the residents of Palestine
from 66-70 AD, destroying everything and decimating the
population. This is the same “coming of the Son of Man”
(Matt. 24:27,30,37,42) that Jesus referred to in His Mount
of Olives discourse (Matt. 24:3-45). Paul is warning the
Hebrew Christians again that judgment is coming, and
everything in the old covenant will “disappear” (8:13).
JESUS: BETTER THAN
EVERYTHING
An Introduction to the Epistle
to the Hebrews
The epistle to the Hebrews has suffered
from anonymity. There is anonymity of both author and
recipients because these details are not included in the
text of the letter. Such anonymity makes the document
suspect in the minds of some for it provides no specificity
of its intended meaning within a given context. The
anonymity of writer and reader allows the epistle to be
abstracted and generalized without a specific sitz em
leben (setting in life) to provide historical context
and a basis for specific amplification and application of
the meaning of the words. Anonymous text allows for a
dilution of meaning in interpretation of the text, or allows
an expositor to run rampant with personal presuppositions
which are imposed upon or applied to the text. In other
words, anonymity can diminish exegesis (interpretive
meaning drawn out of the text) and/or facilitate
eisegesis (interpretive meaning read into the text). In
either case, whether subtractive or additive, such
interpretation cannot and does not take into account the
full intent of the original author to his recipients, and
thus diminishes the value and meaning of the text for
subsequent generations of readers.
This has certainly been the case in the
interpretation of the epistle to the Hebrews. The letter has
suffered from neglect and misuse. The regrettable
consequence of the anonymous authorship of this literature
has been the reluctance of some Christians to accept it as
fully authentic and authoritative. Even in the early church
it was little used and cited. Hebrews has suffered from a
subtle skepticism throughout Christian history because of
its unknown authorship, and contemporary interpretation
continues to neglect this important portion of inspired
Scripture. But perhaps of greater consequence is the fact
that the Church through the ages has therefore suffered from
the lack of understanding of the unique message of this
letter in its assertion of the radical supremacy of the
Christian gospel over Judaic religion, and religion in
general.
The epistle to the Hebrews is not the
only document of antiquity that is devoid of the details of
origin and destination. Within the New Testament literature
itself there are other examples of literature without
statement of authorship or destination. John's epistles, for
example, do not contain his name or any designation of his
readers, but these have been reconstructed with what
evidence is available (particularly in the case of First
Epistle of John) to provide a meaningful historical context
for interpretation. The same can be accomplished for the
Epistle to the Hebrews, as we will set about to do.
The task of a Biblical expositor is to
consider the evidence available concerning the historical
context of a document, draw a conclusion based on that
evidence, and interpret the text accordingly. Biblical
scholarship, with its ever-skeptical approach, has been very
cowardly in drawing conclusions about the authorship of
Hebrews, thus assuring that the text can have only nebulous
interpretive meaning. What, then, is the evidence for
authorship, destination and dating of this epistle, in order
to give it specific historical context? What is the most
legitimate conclusion that can be drawn based on that
evidence?
Authorship
The primary objections to Pauline
authorship have traditionally been explained as: (1) the
absence of Paul's name in the epistle, (2) the apparent
second-hand knowledge referred to in 2:3, and (3) the style,
grammar and vocabulary of the epistle which seems to differ
from other Pauline writings.
The absence of Paul's name or signature
was explained as early as 200 A.D. in the Hypotypos
of Clement of Alexandria (c. 155-215). Though that eight
volume outline of Christian thought has not been preserved,
a portion of that document was quoted by Eusebius in his
Ecclesiastical History:
"He (Clement of Alexandria) says that
the Epistle to the Hebrews is the work of Paul, and that
it was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language;
but that Luke translated it carefully and published it
for the Greeks, and hence the same style of expression
is found in this epistle and in the Acts. But he says
that the words, 'Paul the Apostle', were probably not
prefixed, because, in sending it to the Hebrews, who
were prejudiced and suspicious of him, he wisely did not
wish to repel them at the very beginning by giving his
name. ...Paul, as sent to the Gentiles, on account of
his modesty did not subscribe himself an apostle of the
Hebrews, through respect for the Lord, and because being
a herald and apostle of the Gentiles he wrote to the
Hebrews out of his superabundance."1
The reason for the absence of Paul's name
is hereby explained early in church history as a sensitivity
of the "Apostle to the Gentiles" in writing to Hebrew
peoples, who were his kinsmen. The absence of his name does
not exclude Paul from authorship anymore than the absence of
John's name excludes his authorship of the epistles
attributed to him.
The contested statement in Hebrews 2:3,
"After it (the word of salvation) was at first spoken
through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who
heard," seems to evidence a second-hand knowledge of the
gospel, and Paul certainly argues vehemently for the right
of apostleship through a first-hand knowledge of Jesus
Christ in Galatians 1:112:10. But the words can just as
accurately be interpreted by explaining that Paul was
admitting that he was not one of the original twelve
disciples who traveled with the historical Jesus, and
therefore was not privileged to directly hear the words that
Jesus spoke in that context. This does not in any way
diminish his apostleship that he argued for in Galatians,
such argument for his apostleship to the Gentiles obviously
muted in this correspondence to Jewish Christians.
The argument of differing style, grammar
and vocabulary is not all that conclusive either, especially
since this epistle was being written to any entirely
different audience and with an entirely different purpose
than any of Paul's other epistles. Many of the vocabulary
differences, where Paul employs words not used in other
writings (hapax logomena), are in the context of his
contrasting Jesus with Jewish history and theology, of which
he was obviously quite knowledgeable and would not have been
so apt to use in writing to Gentile congregations. The
stylistic differences of the Greek text were explained by
Clement of Alexandria (see above) as due to Luke's
translation from Hebrew to Greek.
Having considered the objections to
Pauline authorship, it is incumbent upon us to now present
the evidence that exists that points to Paul as the most
likely author of this letter.
The papyrus fragment identified as P46
is the oldest extant manuscript of the Pauline epistles.
This Greek manuscript from Alexandria in Egypt is dated
around 200 A.D., and there are no earlier available
manuscripts of Paul's epistles. By acceptable criteria of
textual criticism, the oldest manuscripts, i.e. those
closest to the date of the original writing, must be given
greatest import or weight in textual considerations. Since
P46, the earliest manuscript containing the Pauline
corpus of literature, includes the epistle to the Hebrews
immediately following Paul's epistle to the Romans and
attributes authorship of the epistle to the Hebrews to Paul,
this ascription must be granted a predominating weight of
evidence in the critical consideration of authorship.
We have already noted that the eight
volume Hypotypos of Clement of Alexandria, written c.
200 AD, clearly indicated that Paul was the author of the
Epistle to the Hebrews, giving explanation of the absence of
his name in the epistle and explanation of the variation in
grammatical style of the Greek text (see quotation from
Eusebius above).
Origen (185-253), in his Commentary on
the Gospel of John, wrote that "the Apostle Paul says in
the Epistle to the Hebrews: 'At the end of the days He spoke
to us in His Son' (Heb. 1:2)".2
Origen clearly attributes Pauline authorship to the epistle
to the Hebrews, from which he quotes.
The early Alexandrian scholars of the
Eastern Church consistently regarded Paul as the author of
this epistle. The scholars of the Western Church in Rome
were more skeptical of Pauline authorship until Jerome (c.
340-420) and Augustine (396-430) supported the thesis of
Paul's authorship. From the Sixth Synod of Carthage (419)
until modern times the Roman Catholic Church affirmed
Pauline authorship of the epistle of the Hebrews. The
Protestant Reformers, on the other hand, revived the
questioning of Paul's authorship, with Martin Luther the
first to propose Apollos as the author and John Calvin
speculating that Clement of Rome or Luke may have been the
author. Scholastic speculations of authorship of this
epistle have abounded since the Reformation, often with
arrogant unwillingness to accept early tradition or to
counter prevailing skepticism of scholarship.
As additional evidence it should be noted
that the author mentions Timothy (13:23), who was Paul's
closest colleague in ministry, mentioned often in other
Pauline epistles (Rom. 16:21; II Cor. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; 2;19;
Col. 1:1; I Thess. 1:1; 3:2,6; Philemon 1:1). The author
appears to have previously visited the group of people to
whom he was writing, and hoped to revisit them (13:19,23),
consistent with the fact that Paul had visited the church in
Jerusalem on several occasions (Acts 21:11-31; Rom. 15:25;
Gal. 1:18). The mention of the "saints of Italy" (13:24)
would be consistent with Paul's imprisonment in Rome, and
his desire to send greetings on behalf of the Italian
Christians to the Jewish-Christian recipients of this
letter.
The evidence is certainly not sufficient
to dismiss or deny Paul as the most likely author of this
epistle to the Hebrews. In fact, we must be honest enough to
admit that the preponderance of the evidence leads to
Pauline authorship. All other proposed authors of this
epistle (Silas, Philip, Mark, Priscilla, etc.) are merely
speculative assignments, "shots in the dark" to suggest
another name other than Paul. The name of Apollos was not
even suggested until the 16th century by Martin Luther.
There is no way to compare the literary criteria of grammar,
vocabulary and style with other writings of these
speculatively proposed authors for many of them have no
other literature to compare with. What a convenient way to
preclude Pauline authorship and preempt having to deal with
the grammatical issues by assigning authorship to
unpublished persons.
Though one must "swim against the tide"
of several centuries of skeptical academic scholarship in
the textual criticism of Protestant Biblical studies, the
evidence is quite sufficient to assert that the Apostle Paul
was the most likely author of this epistle to the Hebrews.
Recipients
The text does not indicate who the first
readers were, again leaving us with an anonymity of original
recipients. So, what internal and external evidence can be
presented to make an assignment of destination?
Based upon the abundance of references to
Jewish religion and the old covenant, particularly the
Levitical priesthood and temple practices, this document has
been referred to as "the epistle to the Hebrews," at least
since the latter part of the second century AD. It is
reasonable to assume that the original readers were
Christians from a Jewish background, even though the
quotations from the Old Testament seem to be from the Greek
translation of the Septuagint (LXX), which would be
consistent with Paul's bilingual knowledge of the Old
Testament and his frequent utilization of the LXX among
Gentiles.
It appears that the author was addressing
a particular community of Christians with whom he was
personally acquainted. He was aware of their having endured
persecution (10:32,33; 12:4), as well as their present
situation (5:12; 6:9; 13:17), and intended to revisit them
(13:19,23). The author and the readers were mutually
acquainted with Timothy (13:23).
The mention of "Italy" (13:24) in the
closing comments of the epistle has caused some to conclude
that the recipients were Jewish Christians residing in Rome,
who were being greeted by fellow Italians living in the
location from whence this epistle was written. That same
reference can be interpreted to mean that the location of
origination was Italy, however, and that the author is
sending greetings to the readers from the Italian Christians
where he is located. Although other destinations such as
Alexandria, Caeserea, Ephesus, Corinth, and Antioch have
been suggested, the most likely location of the residence of
the original readers is Jerusalem.
Who else would have had such attachment
to Jewish history and theology, such close ties with Temple
worship and its sacrifices, such pressure to relapse to
Judaic religion, than the Hebrew saints in Jerusalem?
Consider also that in subsequent Christian history no church
claimed that this letter had been written to them, a
practice of all the other churches who sought to make a
"claim to fame" as the recipients of an apostolic letter
from Paul. The church at Rome did not claim this letter. The
churches at Alexandria, Ephesus, Corinth or Antioch did not
claim this letter. No church claimed to be the recipients of
this letter in the history of the early church. The
explanation for this phenomenon is simple: within a few
years after this epistle was written the church at Jerusalem
ceased to exist. Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D.
Palestine was devastated and its inhabitants decimated.
There was no church in Jerusalem to lay claim to being the
recipients of this epistle after 70 A.D. This serves as an
important historical evidence to the Jerusalem church having
been the likely recipients of this letter.
It is most reasonable to assume that Paul
was imprisoned in Rome in the mid-60s of the first century
(as we know from Luke's account in the Acts of the Apostles
28:16-31), and he had a good social and spiritual
perspective of what was going on in the Roman persecutions
of Christians under Emperor Nero (who died in 68 A.D.), as
well as the Roman attitudes toward the Palestinian Jews. He
also knew the attitudes of the Palestinian Jews with their
intense nationalist patriotism, their religious absolutism,
their racist superiority, and he could foresee that a
violent war was about to erupt in Palestine between the
Romans and the Jews.
The Christian Jews in Palestine had lost
their leaders (13:7), and Paul, though he knew he was the
Apostle to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15; Rom. 1:5; Gal. 1:16;
2:7), never lost his heart for his Jewish kinsmen (Rom.
9:3). It is likely that he decided to write this letter to
encourage (13:22) the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem to be
confident in their endurance (10:35,36) by emphasizing the
superiority of Jesus over all religion. The Palestinian
Christians were being pressured to revert to Judaism, to
join the patriotic cause of militaristic defense against the
Roman empire. Christianity did not seem to be going anywhere
except among the Gentiles, and even then Paul was on
death-row in Rome. Some of the Christians were not even
assembling together anymore (10:25), were becoming casual
about sin (10:26; 12:10-16), and were in danger of
apostasizing (6:4-6; 10:26-31).
Paul writes to encourage these
Palestinian Christians not to take the easy way out and
revert to religion again, in particular Judaism, with its
religious practices and nationalistic patriotism. He
explained that the old covenant of God's working with and
through the Jews, was obsolete and would soon disappear in
destruction (8:13) as it soon did in 70 A.D. The old
covenant was only intended to pre-figure and set-up the new
covenant of all that God intended to do in His Son, Jesus
Christ. Jesus is the fulfillment of all the old covenant
pictures and types, the fulfillment of all God's intents and
promises (II Cor. 1:20) for His people. "Don't go back to
religion," Paul is saying. "Go outside the camp" (13:13),
repudiate Judaism, perhaps even consider leaving Jerusalem
and Palestine (as many of them did, and survived the Roman
slaughter of 70 A.D.). To reject Christ and go back to
Judaic religion (any religion) is fatal and final, Paul
indicates (10:29-31). Paul was telling the Palestinian
Christians that there was a polarity of either/or, either
Christ or Judaism, but you cannot have both. Like oil and
water, Christian and religion do not mix! J. Bramby explains
that
"when the Epistle to the Hebrews was
written, the time had come for a complete and final
severance from the ancient order. For now the predicted
judgment was impending on Jerusalem, the temple was
about to be destroyed for ever, the whole sacrificial
system connected therewith to cease, and the nation to
be scattered through the world without a home in
Palestine. Full time was it now for Christ's followers
fully to perceive that from the old dispensation, never
more than provisional, the glory was passed away; to
come entirely out of the once holy but now doomed city;
to lean no longer on the tottering fabric of the temple,
lest their very faith should be shattered in its
downfall."3
If, as the evidence suggests, Paul wrote
this epistle to the church in Jerusalem which was undergoing
persecution (not only by the Romans, but even more by the
Palestinian Jews - cf. 10:32-36), then this epistle was one
of the last, if not the last, that Paul wrote. Why is
this important? Because if the epistle to the Galatians was
the first of Paul's extant epistles, and the epistle to the
Hebrews was the last, then we can observe the total
consistency of Paul's thinking throughout his ministry.
Galatians and Hebrews are two of the clearest New Testament
epistles exposing the radical uniqueness of Christianity as
set against the old covenant and Judaic religion. All of
Paul's other writings must then be interpreted in the
context of Galatians and Hebrews, as they form the alpha
and omega of the Pauline corpus, serving as the
"bookends" of Pauline theology.
Date of Writing
There is also no direct indication of the
date of writing in the text of this epistle. Most scholars
have concluded that it was written prior to the fall of
Jerusalem in 70 AD since there is no reference to that
catastrophic historical event, and one would certainly
expect such had it been written to Christian readers of
Jewish background after that event. The writer's repeated
references to Jewish rituals using present tense verbs (7:8;
9:6-13; 13:10,11) also seems to indicate a date when such
practices were still being performed in the temple at
Jerusalem prior to its destruction. The only other referent
point for dating this document is that Clement of Rome was
apparently acquainted with this epistle by approximately 95
A.D.
It is quite likely that Emperor Nero's
"urban renewal project" had just occurred in Rome, when in
64 AD Nero had apparently arranged to burn a large section
of Rome in order to clear the way for his building campaign
which would memorialize him in its lasting grandeur. "Nero
fiddled while Rome burned" was the scuttlebutt that
prevailed at the time, and the phrase remains as a lasting
indictment to that imperial crime. The Christians, regarded
as but a sect of the Jews at the time, became Nero's
scapegoat of blame for setting the fire, igniting an
incendiary wave of suspicion and persecution against the
Christians, as well as the Jews.
Paul, under house arrest in Rome, might
well have observed the glow of the flames and smelled the
smoke from the fire. Hearing that the Christians had been
blamed for setting the fire, Paul may have "seen the
handwriting on the wall", so to speak, and realized that the
days ahead would be difficult times for Christians and Jews.
Paul was also well aware of the growing sentiment of
resentment against Rome in Palestine, with the feverish
swell of nationalistic patriotism being incited by the
Zealot party within Judaism, advocating their alleged
God-given right as the "chosen people" of God to operate as
a sovereign nation in the line of David within the
Palestinian land that they regarded as their "promised
land." But Paul may have had a much better perspective of
the might and power of the Roman army than the Palestinian
peoples had in their blind fervor for self-rule. He may have
had grave concerns of the outcome if the Roman military were
to move into Palestine to put down an insurrection of revolt
against Rome by the Jewish nationalists. Aware of attitudes
both in Rome and Palestine, Paul may have decided that this
was a timely opportunity to encourage his Christian brothers
in Jerusalem by writing an epistle to the Church there,
encouraging them to remain faithful to Jesus Christ and not
to succumb to the political and religious influences that
were being brought to bear upon them at that time.
The best conclusion, based on the
evidence, seems to indicate that this letter was written by
Paul from Rome to the Hebrew Christians in Jerusalem in the
middle 60s of the first century, perhaps in 64 or 65 AD just
prior to Paul's likely execution at the hands of the Romans.
Interpretive Considerations
Be forewarned that the epistle to the
Hebrews contains what is perhaps the most radical message in
the New Testament. It may upset the applecart of your
religious understanding. No other book in the New Testament
so categorically asserts that God's arrangement with men in
the Old Testament is no longer valid, making that point by
declaring that Jesus is better than every feature of the old
covenant. To drive the point home the readers are warned
that if they revert to the Judaic religious practices of
their past, having participated in the new covenant
realities of Jesus Christ, they will forfeit all opportunity
to participate in the eternal realities of Jesus Christ
again.
With at least eighty-six direct
references to the Old Testament within this letter, and with
constant attention drawn to the Jewish people and their
religion, it is important to consider the correlation of
this document to the Old Testament. Some have indicated that
a thorough understanding of the Old Testament is essential
to understanding the epistle to the Hebrews. Though it is
true that an understanding of the historical background and
ritualistic practices of the old covenant and the Hebrew
peoples provides a valuable context for interpreting this
document, it is perhaps even more important to realize that
a thorough understanding of the Epistle to the Hebrews is
essential to a proper understanding of the Old Testament
from a Christian perspective. If the "Old Testament is the
New Testament concealed, and the New Testament is the Old
Testament revealed," as has often been explained as the
basis for Christian hermeneutics, then the revealing of the
gospel, especially in the book of Hebrews, should serve as
the starting-point to consider how the gospel was concealed
in the clues of the prefiguring of the Old Testament. The
failure to interpret the Old Testament from this perspective
has led to much confusion and misemphasis in Christian
teaching, allowing the Old Testament to serve as the
priority literature even in the lives of new covenant
Christians. When this happens Christianity is perverted into
religious forms of Christianized Judaism, which is the very
thing that this epistle warns against and condemns. The
Epistle to the Hebrews is the best antidote to such
religious perversion, serving as the necessary commentary on
the Old Testament, and interpreting the history, worship and
prophecy of the Old Testament as it points in its entirety
to Jesus Christ.
Clyde F. Whitehead explains that
"The Hebrews epistle deals with most
of the important things that were associated with the
old dispensation. The writer's objective is to show that
the Mosaic law has been replaced by something that is
far 'better.'"4
J. Barmby, writing in the Pulpit
Commentary, comments that
"its main purport is to show, from
the Old Testament Scriptures themselves, that the Mosaic
dispensation was from the first only preparatory for and
prophetic of a higher one to come which was entirely to
supersede it, and that Christ had come as the one only
true High Priest for all mankind, the true fulfilment of
all ancient ritual and prophecy, the satisfaction of all
human needs, to renounce whom would be to renounce
salvation."5
The Epistle to the Hebrews is pivotal to
understanding the old covenant literature of the Old
Testament. It is equally as pivotal to understanding all of
the rest of the new covenant literature of the New
Testament. This epistle might well have been placed as the
first book in the New Testament canon arrangement, providing
the bridge that explains the preliminary purpose of God in
the old covenant and the superlative fulfillment of God's
purpose in the new covenant, i.e. in Jesus Christ.
Over and over the author of the Epistle
to the Hebrews uses the word "better" to describe the
spiritual reality afforded in Jesus Christ. Christians have
a "better hope" (7:19) within a "better covenant" (7:22;
8:6) with "better promises" (8:6). "God has provided
something better for us" (11:40) by the "better sacrifice"
(9:23) of Jesus Christ, that we might enjoy the "better
possession" (10:34). This theme provides the basis of our
entitling this study, "Jesus Better Than Religion."
R.B. Yerby writes,
"Along with the other New Testament
writers, the author of Hebrews saw the total and
overwhelming superiority of the new and better age that
dawned at Calvary. Like them he saw that all of the
people, and events, and institutions of the former
dispensation were merely shadows of the better things
that God reserved for this present age, and for the
eternity of the new heavens and new earth. Like them he
realized that after Calvary the natural types and
figures had served their purpose and were vanishing
away, having been replaced forever by the eternal and
spiritual realities."6
Those who fail to understand the better
reality of the new covenant in Jesus Christ as plainly
expounded in the epistle to the Hebrews, tend to have a
false hope for a reversionary return to the physical and
external rituals of old covenant Jewish religion. This has
become a popular theological interpretation in Western
Christendom. Yerby responds to such by noting that,
"Hebrews...perhaps more than any of
the books of the Bible, stands as a monumental source of
frustration and embarrassment to those who teach that
God plans to return one day to the natural trappings and
embellishments of the old Jewish economy, to the natural
land and city, the natural law and ordinances, the
natural kingdom and throne, and the natural temple and
sacrifices."7
"Like Paul, we should be 'afraid of'
anyone who teaches that God's program calls for a future
return to the bondage of those weak and beggarly
elements of Old Testament Judaism (Gal. 4:9-11)."8
Proper understanding of the Epistle to
the Hebrews will reveal the logical absurdity of any
expectations that God is going to renew the Jewish religion,
re-establish a physical kingdom, reinstitute the Jewish
priesthood, reinstate the animal sacrifices, rebuild the
Jewish temple, or restore the physical land. Such
expectations are the very backward reversions to religion
that this epistle warns against, by explaining that all such
external and physical religion has been superseded in the
spiritual reality of Jesus Christ.
Christocentric Emphasis
In the epistle to the Hebrews we are
inculcated to "consider Jesus" (3:1; 12:3) as the spiritual
reality that God has made available for all men. The
ontological dynamic of the living Lord Jesus by His Spirit
is the essence of Christianity. This Christocentric emphasis
is at the heart of all of the inspired literature of the New
Testament, and is certainly the focal point of this letter.
Jesus is better than all religion because
He is personal. The Personal, Living God sent His Son as the
God-man to personally redeem and restore mankind. Only by
the dynamic Person and Life of Jesus Christ can man be
restored to function as God intended in a personal
faith/love relationship with God. To revert to religion is
to settle for impersonal things, events, places and
practices which can never satisfy.
Jesus is better than all religion because
He is the singular, exclusive, ultimate and final revelation
of God to man. He is the sum of all spiritual things (cf.
Eph. 1:10), allowing for no religious syncretism or
admixture. Though religion regards such an assertion as "the
scandal of singularity and exclusivism," Jesus is the only
"mediator between God and man" (I Tim. 2:5). "No man comes
unto the Father, but by Me" (Jn. 14:6). "There is no other
name under heaven whereby a man must be saved" (Acts 4:12).
Jesus is better than all religion because
of the completeness and permanency of His finished work (Jn.
19:30). Whereas religion is limited, temporary and
repetitive, the life of Jesus is eternal and forever. As a
"priest forever" (5:6), Jesus is "eternal salvation" (5:9)
within the "eternal covenant" (13:20).
Jesus is better than all religion because
He is the provision and sufficiency for practical
experiential behavior that glorifies God. The impracticality
of religious belief-systems, moralities, and rituals are
most unsatisfying, but "through Jesus Christ we are equipped
in every good thing to do God's will" (13:20).
The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews
exalts Jesus Christ as the essence of the Christian gospel.
Christianity is not religion; Christianity is Christ! Jesus
is better than all religion.
FOOTNOTES
1
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History. VI,14,2. A
Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers
of the Christian Church. Second Series. Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1982.
pg. 261.
2 Origen,
Commentary on the Gospel of John. Menzies, Allan
(ed.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers,
Vol. X. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans. 1986.
pg. 328.
3 Barmby,
J., The Pulpit Commentary. Vol. 21. Grand Rapids:
William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.,
1950, pgs xix, xx of introduction to Hebrews.
4
Whitehead, Clyde F., Israel Vs. Israel: The Great
Paradox of Scripture. Sevierville:
Covenant House Bks., 1993, pg. 219.
5 Barmby,
op. cit., pg xx of introduction.
6 Yerby,
R.B., The Once and Future Israel. Sterling: Grace
Abounding Ministries. 1988,
pg. 126.
7 Ibid.,
pg. 125,126.
8 Ibid.,
pg. 75.
JESUS THE
BETTER REVELATION OF GOD
This epistle does not have a traditional
epistolary introduction or prologue as do other Pauline
epistles. Explanation for the absence of such was made by
Clement of Alexandria (c. 200 A.D.), noting that Paul
avoided the inclusion of his name at the beginning of the
letter so that the message he had to share would not be
detracted from by any previous biases or prejudices of the
recipients who were suspicious of his association with, and
inclusion of, the Gentiles. Paul, therefore, gets right to
the point of demonstrating and documenting that Jesus Christ
is the better revelation of God to men. He will do so by
asserting that Jesus is better than the prophets (1:1-3),
and better than the angels (1:4-14), and thus provides a
better incentive to be receptive to Christ (2:1-4).
The saints in the church at Jerusalem
were wavering in their stand with Christ. They were in
danger of drifting (2:1) back to Judaic religion, of
slipping away from their moorings in the supremacy and
sufficiency of Jesus Christ. From the very outset of this
letter Paul proceeds to affirm the superiority of Christ
over the religion of Judaism, and thus to demonstrate that
the reality of Jesus is better than any religion.
1:1 In
the original Greek language the letter begins with two
"poly" prefixed words referring to "many parts and
many ways". The revelation of God in the old
covenant was multiportional and multifarious, or to use
"poly" words, polypartitive and polymodal. "Of old
(long ago) God was speaking to the fathers in the
prophets" in multiple portions and by multiple
means. Over a period of several millennia God revealed
Himself partially and progressively throughout the Hebrew
history recorded in the Old Testament. Paul begins this
letter to the Palestinian Jews by reminding them of the
multiple occasions and multiple dimensions by which God
spoke and made Himself known in old covenant history, but
the point he is making is simply to set up the logical
contrast of how Jesus Christ is the singular, undivided and
complete self-revelation of God to mankind. The multiple
preliminary prefiguring of God's actions in Jewish history,
as He spoke to the fathers through the many Hebrew prophets,
is used by Paul to create the explanation of the better
revelation of God in the singularity of His self-revelation
in His Son. The "fathers" are not necessarily restricted to
the "patriarchs" of Genesis, but are the ancestral
forefathers of previous generations of Hebrew peoples (cf.
3:9; 8:9).
Jesus was not just another in a long line
of Hebrew prophets. He was not merely a spokesperson for
God. Jesus was the singular and unique God-man, the Son of
God incarnated in the humanity of a man. As such, He
provided the only provision of God for the needs of mankind,
superior to all previous and prior revelatory pronouncements
about God in the old covenant. Jesus did not come to tell us
more about God, or to give mankind more information about
God's attributes and God's intentions. No, Jesus came as
God the self-revelation of God. His every act was invested
with the very Being of God, and the very Being of God was
fully operative in every act. The self-revelation of God in
Jesus necessarily implies the oneness of His Being and act.
Jesus was not the "virtual reality" of God, "as if" He were
God in action; nor was He the "remote action" of God,
manipulated from a position of transcendence to produce a
secondary and mediated action of God. No, Jesus was the real
action of the very reality of God, the ontological dynamic
of the very essence of God operational in the man, Jesus. I
do not believe that this in any way overstates the point
Paul sought to make in his contrast with the prior prophetic
pronouncements of God in the past.
The participial form of the verb Paul
uses about "God having spoken" in this first verse may have
been intended to be contrasted with the aorist indicative
form of the same verb in the second verse. That "God has
spoken to us in the Son" expresses a more definite and
deliberate act of God, perhaps even the punctiliar action
that emphasizes the singularity and superiority of God's
revelation of Himself in the Son, as contrasted with
polymorphous expression of the prophets in the old covenant.
The better expression and revelation of God is in the Son.
Such revelation is not just a proclamation, but an
incarnation, a personified self-revelation.
The use of "old" (Greek palai) in
this initial verse of the epistle establishes a theme that
will be employed throughout, contrasting the old covenant
arrangement of God's preparatory dealing toward mankind with
the new covenant arrangement of God's permanent and eternal
action for man in Jesus Christ. (cf.
covenants) Paul wants to dissuade the Jewish Christians
from reverting to the old covenant religion of Judaism after
they have already participated in the better spiritual
realities of the new covenant in Jesus Christ.
1:2 The Pauline perspective of
history is always divided by not only the old covenant and
the new covenant, but by the correlative concept of the
"past" and the "last." The old is "past", even obsolete
(8:13), and the "last" in the sequence (Greek word
eschatos from which we transliterate the word
"eschatology") is the new reality that God has made known in
His Son, Jesus, who is the "last Adam", the Eschatos
Man (I Cor. 15:45); God's "last word" for mankind
singularly, completely, decisively and finally. (cf.
last things) Eschatology is often mistakenly understood
to be the study of the future and that which is yet to
transpire. Properly understood, eschatology is the study of
"last things", and God's last and final arrangement for man
is in Jesus Christ. In the first proclamation of the early
church, Peter commenced by saying that Joel's prophecy of
the "last days" (Joel 2:28) was fulfilled by the Pentecostal
manifestation of the Spirit of Christ (Acts 2:17). Now Paul
commences with the same theme that "in these last days
God has spoken to us in His Son." The "last days"
are not future. Rather, they began in the past when God
historically revealed Himself incarnationally in the Son,
and they continue throughout the new covenant "day of
salvation" (cf. II Cor. 6:2) unto the "last time" (cf. I
Peter 1:5) of the future. Although Jewish eschatology was
always future-focused, Christian eschatology is focused on
Christ, the fulfillment of God's "last things", and must
necessarily be based on what Christ has already accomplished
on our behalf in His "finished work" (John 19:30), all the
while recognizing the perpetuity and continuum of His
eternal work into the future. Christian eschatology will
always recognize the "already" and the "not yet" of God's
"last things" in Jesus Christ.
Writing to the Jewish Christians in
Jerusalem, Paul wanted to emphasize the inaugurated and
realized eschatological realities in Jesus Christ. The Jews
in Palestine in the middle of the seventh decade of the
first century (mid 60s A.D.) were anticipating a hoped-for
future of deliverance from Rome and consequent self-rule.
The Zealot theme of patriotic Jewish nationalism was at a
crescendo. They were confident this would reestablish the
Davidic kingdom which they considered to be their God-given
right of self-rule in the Palestinian land that they
regarded as given to them by God. Paul did not want the
Jewish Christians to accept the false hopes for a physical
utopian kingdom being offered by the Jewish religionists,
but wanted them to base their hope in Jesus Christ alone
(cf. I Tim. 1:1).
Although this letter primarily contrasts
old covenant and new covenant, Judaism and Christianity, it
is important to note that there is both continuity and
discontinuity in the connection and contrasts. Continuity is
evident in that it is "God who spoke to the fathers in the
prophets" (1:1), and the same "God who has spoken in His
Son" (1:2). Judaism and Christianity are historically
linked, and God's action in the old covenant must not be
regarded as irrelevant or of no value by those who
participate in the new covenant. Though the previous
revelation of God was temporary and preparatory as a
pictorial prefiguring, it was nonetheless foundational and
necessary, having been enacted by God. Paul's point is that
the old arrangement has been superseded by all that is new
and better in Jesus Christ. So it is that he commences by
noting the diverse and fragmentary modality of the prophetic
proclamation of God in the old covenant as contrasted with
the superior, singular modality of God's self-revelation in
the Son, who Himself declared, 'I AM the way, the truth, and
the life; no man comes unto the Father but by Me" (John
14:6).
It is "the Son whom God appointed
heir of all things." A son is always a primary heir
prior to any eligibility (if any) of servants. Later in the
epistle (3:5,6) Paul will note that Moses was a "servant,"
whereas Jesus was the "Son." In the distinctly Messianic
second Psalm, we discover the prophetic pointer to the
Messianic Son inheriting all from His Father: "He said to
Me, 'Thou art My Son... Ask of Me, and I will surely give
the nations as Thine inheritance'" (Psalm 2:7,8). Jesus, the
Son, was foreordained of God to be the heir of all things,
i.e. everything God has to give. The prophets were not the
heirs of all things of God. The Jewish people were not the
heirs of all things, even though they thought they had an
exclusive right to all the things of God. This may be the
contrastual point Paul was making when he wrote that the
"Son was appointed heir of all things." The Jews had long
considered that they had an exclusive right to the
fulfillment of all God's promises, that the divine
inheritance was all theirs. Particularly, they laid claim to
the promises of God to Abraham pertaining to land (Gen.
12:7; 15:7; 17:8), nation (Gen. 12:2; 17:4,5; 18:18),
blessing (Gen. 12:2,3; 18:18), and posterity (Gen. 13:15,16;
15:5; 22:17), believing these to be their divine right of
inheritance in physical fulfillment. When this epistle was
written the Palestinian Jews were zealously mobilizing to
claim their inheritance of land, nation and blessing by
attempting to oust the Romans from Palestine. In that
context Paul writes that "the Son has been appointed heir of
all things." Does that mean that Jesus is the heir and
fulfillment of all God's promises and intents? Yes, for as
Paul wrote to the Corinthians, "For as many as may be the
promises of God, in Him (Jesus Christ) they are yes..." (II
Cor. 1:20) affirmed, confirmed, fulfilled. The mistake of
the Jewish people was to interpret God's promises only as
physical, racial and national promises, rather than
figurative and spiritual promises which were to be fulfilled
in the Son, Jesus Christ. So Paul explains to the Jewish
Christians of Jerusalem that "Jesus was appointed by God as
heir of all things." All things? Yes, all things pertaining
to God's intentions to give Himself to mankind in His Son in
order to restore the necessary divine presence that allows
man to be man as God intended. Jesus is "heir of all things"
because God has only one "only-begotten" Son, who is the one
heir of all that is His. But those who are incorporated into
the one heir, "in Christ" as Paul uses the phrase, are then
"joint-heirs with Christ" (Rom. 8:17). As such, Christians
"inherit the promises" (Heb. 6:12) and "receive the promises
of eternal inheritance" (Heb. 9:15). Christians are thus
"heirs of all things" in Christ, "blessed with every
spiritual blessing in heavenly places in Christ" (Eph. 1:3),
having been "granted everything pertaining to life and
godliness" (II Pet. 1:3), so that "all things belong to us"
(I Cor. 3:21-23). Paul wanted the Christians in Jerusalem to
realize that they were the heirs of "all things" of God in
Jesus Christ, and did not need to fight for such militarily
in insurrection against Rome, as they were being pressured
to do by the Jewish nationalists. Why is it then that
Zionist interpretations still influence Christian thinking
today, still advocating that the Jewish people are to be the
"heirs of all things", and that the promises of God to
Abraham are yet to be fulfilled physically for the Jews in
the future? (cf.
Abrahamic promises) This can be nothing less than a
failure to understand the point Paul is making throughout
this epistle to the Hebrews, if not an abominable attempt to
recreate the aberrant religious model of physical, racial
and national privilege that Paul was attempting to deny by
directing the Jerusalem Christians to Christ alone, and to
the recognition that He is "the heir of all things", which
things Christians participate in "in Him."
Paul proceeds to explain to his readers
that this Son is the one "through whom also He made
the ages." In other words, Jesus was preexistent
with God, one in Being with God, and active in the divine
creation of all created existence. Paul had explained this
in other writings, noting that "through Christ are all
things, and we exist through Him" (I Cor. 8:6), for "by Him
all things were created...by Him and for Him" (Col. 1:16).
John likewise explained that "all things come into being by
Him (Jesus, the Word), and apart from Him nothing came into
being that has come into being" (John 1:3), for "the world
was made by Him" (John 1:10). Jesus, as God, created "all
things" and is the heir of "all things". He is the beginning
and the end (Rev. 21:6; 22:13) of all things, the origin and
the objective of all divine things, for He is divine Being
in action. Etiology and teleology merge in the divine action
of the Son. This is the point that Paul is seeking to drive
home to these Christians of Jewish heritage, that the
popular Jewish perspective of God as a singular and isolated
monad is insufficient to explain God's actions and intents.
A Trinitarian perception of God as Father, Son and Holy
Spirit is required to understand the better revelation of
God's self-revelation of Himself in the Son.
It was as God that Jesus was
instrumental in the creation of the universe, of time and
space. The word Paul employs here is not kosmos, the
Greek word for "world", but aionas, the Greek plural
for "ages" (cf. Heb. 11:3). Though these two words can be
used synonymously for divine creation in general, there may
be an emphasis on Christ's creative action in both the old
age and the new age, and that to establish that "at the
consummation of the ages (which He Himself had created) He
was manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself"
(Heb. 9:26), so that those "in Him" might participate in
"the powers of the age to come" (Heb. 6:5). Jesus' divine
action in the physical creation of time and space is
reenacted in the re-creation of man spiritually by His
redemptive and restorative work. "If any man is in Christ,
he is a new creature" (II Cor. 5:17), a participant in the
"new creation" (Gal. 6:16). Despite the attempts of the
Jewish nationalists in Judea to create a "new thing" in
Palestine, Paul would tell the Christians to be content with
the creative acts of Jesus Christ, who had already
constituted them "a holy nation" (I Pet. 2:9) in Him.
Paul has explained that the better
revelation, the final revelation of God, presently available
"in these last days" was incarnationally, redemptively and
restorationally enacted in the self-revelation of Himself in
the Son, who is the divine creative source of all things and
the divinely ordained heir of all things, so that all of
God's Being in action is in Him. He will continue to explain
this unitive and Trinitarian basis of divine action in the
next sentence.
1:3 "He (Jesus)
is the radiance of His (God's) glory."
As the "I AM" (cf. John 8:58; 10:9,11; 11:25; 14:6), Jesus
is the eternally present tense emanation of divine glory.
"The Word was made flesh, and we beheld His glory" (John
1:14), and the eternal Word continuously radiates divine
glory as God. It is not that the Son merely reflects the
glory of God like a mirror. That would be to separate the
Son from the divine source. No, Jesus radiates, emanates and
expresses divine glory as the self-generating God. Through
the prophet Isaiah, God declared, "I am the Lord..., I will
not give My glory to another" (Isa. 42:8; 48:11). God cannot
dispense His glory as if it were a detached commodity. His
glory is in Himself, and God is glorified when His
all-glorious character is expressed unto His own glory.
Again, He is subject and object, source and recipient, of
His own glory. "Crowned with glory and honor" (Heb. 2:7,9)
as the God-man, Jesus glorified the Father by expressing
divine character at all times as a man, and then prayed that
He might "be glorified with the glory that He had with the
Father before the world was" (John 17:5), in order to
continue as the Glorified One to express and emanate divine
glory as God.
It seems that religion is always
attempting to find God's glory in something other than the
Christic expression of such, believing that God's glory
"shines from" determined manifestations or successful
results. Some have thought that God's glory was only in
their belief-system, their denomination, or their worship
patterns. The particular religious situation that Paul
addresses in writing to the Jerusalem Christians was that
the Jewish religion conceived of God's glory either as the
Shekinah glory observed by the high priest once a year in
the Holy of Holies of the temple, or in considering
themselves as "God's chosen people" to be the glory of God.
Paul explains that the living Lord Jesus is "the radiance of
God's glory", allowing the invisible character of God to be
made visible by generating such out of His own Being. Jesus
is "the image of the invisible God" (II Cor. 4:4; Col.
1:15), and only by His presence and activity (Being in
action) can Christians "do all to the glory of God" (I Cor.
10:31), having beheld "the light of the knowledge of the
glory of God in the face of Christ" (II Cor. 4:6), in order
to be "transformed into the same image from glory to glory"
(II Cor. 3:18).
In what some have regarded as a
synonymous or parallel statement to the previous, but which
is surely a deeper amplification of Jesus' deity, Paul
explains that the Son is "the express image of God's
essence." This is a difficult phrase to translate,
as is evident in the many English translations: "exact
representation of His nature" (NASB), "express image of His
person" (KJV), "bears the very stamp of His nature" (RSV),
"exact representation of His being" (NIV). It seems
inadequate to indicate that Jesus is the "representation" of
God, for the point that Paul seems to be making is that
Jesus is the very "reality" of God. The word that Paul uses,
the Greek word charakter (from which we get the
English word "character"), was used in the engraving of an
imprint to stamp an image on a coin, thus eliciting the
translations of "representation", "image", "stamp,"
"imprint", etc. What we must avoid is any translation that
implies that Jesus is a separated, secondary, instrumental
stamp or imprint that is in any way less than God. The
second noun in the phrase is no less difficult to translate:
the Greek word hupostasis refers to the underlying
reality of essence, substance or constitution. Since the
Greek language has a clear word for "nature" (phusis),
it is preferable not to translate this word in the same way,
but to translate it as "essence" or as "substance" (as the
KJV translates the same word in Heb. 11:1).
What is Paul attempting to convey in this
phrase? Apparently the same thought as he expressed to the
Colossians, that "in Him (Jesus) all the fullness of Deity
dwells" (Col. 2;9). Or as Jesus said, "He who has seen Me,
has seen the Father" (John 14:9), for "I and the Father are
one" (John 10:30), essentially and purposefully. Perhaps to
counter the tendency of Judaism to make God into a monad,
Paul wanted to emphasize to the Jewish Christians in
Jerusalem that Jesus is the very embodiment of deity, the
self-existent, self-generating essence of God. All that God
is, Jesus is, and Jesus is the better revelation of God,
superior to the Jewish prophets because He is the very
essence and Being of God in action.
Christian theologians have long struggled
to express this inexplicable oneness of Father and Son (and
Spirit). (cf.
trinity) Sometimes they have referred to the "hypostatic
union" (from hupostasis) of the persons of the
Godhead, or to the consubstantial oneness of God as "three
in one". Other explanations have referred to the ontological
coinherence of Father and Son in perichoretic oneness (based
on the Greek word perichoresis, meaning the
interpenetration of Being), or of the homoousion of
the singular sameness and oneness of Being in Father and
Son. Simply put, Paul wanted to tell the Jewish Christians
that "Jesus is God," a foundational premise of Christianity
that they may have been in danger of denying as they endured
the pressure of Judaism in Jerusalem. But from Paul's
perspective to reject Jesus would be to reject God.
Continuing his extended statement
concerning Jesus, Paul writes that the Son "upholds
all things by the word of His power." This is not a
portrayal of Jesus as an "Atlas figure" holding up the
planet in his hand. The statement conveys more than the
words of the popular song, "He's got the whole world in His
hand." Though inclusive of the idea of God's providential
sustenance of the created order, it appears that Paul's
meaning is closer to what he wrote to the Colossians, that
"in Him (Jesus) all things hold together" (Col. 1:17). "All
things" of God (which He is the co-creator of and heir of -
cf. 1:2) are continually borne and carried by the Son. Jesus
bears the responsibility to express the dynamic of God's
empowering in all things. He was "declared the Son of God
with power by the resurrection from the dead" (Rom. 1:4),
and thus serves as the divine agent of expressing the divine
dynamic and empowering of all the activities of God,
including "the power of God for salvation to every one who
believes" (Rom. 1:16). The Palestinian Jews were preparing
to make a power-play against Rome, but Paul tells the
Christians that the real power of God is invested in Jesus,
on whom they should rely instead of military might.
In his continuing explanation of the
divine work of the Son, Paul wrote, "Having made
cleansing for sins, He (Jesus) sat down at the right
hand of the Majesty on high." The Jewish religion was
obsessed with the cleansing of bodies, hands, feet, food,
utensils, etc., always seeking a ceremonial purification.
Once a year, on the Day of Atonement, the high priest
entered the Holy of Holies of the temple to effect a
"cleansing of their sins before the Lord" (Lev. 16:30; cf.
Exod. 30:10). Paul's objective in this epistle to the
Hebrews is to categorically declare that Jesus is the
fulfillment of the type of the high priest (Heb. 2:17; 4:14;
7:24-28), having dealt with the sins of mankind (Heb. 8:12;
10:12,17,18) once and for all (Heb. 7:27; 9:12,25,26;
10:10-12) by His own atoning sacrifice in death. The
redemptive cleansing is complete and permanent in Christ. By
His "finished work" (John 19:30) the penalty for sins is
removed, and the sanctifying catharsis of the power of sin
in Christian lives is operative.
Therefore, Paul declares, "Jesus
sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high."
In the Jewish temple the responsibilities of the priests
were never finished. "Every priest stands daily ministering
and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can
never take away sins" (Heb. 10:11), but Jesus "having
offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the
right hand of God" (Heb. 10:12). There is a repeated
allusion throughout this epistle (Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 10:12;
12:2) to Psalm 110:1 and David's comment that "the Lord says
to my Lord, 'Sit at My right hand...'" There was no place to
sit in the Jewish temple because the job was never done, and
this is true of religion in general as it requires
ever-repetitive rituals and exercises in an attempt to
please God. Jesus, on the other hand, "accomplished the work
which the Father gave Him to do" (John 17:4), and exclaimed
from the cross, "It is finished!" (John 19:30). That is why
He sat down, not because He was tired or exhausted, but
because as Christus Victor He had triumphed over
evil, cleansed mankind from their sins, and could thus
assume the place of honor and authority at the right hand of
Majesty. The figure of Jesus being "at the right hand of
God" does not diminish His equality and essential oneness
with God, but represents pictorially His authority and
divine reign. "All authority is given to Me in heaven and
earth" (Matt. 28:18), Jesus declared. Despite this
declaration, religion always wants to attribute authority to
a holy book, to a tradition, to an organization, or to a
person. All divine authority is vested in Jesus based on His
"finished work" which effectively and remedially dealt with
men's sins in order to restore God's intended Being in
action in man. That is why Paul can tell the Ephesians that
all Christians are "seated in the heavenlies with Christ"
(Eph. 1:20; 2:6), resting (Heb. 4:1-11) in Christ's
"finished work". Why, then, would any Christian consider
reverting back to religion and its ceaseless activities,
"standing up" for this or that, fighting the pseudo-enemies
in never-ending power plays? Why would the Christians of
Jerusalem want to join the nationalists and their religious
defense to "stand up" against Rome, and engage in a
militaristic power-play? That was Paul's question to the
Jewish Christians to whom he wrote. Why not participate in
the victory already won by the Lord, Jesus Christ, rather
than seek a triumph over the Romans? Meanwhile, religion
always strives for a "right-hand position with Christ, just
as the mother of James and John sought such for one of her
sons (Matt. 27:38; Lk. 23:33), but the religionists are
never willing to "be seated" and rest in Christ's victorious
sufficiency. They always want to "stand up" and do battle,
forgetting that Christ's work is finished by God's grace.
This was the temptation that the Jerusalem Christians faced
to forget the triumphant and completed work of Jesus, and
revert to the Judaic activistic cause of the day a fatal
and permanent relapse according to Paul (cf. Heb. 6:4-6;
10:29-31).
1:4 Though still a part of the
previous sentence, Paul commences to explain that not only
is Jesus better than the prophets, He is also better than
the angels. This theme necessitates some background
concerning the Jewish conception of angels and their
relationship to God in order to fully appreciate Paul's
argument.
The conception of God as a transcendent
monad in Jewish theology fostered an elaborate development
of angelology. Whenever there is alleged to be a great
distance or a vast separation between God and man, religion
often employs the explanatory medium of angels to serve as
intermediaries to fill in that great gap, and to provide an
explanation of an indirect access to God via such angelic
go-betweens or liaisons. Such was certainly the case in the
Judaic understanding of the first century. Angels were
regarded to be the agents of everything God did. They were
thought to be hierarchically formed into the "army of God",
controlling the destiny of the people and nation of Israel
(and the Jews of Palestine were confident that angelic
intervention would assure the victory of their revolt
against Rome). There were angels assigned to every act of
God and every object of creation: guardian angels for every
individual, prosecuting angels for every violation of God's
Law, death angels who could terminate life. An angel was
identified with every physical element such as fire, wind
(cf. 1:7), thunder, lightning, rain, snow, dew, as well
mountains, the sky and the sea. The movement of the stars
was thought to be controlled by the angels. One rabbinic
source stated that "every blade of grass has its angel." On
a practical level, despite their monotheistic assertion of
the one Jehovah God, their worship was not that far removed
from animism or the nature-religions with their innumerable
nature-gods.
Jewish interpretation of Old Testament
history inserted angelic involvement throughout. When God
said, "Let us make man in our image" (Gen. 1:26), they
explained that God was speaking to the angel assembly who
would serve as His divine assistants in creation. Prayer was
understood as angelic intercession whereby angels carried
the prayers of God's people into the unapproachable presence
of God, and returned to implement God's answer. Though the
narrative in Exodus 19 and 20 does not refer to angels
delivering the Law-tablets to Moses, this became the Jewish
explanation, as is apparent in both the Old and New
Testaments. Moses, himself, had explained that "the Lord
came from Sinai...and He came from the midst of ten
thousand holy ones (angels?); at His right hand there was
flashing lightning for them" (Deut. 33:2). The psalmist,
David, mentions that "the chariots of God (angels?) are
myriads, thousands upon thousands; the Lord is among them as
at Sinai" (Psalm 68:17). These references to the
involvement of angels at Mount Sinai when Moses received the
Law are reiterated in the New Testament when Stephen's
recitation of Jewish history notes that "the angel
was speaking to him (Moses) on Mount Sinai" (Acts
7:38), and that the Jewish people "received the law as
ordained by angels" (Acts 7:53). That this was also
Paul's understanding is evident in his epistle to the
Galatians: "It (the Law) was added because of transgression,
having been ordained through angels by the agency of
a mediator, until the seed (Jesus) should come to whom the
promise had been made" (Gal. 3:19).
It is in the context of this Jewish
perception of angels that Paul writes that Jesus, the Son,
"has become as much better than the angels",
as He is superior to the prophets (1:1-3). The
self-revelation of God in the Son supersedes previous
revelations of God through both the prophets and the angels.
It is not Paul's primary objective to counteract the
erroneous reverence that the Jewish people may have had
concerning angels. Paul apparently shared the belief about
the intermediary actions of angels on Mount Sinai (Gal.
3:19; Heb. 2:2). His primary objective was not to attack
Jewish angelology, but to assert the superiority of the
revelation of God in Jesus Christ above any revelatory
participation by angels. In so doing he will necessarily
counter some of the presuppositions that formed the
foundation of an exaggerated Jewish angelology. The
self-revelation of God in the Son posits that the
transcendent God has acted to intervene incarnationally in
human history, taking the form of a man (Phil. 2:7,8). God
in Christ is not a separated and detached deity, unknown and
to be feared. Rather, God has made direct contact and
identification with humanity in order to facilitate a direct
and immediate access and union with Himself for those "in
Christ." Such a revelation of God in the Son allows the
transcendent God to have a direct and immanent indwelling in
mankind by His triune spiritual presence in the spirit of
man (cf. Rom. 8:16). "The Lord is the Spirit" (II Cor.
3:17), and "the one who is joined to the Lord is one spirit
with Him" (I Cor. 6:17). Paul wanted the Jewish Christians
in Jerusalem to understand the superiority of God's
revelation which is Christ, and to reject the temptation to
revert to an inadequate view of a far-removed transcendent
God whose action were enacted by angelic intermediaries
because He was unapproachable without direct access. Jesus
is better than angels because those "in Christ" have direct
and immediate access with God in spiritual union with
Christ, and the operation of God's grace in the living Lord
Jesus empowers all that God desires to continue to express
in and through the Christian.
When was it that Jesus "became so much
better than the angels" according to Paul's statement in
this verse? It does not appear that Paul is referring to the
incarnation of God in Jesus at His birth, but rather to the
resurrection exaltation of Jesus, which will be supported in
the following verses. The preexistent Son of God
"inherited a more excellent name than the angelic beings"
when He "was declared the Son of God with power by
the resurrection from the dead" (Rom. 1:4). When God
"raised Him from the dead, and seated Him at His
right hand in the heavenlies, far above all rule and
authority and power and dominion, and every name that
is named...and put all things (including angels)
under his feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the
church" (Eph. 1:20-22), Jesus became "heir of all things"
(1:2), having been "bestowed with the name that is
above every name" (Phil. 2:9). "Through the
resurrection," Jesus "is at the right hand of
God, having gone into heaven, after angels and
authorities and powers had been subjected to Him" (I Peter
3:22), writes Peter. What Paul is saying here is that by His
resurrection-victory (cf. I Cor. 15:57) Christus Victor
is confirmed as the revelation of God Himself, superior to
all angels. Though eternally the Son of God, He was "born as
a child; a son given to man" (Isa. 9:6) whose name would be
called "Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace" (Isa.
9:6), such "excellent name" made explicit by His
resurrection when He was "declared the Son of God with
power" (Rom. 1:4) to enact the entirety of God's grace
initiative among men.
1:5 Continuing his argument
Paul asks the Jewish Christians, "For to which of the
angels did He ever say, 'THOU ART MY SON, TODAY I HAVE
BEGOTTEN THEE?'" This rhetorical question contains
within its wording an implied negative answer. Never to any
angels was such a divine declaration made. Employing the
first of seven Old Testament quotations to bolster his
argument of the superiority of Jesus over angels, Paul
utilizes this series of quotations to demonstrate that "all
the promises of God" (II Cor. 1:20) are fulfilled in Jesus
Christ as "the heir of all things" (1:2). This first
quotation is from the second Psalm, understood by the Jews
to be a Messianic Psalm referring to God's anointed Messiah
who would be decreed God's Son in a special way, and be
given the nations as His inheritance (Psalm 2:7,8). Paul had
previously used these very same words of Psalm 2:7 when he
expounded the gospel in Antioch of Pisidia, declaring that
"God has fulfilled this promise...in that He
raised up Jesus, as it is written in the second Psalm,
'THOU ART MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN THEE'" (Acts 13:33).
Clearly Paul considered the statement of this Messianic
Psalm to have been fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus,
whereby Jesus was "declared the Son of God with power" (Rom.
1:4), a "more excellent name" (1:4) than any angels, and was
"begotten" of God. The word "begotten" is the Greek word
meaning "to be born," and it is used of Moses' physical
birth in 11:23, but here it is obviously to be understood
figuratively as Jesus' being brought out of death into life
in resurrection. In His resurrection Jesus was "the
first-born from the dead" (Col. 1:18; Rev. 1:5), having
experienced spiritual death on behalf of all fallen humanity
in order to allow the spiritual life of God to conquer death
for all, that "He might be the first-born among many
brethren" (Rom. 8:29) who would experience such spiritual
birthing to life "in Him." By His victorious resurrection
Jesus is the more excellent Son, begotten of God unto
eternal life for all mankind. No angel qualifies for such a
name or place, so Paul is asking the Jerusalem Christians
why they would even consider going back to the inferior
religious revelation of angels.
"And again," Paul adds to
reinforce his argument of Jesus having inherited the "more
excellent" name and place of Sonship, and then he proceeds
to quote from II Samuel 7:14, "I WILL BE A FATHER TO
HIM, AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME." The original
context of this statement was God's statement to David
through Nathan, the prophet, indicating that He would
provide a descendant of David who would build a temple.
Though this was an obvious physical reference to his son,
Solomon, who did build the temple in Jerusalem, the Davidic
offspring who would extend the Davidic kingdom was often
applied to the expectation of the Messiah in Jewish thought,
and that in conjunction with the similar statements of Psalm
89:1-4; 26-29. Paul certainly connected the resurrection of
Jesus with the promised Davidic kingdom as is evident in
that same message in Antioch of Pisidia cited above, where
he declared that God's raising up Jesus from the dead was
the bestowal of "the holy and sure blessings of David" (Acts
13:34). In the opening of his epistle to the Romans the same
link is made concerning God's Son, "who was born a
descendant of David, according to the flesh, who was
declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from
the dead" (Rom. 1:3,4). To Timothy, Paul wrote, "Remember
Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descendant of David" (II
Tim. 2:8). In Paul's mind the long-sought continuation of
the promised Davidic kingdom was established by the
resurrection when the Son "inherited a more excellent name"
(1:4; Rom. 1:4) and assumed the throne of the promised
spiritual kingdom of God. Paul's argument is that there are
no angels who can claim that kind of unique relationship
with God, the Father. The extension of Paul's thought is
that Christians are the "temple of the living God" (II Cor.
6:16), and have a relationship in Christ wherein God says,
"I will be a Father to you, and you will be sons and
daughters to Me" (II Cor. 6:18), by the indwelling presence
of the resurrection life of the risen Lord Jesus.
1:6 Paul extends the
documentation of his argument, writing, "And again,
when He brings the first-born into the world, He says, 'AND
LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM.'" It is still
the resurrection that Paul has in mind, when "Christ was
raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are
asleep" (I Cor. 15:20). By the resurrection God brought "the
first-born from the dead" (Col. 1:18; Rev. 1:5) into His
eschatological economy, the salvific economy wherein He
would restore mankind by "bringing many sons to glory" (Heb.
2:10) through the living Lord Jesus who was "the first-born
among many brethren" (Rom. 8:29). Let it be noted that if
Jesus is the "first-born from the dead", then the Old
Testament patriarchs and believers cannot be regarded as
having passed from death to life spiritually in the same
manner as new covenant Christians, for such regeneration is
predicated on the prerequisite of Christ's resurrection (cf.
I Peter 1:3). The word Paul employs concerning God's
bringing "the first-born into the world" is not the
Greek word kosmos, but the Greek word oikoumene,
a derivative of the word from which we get the English word
"economy," thus explaining the interpretation given above.
As Paul will write in summation of this section of his
epistle, "God did not subject to angels the economy to come"
(2:5 - using the same Greek word, oikoumene), so his
argument here is that the resurrected Son, the living Lord
Jesus and His economy of grace, is superior to the actions
of angels.
By the resurrection of "the first-born
from the dead" (Col. 1:18; Rev. 1:5), Paul indicates that
God's pronouncement is, "LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD
WORSHIP HIM", quoting from Deuteronomy 32:43. The
quotation is from the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek
translation of the Old Testament, rather than from the
Hebrew text, where these words are not found. The verse in
Deuteronomy is the conclusion of an extended "Song of Moses"
before the assembly of Israel, and was regarded as Messianic
prophecy in Jewish eschatological expectation. Paul,
recognizing Jesus as the Messiah, utilizes the statement to
assert that by His resurrection Jesus is worthy of angelic
worship, and is therefore superior to the angels. Conversely
the "worship of angels" is part of "self-made religion"
(Col. 2:18,23), Paul advised the Colossians, and the apostle
John in his vision was told not to worship the angel, but to
worship God (Rev. 22:8,9). Paul puts the words of Moses into
the mouth of God, with the admonition that the angels are to
worship the superior Son. Worship of the Son implies that
Jesus is God as Paul has previously explained. Recognizing
this, John Bunyan is reported to have stated, "If Jesus
Christ be not God, then heaven is filled with idolaters,"
for the angels would be engaged in idolatrous worship of one
who is not God. Paul's point to the Jewish Christians in
Palestine is that Jesus Christ alone is worthy of worship,
and they should not go back to inadequate forms of Jewish
worship which placed an inordinate emphasis on or improper
worship of angels, who are themselves subordinated in
worship of the Son.
1:7 Revealing his own belief in
angels, Paul cites Psalm 104:4, "And of the angels He
says, 'WHO MAKES HIS ANGELS WINDS, AND HIS MINISTERS A FLAME
OF FIRE.'" This was a typical Jewish interpretation
of the verse from Psalms, identifying angels as the agents
used by God within natural, physical phenomena such as wind
and fire. It can certainly be questioned whether that was
the original intent of the Psalmist, for in the context of
explaining God's sovereign control and care of the created
order the words can be, and perhaps are most legitimately
translated with the meaning that "God makes the winds His
messengers, flaming fire His ministers," indicating that God
can use natural phenomena for His purposes. Keying off of
the word angelloi, the Greek word for "messengers" in
the Septuagint (LXX) version of the Old Testament,
Paul applies these words to the actions of angels, and that
for the purpose of contrasting such with the superior action
of the Son, Jesus Christ.
1:8 "But of the Son,"
God says through the Psalmist again, "THY THRONE, O
GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE
SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM." Psalm 45:6, which Paul
quotes here, is a Psalm celebrating the king's marriage, but
Paul employs the words to indicate their Messianic
fulfillment in Jesus Christ. Referring to the reign of
Christ as Lord in the spiritual kingdom of God, Paul allows
this verse to indicate the perpetuity and continuity of
Christ's reign "forever and ever", i.e. the kingdom reign of
Christ is eternal. Christ's reign as King in the spiritual
kingdom of His people is the reign of the "Righteous One"
(Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14; I Jn. 2:1). As Paul wrote to the
Romans, "the kingdom of God is...righteousness
and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 14:17), for "the
abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness will
reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ" (Rom.
5:17). That is why Jesus, Himself, advised us to "seek first
His kingdom and His righteousness..." (Matt.
6:33). The very reality of Christ's reign is His inherent
divine character of righteousness. It is the only manner in
which He can reign or rule, for He does what He does only
because He is who He is, the "Righteous One", the God who is
righteous (I John 2:29; 3:7). All authority (cf. Matt.
28:18) of the reigning Christ as Lord is therefore a
"righteous scepter", never abusive, seeking only the highest
good of those united with Him in righteousness, allowing
"grace to reign through righteousness to
eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. 5:21). The
"O God" phrase may well have been interpreted by Paul to
refer to the inherent deity of Christ, as he had explicitly
affirmed such previously (1:2,3). Paul's intent in citing
this verse was to express the superiority of the revelation
of the Son over that of angels, but also perhaps to show the
Jewish Christians of Jerusalem that the eternal kingdom of
righteousness in Christ was greater and superior to any
attempts to reestablish a Jewish kingdom in Palestine by
revolt against the Romans.
1:9 In a continuation of the
quote from Psalm 45, Paul quotes the next verse 45:7,
"THOU HAST LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS;
THEREFORE GOD, THY GOD, HATH ANOINTED THEE WITH THE OIL OF
GLADNESS ABOVE THY COMPANIONS." Continuing to apply
this to the resurrected and exalted Lord Jesus, Paul
recognized Jesus as "the Righteous One" (Acts 3:14; 7:52;
22:14; I Jn. 2:1), the "Anointed One" who was the Messiah
(the Hebrew word for "Anointed One"). That He was "anointed
with the oil of gladness" might well have brought the
Messianic passage in Isaiah 61:1-3 to Paul's mind, "The
Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me, because the Lord has
anointed me to bring good news to the afflicted...to
grant those who mourn...the oil of gladness instead
of mourning" (cf. Lk. 4:18,19). As oil was long considered
to be symbolic of the Holy Spirit (cf. I Sam. 16:13), there
may be an allusion here to the "joy of the Holy Spirit" (I
Thess. 1:6; Acts 13:52). The superior reign of the risen
Lord Jesus, as the Spirit of joy Himself (cf. John 15:11;
16:22,24) is "above His companions" in the angelic realm,
who were often associated in Jewish angelology with
punishment and destruction, fostering fear rather than joy
or gladness. As the Risen One, Jesus has become the "Spirit
of Christ" (Rom. 8:9), and Christians have an "anointing
from the Holy One" (I John 2:20,27) whereby He abides in
them and manifest joy as the "fruit of the Spirit" (Gal.
5:22,23). This spiritual reality is far superior to anything
available in the Jewish religion this being the point that
Paul wanted to emphasize to the Christians in Jerusalem.
1:10 Paul adds to his list of
documentary quotations in an extended citation from Psalm
102:25-27, a paean of praise to God for His eternality and
unchangeableness. "And, 'THOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING
DIDST LAY THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE
THE WORKS OF THY HANDS" (Psalm 102:25). These words
are being applied to Jesus as Lord, noting once again (cf.
1:2) the preexistence of the Son and His involvement as the
divine Creator. As the uncreated Creator, the Son of God is
the originating source of the angels who are created beings,
and thus Jesus is "better than the angels" (1:4).
1:11 "THEY WILL PERISH, BUT
THOU REMAINEST; AND THEY ALL WILL BECOME OLD AS A GARMENT"
(Psalm 102:26). The created order, including the angels, is
a degenerating and disintegrating order which is not
eternal. "Heaven and earth will pass away" (Matt. 24:35);
"the sky will vanish like smoke, and the earth will wear out
like a garment" (Isa. 51:6). The reality of the Son of God,
divine reality, is alone eternal and unchangeable.
1:12 "AND AS A MANTLE
THOU WILT ROLL THEM UP; AS A GARMENT THEY WILL ALSO BE
CHANGED. BUT THOU ART THE SAME, AND THY YEARS WILL NOT COME
TO AN END" (Psalm 102:26,27). The created order
ages. It suffers from entropy, as the scientists have
observed in the "Second Law of Thermodynamics". It will be
rolled up like a tattered and worn-out garment, and cast
aside as having no further use in God's economy. Even the
angels will apparently perish, for God speaks through Isaiah
saying, "all the host of heaven will rot, and the sky will
be rolled up like a scroll; all their hosts will wither away
as a leaf withers from the vine, or as one withers from the
fig tree" (Isa. 34:4). But in the "new heavens and new
earth" (Rev. 21:1) the unchangeableness of Jesus Christ "who
is the same yesterday and today and forever" (Heb. 13:8)
will be experienced unto eternity, and Christians
participate in the "eternal life" (I John 5:11,13) of that
"eternal kingdom" (II Peter 1:11) even now. This is the
superiority of the revelation of Christ's reign that Paul
wanted the Jerusalem Christians to recognize.
1:13 In the last of seven Old
Testament quotations used to verify that Jesus is "better
than the angels" (1:4), Paul asks, "But to which of
the angels has He (God) ever said,
'SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I MAKE THINE ENEMIES A
FOOTSTOOL FOR THY FEET'?" This text from Psalm 110:1
was alluded to previously when Paul stated that "When He had
made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of
God" (1:3). Here, wording the question to elicit a negative
response, Paul is arguing that no angels have ever been
assigned the position of honor, exaltation and authority
that is accorded to Jesus Christ alone by virtue of His
victorious resurrection, ascension and enthronement as the
reigning Lord of the universe who sits at God's right hand
until the consummation of history. In the first sermon of
the church Peter referred to Jesus "raised up by
God,...exalted to the right hand of God," and quoted
Psalm 110:1 (cf. Acts 2:32-36). Later in his first epistle
Peter again alludes to Psalm 110:1 by referring to "the
resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is at the right
hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels
and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him" (I
Peter 3:22). Paul had also previously made mention of the
ascendancy of the risen Lord Jesus and His "reign until He
has put all enemies under His feet" (I Cor. 15:25). The
"finished work" of Christ (cf. John 17:4; 19:30) involving
the triumph of His resurrection, allows Jesus to be
figuratively seated in the place of honor, reigning as Lord
until the ultimate consummation of history when all enemies
and anomalies become but a "footstool for His feet" in the
metaphor of a triumphant King (cf. Joshua 10:24). No angel
can ever assume the exalted position of the resurrected
Jesus.
1:14 "Are they not all
ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake
of those who will inherit salvation?" The angels are
worshipers, not the object of worship as is the Son, Jesus
Christ. They worship the Son (cf. Lk. 2:13,14; Rev.
5:11,12). The angels are mere servants (cf. Psalm
103:20,21), whereas Jesus is the Son of God. Angels can
serve, but only Jesus can save men from their sins. Angels
exist for the sake of serving Christians, not as the object
of the worship of Christians. Christians who are receptive
to inheriting and experiencing the dynamic "saving life"
(Rom. 5:10) of Christ are the recipients of angelic service,
according to Paul. This is not a future inheritance of
salvation that Paul is referring to, but the present process
of being "made safe" (the meaning of the Greek word sozo
meaning "to save") to function as God intended man to
function by the indwelling function of the Triune God in the
spirit of man. Salvation is not an achievement earned, nor
is it a commodity possessed. Salvation must be understood
only in the context of the resurrection reign of Jesus
Christ in a Christian. Salvation is the Savior, Jesus
Christ, at work in our lives, the dynamic saving activity of
the Spirit of Christ "making us safe" from the misuse and
abuse of Satan and sin, in order to manifest the character
of Christ, the "fruit of the Spirit" (Gal. 5:22,23) in our
behavior to the glory of God. The mission of the angels is
to serve in facilitating that process of "being saved" (cf.
II Cor. 2:15) in those identified with Christ as Christians.
Angels are, therefore, not to be elevated in reverence or
worship, for that is the sole right of Jesus Christ, the Son
of God.
2:1 "For this reason,"
Paul explains to the Jerusalem Christians, "we"
(Paul identifies himself with his readers as Christians
participating in salvation as the Savior lives within)
"ought to give much closer attention to what we have
heard, lest we drift away." That Jesus is the better
revelation of God, "better than the prophets" (1:1-3) and
"better than the angels" (1:4-14), has been Paul's argument,
and now he concludes this section by arguing that Christians
have a "better incentive" to continue to be involved in that
better revelation of salvation in Jesus Christ. The
superiority of Christ as the sole, divine Savior is
sufficient reason for Christians to pay attention to the
gospel revelation of the Son. Jesus is God's last Word
there is no additional revelation of God to man.
It has been suggested that the Greek word
prosechein, meaning "to attend to", may have been
used as a Greek nautical term meaning "to hold to port,"
which would serve as a contrast to the nautical figure of
"drifting away." That seems to be Paul's primary objective
in writing this epistle to the Jewish Christians of
Jerusalem, to emphasize the "safe port" of salvation in
Jesus Christ alone to those who were in danger of getting
caught in the "drift" of Jewish nationalism and reversion to
Judaism. Apparently Paul had received word at his residence
of confinement in Rome that the Christians in Palestine were
becoming listless and lax, and he wanted to encourage his
"kinsmen according to the flesh" (Rom. 9:3) who were also
"brothers in Christ" by telling them of the better incentive
that we have in Christ to continue to live by His grace.
2:2 Paul, the little Jewish
lawyer, sets up his argument using an "if...then" format.
"For if the word spoken through angels was validated, and
every infringement and disobedience received a just
recompense..." In this introductory lead-in Paul
reveals his acceptance of the involvement of angels as
intermediaries in the deliverance of the Law to Moses (Deut.
33:2; Gal. 3:19). He goes on to explain that "the word", the
old covenant revelation of the Mosaic Law, was validated as
a binding covenant of God as evidenced by the divine
consequences meted out for its violation. The absolutely
just and faithful God stood behind His word given through
Moses, and if God demanded that He be "taken at His word" in
the old covenant revelation, then we can be sure that He
means what He says in the new covenant revelation of His
Son, Jesus Christ. In the old covenant every violation and
transgression received a just redress, Paul explains. The
man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath did not escape the
consequences (Numb. 11:32-36). Moses, himself, in striking
the rock twice, did not escape the consequences (Numb.
20:11,12). Uzza reached out to steady the ark of God and did
not escape the consequences (I Chron. 13:9,10). Time and
again the nation of Israel disobeyed and did not escape the
consequences (cf. I Cor. 10:5-12). If it was so in the old
covenant, that very same God regards His revelation just as
inviolable in the new covenant, "for he who does wrong will
receive the consequences of the wrong which he has done, and
that without partiality" (Col. 3:25). A sentimental emphasis
on God's love and graciousness that does not take into
account the corollary of His wrath against all that violates
His character is not consistent with the new covenant
gospel.
2:3 If that be the case, Paul
argues, "how shall we escape if we neglect so great a
salvation?" This is not an evangelistic ultimatum
rhetorically asking, "How shall we escape God's condemnation
if we reject so great a salvation?", though it has often
been misused as such. Paul is writing to Christians to
encourage them to "work out their salvation with fear and
trembling; for it is God who is at work in you both to will
and to work for His good pleasure" (Phil. 2:12,13), as he
wrote to the Philippians. The Hebrew Christians in Judea
were apparently becoming careless and unconcerned about the
glorious, "so great" reality of Christ living in them. The
rhetorical question that Paul poses again assumes a negative
answer there is no escape if we abandon the saving
activity of the living Savior dwelling in us as Christians.
The question implies that Christians are responsible to
exercise the receptivity of faith that allows the "saving
life" (Rom. 5:10) of Christ to "make us safe" from sin and
to manifest His righteousness. This dynamic "so great"
salvation in Christ is the better revelation, the complete
revelation, the last revelation, the only viable revelation
of God for the restoration of humanity. But because it is a
dynamic union and action of God, there is the need for the
Christian to "pay attention" (2:1), to continue to be
receptive in faith to the grace of God in Christ, for as
choosing creatures we remain accountable for our choice and
the consequences thereof. Neglect and failure to allow the
living Savior and Lord to live in us can have grave
consequences, and the abandonment of relationship with
Christ can put us into a place where there is no escape, as
Paul will note later in this epistle to the Christians in
Jerusalem (Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26-31).
Paul does not leave the discussion there,
though. He proceeds to explain how the better revelation of
God in Jesus Christ was proclaimed by Jesus, confirmed by
the disciples, and signified by supernatural verification.
"After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it
was confirmed to us by those who heard." The gospel
of salvation in Christ was first proclaimed by the
Savior-Son Himself as is recorded in the gospel narratives.
It was not just a message delivered by angelic
intermediaries, but the message was a Person, "the man
Christ Jesus, the one Mediator between God and man" (I Tim.
2:5), the "mediator of a new covenant" (Heb. 12:24),
delivered in Person, presenting Himself as the better
revelation of God in the self-revelation of God by the Son,
who is the "Lord", Jehovah-God.
This better revelation of the gospel of
salvation in Christ was then "confirmed to us" says Paul
(including himself with the Jerusalem Christians who were
the readers of this epistle), "by those who heard" an
apparent reference to those who heard Jesus teach
first-hand. Paul was not one of the original twelve
disciples who heard Jesus teach throughout His three years
of physical, public ministry on earth. He had to obtain
information about what Jesus "first spoke" through the
twelve disciples "who heard" that teaching first-hand. That
does not prevent Paul from asserting "that the gospel
preached by me is not according to man, for I neither
received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it
through a revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal. 1:11,12). Though
not one of the twelve disciples who accompanied Jesus, Paul
could still argue that he was a first-hand apostle (cf. Gal.
1:1), having been met by the living Lord Jesus on the road
to Damascus, and there commissioned to share the gospel of
Christ to the Gentiles (cf. Acts 9:3-8; 22:6-11; 26:12-18).
Paul's direct, first-hand revelation of Christ by which he
was commissioned as an an apostle is in no way contradictory
to his receiving the second-hand confirmatory reports of
what Jesus "first spoke" through the twelve disciples who
heard those teachings from Jesus' own mouth. The statements
in this verse cannot legitimately be used to preclude Paul's
authorship of this epistle, but are completely consistent
with Pauline authorship.
2:4 Having affirmed the
proclamation of the better revelation by Jesus, and the
confirmation of that gospel by the twelve disciples, Paul
adds the authentification of the same by supernatural
phenomena and the activity of the Holy Spirit. "God
also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders
and by various miracles, and by distributions of the Holy
Spirit according to His own will." Supernatural
phenomena do no establish God's revelation, but they do
serve as an authenticating witness of divine activity.
"Signs and wonders and miracles" authenticated Jesus'
ministry (Acts 2:22), the ministry of the twelve disciples
(Acts 8:13), and the ministry of Paul (Rom. 15:19; II Cor.
12:12). The divine expressions of the activity of the Holy
Spirit also serve to testify of God's self-revelation in the
Son. Though Paul does not here use the Greek words
charismata or pneumatikon for the functions of
the Holy Spirit (cf.
charismata) as he does in Romans 12 and I Corinthians
12, he is still referring to the diverse distributions (merismois)
of the active expression of the Holy Spirit in and through
Christian people. It must always be remembered that the work
of the Holy Spirit is the action of the risen and living
Lord Jesus, the "Spirit of Christ" (Rom. 8:9). To unduly
separate the Holy Spirit and the risen Jesus, or to
over-emphasize the work of the Spirit to the neglect of
recognizing the reality of the living Christ, is to engage
in a deficient Trinitarian understanding of God's work that
will inevitably diminish one's appreciation for "the better
revelation of God" in the Son and by the Spirit, as Paul has
sought to explain it in these verses.
Concluding Remarks
The pertinence of Paul's emphasis on the
better revelation of God in Jesus Christ is quite apparent
when we consider the contemporary religious emphases on
"prophets" and "angels", rather than on the living Lord
Jesus.
Angels, in particular, have had a
renaissance of acceptability in recent years. The skeptical
mind-set steeped in scientific method had regarded angels as
empirically unverifiable religious superstition, to be
tolderated only as cultural tradition in the depiction of
angels in Christmas nativity scenes, the cupid-angel on
Valentine cards, or as decoration in children's nurseries.
But in typical cyclical emphasis, angels have been
popularized as acceptable through such television programs
as "Touched by an Angel", and by a plethora of books and art
representations. The popularity of angelology in our society
and in religious adoration today seems to re-create a
situation similar to that confronted by Paul in the Judaism
of first century Palestine that of elevating angels to an
object of adoration and worship, failing to recognize Jesus,
the Son of God, as the better, complete and last revelation
of God to man.
It is not that angels are to be denied,
for Paul accepts their intermediary involvement in the
delivery of the Mosaic Law on Mount Sinai, and regards
angels to be involved in divine service to Christians.
Angels are mentioned approximately 300 times in the Bible,
and due consideration must be given to their existence and
activity, but they must not be regarded as more important
than the self-revelation of God in Jesus Christ.
The Mormon religion teaches that the
angel Moroni brought additional revelation to the prophet,
Joseph Smith, about Jesus being the first-created
spirit-being. The Jehovah Witnesses believe that the angel,
Michael, is the Son of God, and that Jesus was Michael prior
to becoming man, but is not to be equated with God. Paul's
opening statements to the Hebrew Christians in Jerusalem
counter such teachings about "prophets" and "angels" by
identifying Jesus as the self-revelation of God, the better
revelation of God to man.
JESUS: THE
BETTER MAN FOR MAN
Being of Jewish heritage himself, and
trained in the Jewish thought and expectations of his day,
Paul could anticipate some of the difficulties and
objections that the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem might
have to his statements about Jesus being better than the
angels (1:4-14). The angelic intermediaries between God and
man might seem to be superior to a mediatorial man (cf. I
Tim. 2:5), for every Jewish person familiar with the Psalms
would know that man was "lower than the angels" (Ps. 8:5).
To begin with, human beings have some space/time limitations
that angelic beings do not have, such as corporeality and
temporality. In addition to such limitations of humanity,
mankind has fallen into sin, whereas the angelic beings seem
to be fixed in their function of serving God (the demonic
beings, likewise fixed in their function of serving the Evil
One).
Despite the fact that Paul had already
asserted that Jesus, as the Son of God, was the "express
image of God's essence" (1:3), establishing His deity (cf.
1:8) as the God-man, Paul knew that the Jewish mind-set of
the Jerusalem Christians would still struggle, not only with
the deity of Jesus, but with the humanity of Jesus being
superior to angels. The humanity of Jesus was also what
allowed Him to die, to be put to death, something that
angels were not subject to, and herein was the greatest
"stumbling-block" (I Cor. 1:23) to Jewish thinking, that the
expected Messiah could, or would be allowed to, suffer the
ignominious death of crucifixion on a cross. Jewish
Messianic expectations of the first century were completely
triumphalistic. To suffer death at the hands of the Roman
authorities was an inconceivable failure for any Messianic
candidate, and to die as a common criminal on a cross was
regarded as a "curse" (Gal. 3:13), inconsistent with one who
would be Messiah. How could such a one be superior to the
angels?
Paul addresses what he knew would be
these underlying concerns of the Palestinian Christians by
quoting the obvious and familiar passage in the Eighth
Psalm, contrasting man with angels, as it does in the Greek
Septuagint version (LXX). Starting from the relative
insignificance of man referent to God, the Psalm proceeds to
explain the dignity and dominion of man. Using the same
progression of thought, Paul explains that Jesus, in
complete solidarity with man as a man, suffered the
humiliation of death, taking such vicariously and
substitutionally on behalf of all men, in order to
facilitate the restoration of mankind to the dignity and
dominion that God intended. Paul's objective was to
demonstrate that it was the divine purpose of God to have
His Son suffer humiliation and death in order to provide
glorification of life for mankind.
As difficult as it might have been for
the Jewish mind to understand, Paul was reiterating some of
the basic foundations of Christian thought. The sin of
mankind required death consequences as ordained by God (Gen.
2:17). If those death consequences were to be taken by
Another, that One would have to be a man in order to die,
for God cannot die (I Tim. 6:16). Thus, Jesus, the Son of
God, became the God-man Savior in solidarity with humanity
in order to take the remedial death consequences of sin and
redeem humanity, and that for the purpose of restoring
humanity with the divine presence of His life in man.
As paradoxical as it may have seemed to
the original readers, the exaltation of mankind required the
humiliation of a Man for man. The reinvestiture of God's
life in man required the death of a Man for man. The only
way for man to live as God intended was for a mediatorial
Man (cf. I Tim. 2:5) to die for man. Jesus was that Man for
man, who in solidarity with man, stood in our place,
vicariously and substitutionally, to take the death that we
deserved, the consequences of our sin (for He was without
sin - cf. Heb. 4:15; 7:26), that we might partake of His
life (cf. Heb. 3:14; 6:4), restored to the dominion that God
intended for mankind. This life out of death, exaltation
through humiliation (cf. Phil. 2:8-11) process is the divine
will and way (cf. Isa. 55:8,9), which is always difficult
for human thinking to understand. It is entirely consistent,
though, with the Christus Victor theme that seems to
underlay Paul's thinking as he emphasized the resurrection
of Jesus (1:4-14) as the triumphant occasion and basis of
life out of death.
The Jerusalem Christians needed to
understand this was God's way, the divine purpose from the
very beginning, even before the foundation of the world (cf.
Eph. 1:4; I Pet. 1:20). There was no failure in the cross,
rather the required means to God's victory in the
restoration of mankind through the Son who became Man for
man. In this way Paul seeks to demonstrate Jesus is better
than the intermediary angels who allegedly went back and
forth to a distant, transcendent and unapproachable God on
man's behalf, for Jesus was the better Man for man mediator
(cf. I Tim. 2:5), who, though fully God, in solidarity with
man took the death consequences that we deserved that man
might receive God's life in an immanent union with God
Himself, thus exalted to the dominion that God intended when
He created man.
Since this is God's way exaltation out
of humiliation, triumph out of trial, salvation out of
suffering, dominion out of apparent defeat, life out of
death Paul may also have been seeking to indirectly
encourage the Jerusalem Christians by explaining that they,
too, in identification with Christ who lived in them, may
for "a little while" (2:7,9) be tested, humiliated, and
suffer defeat (especially with the volatile political
situation that existed in Palestine at the time), but they
could have the confident expectation of participating in
Christ victory and life. This is God's way!
2:5 Extending the thesis of
Jesus being better than the angels (1:4-14), Paul turns the
argument around to show that Jesus, as the Son of God, was
not only superior to the angels, but His victory for man was
won by His becoming lower than the angels, the
representative Man for man who in solidarity with mankind
could bring mankind into exaltation in identification with
Himself. Continuing his prior argument (1:4-14), Paul
declares, "For He (the sovereign God who does
all the subjecting, subordinating and prioritizing)
did not subject to angels the world to come, concerning
which we are speaking."
So, what is it "concerning which we are
speaking"? Paul has been referring to that "so great a
salvation" (2:3) wherein the angels "render service to those
inheriting salvation" (1:14) "in these last days" (1:2). The
"world to come" is not a heavenly realm expected in the
future. It is not a future "new heaven and new earth" (II
Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1). The word Paul uses for "world" (as in
1:6) is not kosmos, but oikoumene, from which
we get the English word "economy." The "coming economy" that
God has ordained for man through His Son, Jesus Christ, is
the Christian economy that has already come. It is the "day
of salvation" (II Cor. 6:2) "in these last days" (Heb. 1:2)
which has been inaugurated by the Eschatos Man, Jesus
Christ (I Cor. 15:45). Christians, as partakers of the
Spirit of Christ, already participate in this "age to come"
(Heb. 6:5), the realized "heavenly places" (Eph. 1:3; 2:6),
the "kingdom that cannot be shaken" (Heb. 12:28). In this
new eschatological kingdom economy of living by Christ's
"saving life" (Rom. 5:10), Christians are not subjected to
angels (whether they be good or evil, God-serving or
Satan-serving), but are subjected and subordinated only to
Jesus Christ as Lord, reigning with "the righteous scepter
of His kingdom" (1:8). The basis for this Lordship reign of
the risen Lord Jesus in the lives of Christians, whereby we
"reign in life" through Him (cf. Rom. 5:17), is that Jesus
was identified in solidarity with man by becoming Man for
man, and that in order that we might share in His victory,
dominion and exaltation.
Why, then, Paul asks the Jerusalem
Christians indirectly, would you even consider reverting to
the secondary intermediaries of Jewish angelology, when
Jesus Christ has secured intimate union with God Himself by
becoming "the one mediator between God and man, the man
Christ Jesus" (I Tim. 2:5), to Whom Christians are now
subjected as He serves as the triumphant Lord? You already
participate in the "coming economy" that God promised (cf.
II Cor. 1:20), dwelling in "heavenly places" (Eph. 1:3;
2:6), and having full privileges in the new covenant
realities of the Lord Jesus.
2:6 Paul introduces his
extended quote of Psalm 8:4-6 by writing, "But one has
testified somewhere, saying,..." Steeped as he was
in the Old Testament Scriptures, Paul had not forgotten
where this familiar passage was located or that David had
written the Psalm. Rather, he makes an indirect rhetorical
citation of the Psalm, recognizing that "one" of mankind,
i.e. David, has questioned on behalf of all mankind
concerning the purpose of mankind. The identity of the one
posing the question is purposefully subdued or muted in
order to emphasize the question posed of humanity in
general.
"WHAT IS MAN, THAT THOU REMEMBEREST
HIM?" This is a question that man has always asked
concerning himself. Job asked, "What is man that Thou dost
magnify him, and that Thou art concerned about him...?" (Job
7:17). The Psalmist David twice asked the question (Ps. 8:4;
144:3), "What is man that Thou dost take knowledge of him?"
When man considers his creatureliness and limitations in
reference to God and all that God has created (including
angels), he reasonably recognizes his apparent
insignificance. Why would the infinite Creator God be all
that concerned about the finite creature, man?
"OR THE SON OF MAN, THAT THOU ART
CONCERNED ABOUT HIM?" Who does "son of man" refer
to? Is this to be interpreted anthropologically or
Christologically? Is "son of man" a general reference to the
offspring, descendants or progeny of mankind, the extended
generations of humanity? The absence of the definite
article, "the," in this citation seems to support such a
general reference. When Psalm 8:4 is interpreted within its
context in the Old Testament, the question of David almost
certainly must be understood anthropologically. But we must
ask whether Paul is taking an Old Testament text and
applying it to Jesus Christ, as he has done previously in
this epistle (1:5-13). Such a Christological interpretation
would correspond with Jesus' own self-designation as "the
Son of Man" (Matt. 8:20; 9:6; etc.) and with Stephen's
statement of "the Son of Man standing at the right hand of
God" (Acts 7:56), which are regarded as Christological
fulfillment of Daniel's vision of "a Son of Man coming,...
given dominion, glory and a kingdom" (Daniel 7:13). Some
have avoided making a determination of whether "son of man"
refers to Jesus specifically or to mankind in general by
suggesting that Paul meant it to be a purposefully ambiguous
double entendre which allows the Son and the sons to merge
as "brethren" (cf. 11,12) on the basis of the solidarity of
Jesus Christ with humanity. Such an avoidance of specific
interpretation seems to be an equivocation on the part of
commentators unwilling to make difficult decisions. The
preferred interpretation is the retention of the
anthropological understanding of the text's original
meaning, and this has been the predominant understanding of
Christian commentators throughout Christian history. When
the quotation retains its references to man and his
descendants, Paul's argument of Jesus' solidarity with
humanity is more clearly presented. In addition, the
contrastual correspondence of the general pronouns "him",
referring to humanity in verses 7 and 8, and the specific
pronouns referring to "Him," Jesus, in verses 9 and 10, are
made more contrastually apparent. We shall proceed,
therefore, to interpret the remainder of the quotation from
an anthropological perspective, noting the Christological
interpretation as well.
2:7 "THOU HAST MADE HIM
FOR A LITTLE WHILE LOWER THAN THE ANGELS." In what
sense has God made humanity lower than the angels? Before we
answer that question we must note the textual basis of the
quotation. In the Hebrew original of Psalm 8:5, David
declares that God has made man a little lower than Elohim
(a plural Hebrew designation of God). Almost all English
translations that seek to directly translate the Hebrew of
Psalm 8:5 translate that man was made "a little less than
God" (cf. NASB, RSV, etc.). The Greek translation of the Old
Testament, the Septuagint (LXX), which Paul used
among the Greek-speaking Gentiles, and from which he most
often quotes in this epistle, translated the Hebrew word
Elohim with the Greek word angellous, the plural
for "messengers" or "angels," that despite the fact that the
Hebrew word malak was the word for "messenger" or
"angel". (Was this another example of Hebrew angelology
being superimposed upon the Old Testament Scriptures?) Some
English translations, such as the Authorized Version (KJV)
and the Living Bible (LB) have utilized the Greek
translation (LXX) rather than the original Hebrew and
have translated "angels" in Psalm 8:5. Still others have
translated that man is a little less than "heavenly beings"
(NIV), or "a god" (NEB), or "the gods" (Dahood).
Since Paul quoted from the Greek
Septuagint (LXX), what did he understand David to
mean by stating that "God made man a little less than the
angels"? Again, we must address another textual issue. Is
man "made a little less than angels" in terms of extent or
degree of functional capability? Or, is man "made for a
little while lower than angels" in terms of a temporal
brevity of time that looks to a termination of such
subordination? The Greek text allows for either translation,
but Paul's Christological reference to the same phrase in
verse 9 seems to have a time reference, and it is therefore
preferable to employ a temporal translation and
interpretation in this verse also. How, then, is man made
"for a little while lower than the angels"? Is this a
reference to the temporality of corporeal, physical humanity
as contrasted with angels who have a less restrictive
time/space context? Or is it, as some have suggested, a
reference to the temporal period of man's humiliation and
suffering caused by the Fall into sin, the termination of
which has been effected and made available in the redemptive
and sanctifying activity of Jesus Christ? The former
interpretation of the temporality of man's corporeal
humanity is to be preferred because the latter suggestion
makes God culpable for man's fall into sin.
The Christological interpretation of this
phrase will be considered in verse 9 where Paul applies the
words to Jesus Christ.
The Psalmist David recognized that
corporeal humanity did not relegate man to insignificance.
As the highest being in God's creation, David could declare,
"THOU HAST CROWNED HIM WITH GLORY AND HONOR, AND HAST
APPOINTED HIM OVER THE WORKS OF THY HANDS." From the
initial creation of man, he was declared by God to have the
dignity of being able to bear the image of God (Gen.
1:26,27), as his capability of spiritual function allowed
the presence of the Spirit of God within (cf. Gen. 2:7) to
manifest the invisible character of God visibly in the
behavior of man. In so doing, man was to subdue the rest of
creation and have dominion over other created orders (ex.
non-living, plants, animals), ruling with an awareness of
divine stewardship (cf. Gen. 1:28). Man was the "crown" of
God's creation, with the capacity to honor and glorify God
(cf. Isa. 43:7) as no other part of creation could because
man alone had the spiritual functionality wherein he could
receive God's Spirit (cf. Gen. 2:7) and be spiritually
united with God Himself (cf. I Cor. 6:17). Functioning by
the derived authority of God, man was appointed to have
dominion over the rest of God's creation.
This portion of the Psalmist's statement
will be Christologically applied in verse 9, when Paul will
explain that Jesus' death on the cross facilitated His being
"crowned with glory and honor" in order to restore mankind
to their intended dignity and dominion.
2:8 "THOU HAST PUT ALL
THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET," the Psalmist
continues. God's intent for mankind was that he should
function in the receptivity of deriving all character and
authority from God, manifesting the "image of God" in
visible behavior to the glory of God. As man was subject to
the indwelling dominion of God, man would serve
authoritatively with external dominion over the created
order.
When writing to the Corinthians Paul
employed a Christological application of these words,
explaining that the historical resurrection of Jesus assures
the ultimate and eternal dominion of Christ when "He has put
all things in subjection under His feet" (I Cor. 15:27).
Moving from quotation to personal
comment, Paul writes, "For in subjecting all things to
him, He left nothing that is not subject to him." It
is the destiny of man to rule over God's creation, as no
other part of the created order is capable of. This role of
dominion is so comprehensive as to include "all things"
including the angels (cf. 1:14). The only exclusion of
subordination to man is, of course, God Himself, who is not
part of the created order. Paul's argument is that man's
dignity and dominion is restored in Jesus Christ, for Jesus,
functioning as the better Man for man, allows mankind in
identification with Himself to once again rule over
creation. "Do you not know that the saints will judge the
world?", Paul asked the Corinthians (I Cor. 6:2).
"But now we do not yet see all
things subject to him," Paul admits to the
Christians in Jerusalem. Their response may well have been,
"Amen, brother Paul, you can say that again!" Subjected, as
they were, to Roman occupation and oppression, they did not
see or perceive how all things were subject to man in the
way God intended. But Paul wanted them to recognize the
victory that was theirs in Christ Jesus, whereby they could
now "reign in life through Christ Jesus" (Rom. 5:17) while
awaiting the eventual subjection of all things to those "in
Christ." As was true later for those to whom the Apostle
John wrote in the Apocalypse, it was (and is) difficult for
Christians, living in the "enigma of the interim" between
the "finished work" of Christ (cf. John 19:30) and the final
consummation of His work in the future, to see the results
of the victory and triumph of Jesus Christ and how mankind
will exercise dominion over the created order "in Him."
Paul's objective was to assure the Jewish Christians of
Jerusalem that Jesus' solidarity with man as the better Man
for man was sufficient to eventually restore the dignity and
dominion of man.
2:9 It is here that the
transition is made from general anthropological
interpretation of Psalm 8:4-6 to the particular
Christological interpretation that explains Jesus'
identification with humanity. "Now we do not see all things
subject to him (man), But we do see Him, Jesus, who
has been made for a little while lower than the angels..."
Conjoined in solidarity with mankind, Jesus emptied Himself
of divine prerogatives of function and was made in the
likeness of man as a man (cf. Phil. 2:7,8). The Son of God
accepted and assumed corporeal humanity. The "Word was made
flesh" (John 1:14) in the incarnation. Had Paul been quoting
from the Hebrew text of Psalm 8:5 it is doubtful that he
would have made this Christological interpretation for he
would not have said that Jesus was "made for a little while
lower than God." But in indicating that Jesus "was made for
a little while lower than the angels," Paul identifies Jesus
(whose name means "Jehovah saves" - Matt. 1:21) with mankind
in the temporary assumption of physical humanity whereby He
would function in subordination to God the Father. "For a
little while" for 33 years in time during His redemptive
mission to earth, Jesus was temporarily made a physical
being "lower than the angels" and functioned as a man
dependently contingent upon God. Such theological tenets as
the "eternal humanity" of Jesus and the "subsumption of
humanity into the Being of God" seem to be denied by this
verse.
The temporary assumption of physicality,
being "made for a little while lower than the angels,"
allowed for the death of the human Jesus. Building upon that
physical basis of mortality, Paul continues to note that we
observe Jesus "because of the suffering of death
crowned with glory and honor,..." This was the
primary "stumbling-block" (cf. I Cor. 1:23) for the Jewish
people. Their triumphalist expectations could not
accommodate a suffering Savior, a crucified Christ, a dying
deliverer, a murdered Messiah. The Jewish Christians to whom
Paul was writing seem to have accepted the fact that Jesus,
the Messiah, had been historically crucified, but were
apparently struggling with the question of how the tragedy
of Christ's death could lead to the triumph of man's dignity
and dominion. How could the ignominy and horror of the cross
provide for the crowning of glory and honor for Jesus and
those identified with Him? How could the pathos of a
humiliating crucifixion be the basis of an honorable
glorification and exaltation of Jesus and all mankind? This
is the logical dilemma that Christian theology has faced
from its inception the explanation of how the vicarious
crucifixion of Jesus facilitates the victor's crown for
Jesus and for receptive humanity. Later in this epistle,
Paul explains that "for the joy set before Him, Jesus
endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at
the right hand of the throne of God" (Heb. 12:2). To the
Philippians, Paul wrote that "as a man, Jesus humbled
Himself by becoming obedient unto death, even death on a
cross. Therefore God highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him
the name which is above every name, that at the name of
Jesus every knee should bow, ...and every tongue confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father"
(Phil. 2:8-11). The death of Jesus Christ was the necessary
remedial action for "the triumph of the crucified"1 wherein
"Christus Victor"2 assumes the stephanos crown of
victory for Himself and for all mankind. It was only when
Jesus was assured that the crucifixion and subsequent
resurrection was set in motion, and that He "had
accomplished the work that the Father had given Him to do,"
that He prayed, "Glorify Thou Me together with Thyself,
...with the glory I had with Thee before the world was"
(John 17:4,5).
To further explain the redemptive death
of Jesus as the necessary precursor to the restoration of
life for all men, Paul states, "that by the grace of
God He might taste death for every one." Some have
suggested that this phrase is non sequitur in
relation to the previous phrase, and might better be placed
prior to the phrase that mentions Christ's being "crowned
with glory and honor," but Paul seems to be emphasizing that
the sequence of dying in order to live, suffering in order
to sanctify (cf. 10,11) is indeed the gracious intent and
grace activity of God. It was God's "predetermined plan"
(Acts 2:23; 4:28) to "demonstrate His love" (Rom. 5:8) and
grace toward man by delivering His Son unto death as the
"propitiation of our sins" (I John 4:10). Jesus was not a
victim of the circumstances as enacted by the collusion of
the Jewish and Romans leaders who conspired to put Him to
death rather, this was what God ordained from "before the
foundation of the world" (I Peter 1:20). Since the
consequences of man's sin were death in its varied forms
(cf. Gen. 2:17), the death consequences had to be taken by a
man in order for the just consequences of the violation of
God's character to be implemented. That Man who came to take
those consequences of death for man and as man was the
God-man, Jesus Christ. He "came to give His life a ransom
for many" (Matt. 20:28; I Tim. 2:6), i.e. "for every one" as
Paul states it in this verse, "for all" (Rom. 8:32; II Cor.
5:14), for the entire human race. His death was to be the
vicarious and substitutional death of the sinless
representative Man which would "pay the price" (I Cor. 6:20;
7:3) to redeem (Eph. 1:7; Titus 2:14) mankind. On our
behalf, and in our place, Jesus, the better Man for man,
"tasted death", meaning that He experienced the painful
reality of death to its utmost extreme, even to the extent
of experiencing the absence of God's presence, causing Him
to cry out, "My God, My God, Why hast Thou forsaken Me?"
(cf. Ps. 22:1; Matt. 27:46). This perhaps explains why there
are some inferior Greek manuscripts that read that "apart
from God Jesus tasted death for everyone." The sinless
Jesus, undeserving of death, took the death consequences of
sin which fallen mankind deserved, and that to elevate all
mankind to the dignity and dominion that God intended for
man by investing the life of God within man once again (cf.
Gen. 2:7) through spiritual regeneration.
Paul wanted the Jerusalem Christians to
be aware of the divine logic of the ways of God. Only then
could they begin to understand how the crucified Christ was
the better Man who was superior to all angels and elevated
all men "in Him" to be higher than the angels. As an
extension of his argument, Paul may have been advising the
Christians in Jerusalem that those in whom Christ lives can
expect the same divine logic of the ways of God in suffering
that leads to sanctification (cf. 10,11), in humiliation
that hopes for exaltation, in abasement that expects
glorification, and in dying that is transformed into living,
all in identification with Jesus. The political situation
that existed in Palestine at the time of Paul's writing was
such that his readers needed to be prepared for God's ways,
and to be encouraged concerning Christ's victory.
2:10 Recognizing that the
natural thought processes of man do not regard such divine
logic to be "fitting" or appropriate to the accomplishment
of objectives, Paul wrote, "For it was fitting for
Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all
things,..." Despite how unnatural, absurd or
abhorrent it might be to the ways of man, it was "fitting",
suitable and appropriate to the ways of God to express His
grace in such a way that death was the precursor of life.
Acting out of His own Being, in complete congruity with His
character, God knew it was necessary and appropriate to His
intent to restore mankind, to allow His own Son to bear the
death consequences of sin for all mankind. Even though the
Jewish people could not conceive of a "crucified Christ",
this was God's way.
God does what He does
because He is who He is. Consistent with His
character of both justice and grace, it was "fitting" for
God to send His Son and allow Him to die to assume the death
consequences of sin for the whole human race. As God is the
efficient and final cause of all things, He is the One who
determines and controls the end and the means of His
activity. God determined the teleological end and objective
of His actions to be His own glory ("for whom are all
things") through the restoration of human function by His
Son. God effected the means or modality of His action by
exercising the dynamic energizing of His grace ("through
whom are all things") in offering His Son to die in order
that man might live. Paul refers to God similarly as he did
to the Romans: "For from Him and through Him
and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory
forever" (Rom. 11:36).
The divine end and means are further
explained in the next phrases. God's purposed end is stated:
"in bringing many sons to glory." Since man
was "created for His glory" (Isa. 43:7), God wanted to
restore fallen mankind to their intended creative purpose.
Who are these "many sons"? To the Galatians Paul wrote, "you
are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal.
3:26). Though he had just indicated that Jesus "tasted death
for everyone" (2:9), implying the universality of His
redemptive death and His restorative life available to all
humanity, the individual application in the "many sons"
comes by the volitional receptivity of faith for those
willing to receive "Christ in them, the hope of glory" (Col.
1:27). This does not restrict the universality of Christ's
work, but establishes the condition of receipt which
safeguards man's freedom of choice by avoiding a universal
imposition of God upon man. The singularity of God's Son
(cf. 1:2,5,8), by His solidarity with humanity, "the Man for
man," provides for a plurality of "many sons" in
identification with Himself. The action of the One is
effective for the many (cf. Rom. 5:17-21; 8:29).
The means to the end of "bringing many
sons to glory" was by the action of God "to perfect
the author of their salvation through sufferings."
Why did Jesus need to be perfected? Was He not already
perfect? Yes, Jesus was perfect in being and behavior, but
He still needed to be made perfect (cf. Heb. 5:8,9) in
benefit for all mankind. This was effected as Jesus became
the sinless sacrifice in death on the cross, dying in the
stead of all mankind. He thus perfected and achieved God's
end objective by becoming the "author of salvation" for the
"many sons" who would receive and identify with Him. The
English word "author" may be a misleading translation here.
The Greek word archegon can mean "founder,
originator, initiator, leader, champion, implementer,
empowerer, etc. (cf. 12:2). Whatever the meaning, Jesus made
salvation available to mankind by means of His sufferings of
death (cf. 2:9). The death of Jesus by crucifixion was
sufficient for the just consequences of death for sin,
setting man free and making him safe (Greek word sozo
means "to make safe") from dysfunction in order to function
as God intended by the presence and activity of God in the
man. Salvation is not an entity or commodity detached or
separated from the dynamic function of the Savior. Salvation
is not an divine benefit or product dispensed apart from the
function of the living Lord Jesus. All saving acts are the
acts of the Being of the Savior, as receptive individuals
are "saved by His life" (Rom. 5:10). "So great a salvation"
(2:3) experienced by "those inheriting salvation" (1:14) was
the objective of God accomplished by the "finished work"
(cf. John 19:30) of Jesus through His sufferings unto death,
"even death on a cross" (Phil. 2:8).
2:11 The singular Son of God
and the "many sons" are brought together in a restored new
humanity, based upon and as a result of the solidarity of
the Son of God with mankind as "the Man for man." "For
both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all
out of one..." Based on the divine logic of death
leading to life and suffering facilitating sanctification,
Jesus is "He who sanctifies" by setting men apart to
function as intended in the expression of God's holy
character. Those "being sanctified" in the ever-present
tense of salvation are those receptive to Christ in faith
and identified as Christians, i.e. Christ-ones.
The Son and the sons, Christ and
Christians, "are all out of one," Paul states. Does this
mean that Christ and Christians are one because of the one
event of crucifixion, resurrection and Pentecostal
outpouring? Does this mean that the Son and the sons are
united in the common experience of suffering? Does this mean
that Jesus and believers are unified in one family or Body,
or in the commonality of a new humanity? Does this mean that
Christ and Christians are derived from one parent or father,
and if so does this refer to Adam? ...Abraham? ...or God?
The preferable interpretation seems to be that the singular
Son and the plural sons both find their source of life and
derivation of function out of the one Father, God,
constituting them as one family "for which reason He
is not ashamed to call them brethren."
The mutual derivation of spiritual life
and function explains why Jesus is "not ashamed," i.e. He is
proud to call Christians "brothers." Jesus, the Son,
delights to identify Himself with the "many sons" who are
Christ-ones finding their identity in Him. This was the
intent of God, that Jesus would be "the first-born" from the
dead "among many brethren" (Rom. 8:29); that His
death on the cross would create a spiritual family, a new
creation (cf. II Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:16) humanity, all of whom
would be "joint-heirs with Christ" (Rom. 8:17). Immediately
after the resurrection Jesus said to Mary, "go to My
brethren, and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and
your Father, and My God and your God'" (John 20:17). The
identification of Christ with mankind in the solidarity of
His humanity with ours allows the spiritual identification
of Christians in solidarity with Christ as brethren
within the family of God, the Body of Christ, the Church.
It should be noted that the brethren
who are united in one spiritual family with Christ will
likely be called upon to identify also in the personal
suffering that is often the avenue to sanctification. Paul
explained to the Romans that being "fellow-heirs with
Christ" implied "suffering with Him in order to be glorified
with Him" (Rom. 8:17). The situation that confronted the
Judean Christians when this letter was written was such that
the brethren of Jesus would need to be encouraged to
recognize the ways of divine logic, and to not be ashamed to
be called brethren because Jesus was "not ashamed to
call them brethren."
2:12 To provide Scriptural
documentation of the thesis of Christ and Christians as
"brethren", Paul employs another Old Testament Psalm, the
Messianic Psalm often called "the Psalm of the Cross,"
putting the words of the Psalm into the mouth of Jesus,
having Him "saying, 'I WILL PROCLAIM THY NAME TO MY
BRETHREN, IN THE MIDST OF THE CONGREGATION I WILL SING THY
PRAISE.'" Psalm 22 begins with the cry, "My God, My
God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?", the cry of Jesus from the
cross (Matt. 27:46; Mk. 15:34). It continues with a litany
of suffering and affliction (which is often applied to the
suffering of Jesus - cf. Matt. 27:35,43,46), followed by an
exaltation of vindication which includes verse 22 which is
quoted here. Placed in the mouth of Jesus, He is proud to
proclaim the name and character of God to His "brethren,"
i.e. Christians identified with Him. Jesus will sing God's
praise within "the congregation", the Church, the community
of the "called out" which is the Body of Christ comprised of
the "brethren." This "general assembly and church of the
first-born who are enrolled in heaven" (Heb. 12:23) are
"brethren" who are mutually called to "continually offer up
a sacrifice of praise to God" (Heb. 13:15). Perhaps
indirectly Paul was encouraging the Jerusalem Christians to
proclaim the name of Jesus and to sing His praise in the
congregation of the church despite the religious and
political turmoil that was going on around them.
2:13 Continuing to place Old
Testament words into the mouth of Jesus, Paul writes,
"And again, 'I WILL PUT MY TRUST IN HIM.'" Quoting
from Isaiah 8:17 in the Septuagint (LXX), Paul
indicates that Jesus, in solidarity with the "many sons",
puts His confidence and dependence in God. How did Jesus
live the life that He lived during His redemptive mission on
earth? By faith by repetitively chosen receptivity of
God's activity for every moment in time for 33 years. Jesus
said, "I do nothing of My own initiative; the Father abiding
in Me does His works" (John 14:10). As the risen Lord in
solidarity with Christians in the "brotherhood of faith",
Jesus is "the author and perfecter of faith" (Heb. 12:2).
"And again, 'BEHOLD, I AND THE
CHILDREN WHOM GOD HAS GIVEN ME.'" Continuing the
quote into the following verse, Isaiah 8:18, Paul emphasizes
again the solidarity of Christ and the Christian in the
exercise of faith. The Son and the sons, the Savior and the
saved, the Sanctifier and the sanctified, Christ and the
brethren have a relational spiritual oneness in the family
of God. Christians are the "children of God" (John 1:12,13;
11:52) whom God gave to the Son (cf. John 6:37,39;
17:2,6,9,24) in spiritual oneness with Himself (cf. I Cor.
6:17), as they eagerly await all that God will do. The
practical inference is that the Christians in Jerusalem
should recognize their oneness with the risen Lord Jesus,
continue to trust God, and despite what circumstances might
transpire eagerly await God's "signs and wonders in Israel"
(cf. Isa. 8:18).
2:14 Keying off of the word
"children" in the quotation from Isaiah 8:18, Paul returns
to the theme of Jesus' participating in physical humanity in
order to die and take the death consequences of sin on our
behalf. "Since then the children share in flesh and
blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same,..."
Since those who were to become "children of God" by faith in
Jesus Christ had in common the corruptible characteristics
of physical "flesh and blood", susceptible as it is to
mortality, Jesus identified in solidarity with mankind by
partaking of the same physical, human creatureliness,
capable of dying. "The Word became flesh" (John 1:14), and
"in the days of His flesh" (Heb. 5:7) in the "body prepared
for Him" (Heb. 10:7), He took no more pleasure in dying than
any other man. But "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom.
8:3) with the fallen consequences of death and mortality,
Jesus was willing to become the vicarious offering for sin,
"bearing our sins in His body on the cross, that we might
die to sin and live to righteousness" (I Pet. 2:24). The
"flesh and blood" humanity of Jesus was not just a docetic
"appearance" of physical humanness, but was a full
participation in the human condition which included
temptation (cf. Heb. 2:18; 4:15) and death (cf. Heb.
2:9,14,15). The incarnational enfleshment of "the man Christ
Jesus" (I Tim. 2:5) was the necessary prerequisite for the
atoning benefits of His death.
Jesus was fully man in order "that
through death He might render powerless the one having the
power of death, that is the devil." The very purpose
of Jesus' becoming man "revealed in the flesh (I Tim. 3:16)
was that He might die and "offer His body once and for all"
(Heb. 10:10) as the sufficient sacrifice in death for sin.
As the sinless One dying in the substitutionary place of
sinful mankind, He was "made to be sin" (II Cor. 5:21),
being imputed with the sin of the entire human race. When
the death consequence of sin is satisfied, then "death has
lost its sting" (I Cor. 15:55-57). Jesus' vicarious death
for the sin of all men sets in motion the "death of death,"
as His resurrection life, "the spirit of life in Christ
Jesus" (Rom. 8:2), conquers death for all men willing to
receive such. Though in the "enigma of the interim" between
the historical death and resurrection of Jesus and the
consummation of His work in the "new heaven and new earth"
(Rev. 21:1), the residual consequences of physical mortality
remain, Christians are confident that spiritual death has
been overcome with spiritual life, Christ's life, and that
they are liberated from the inevitable behavioral
consequences of "the law of sin and of death" (Rom. 8:2) in
"dead works" (Heb. 6:1; 9:14). Yes, the physical body is
still mortal and susceptible to death, but as Jesus assured
Martha, "he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies,
and everyone who lives and believes in Me shall never die"
(John 11:25,26) in the realm of their spiritual and eternal
being, united as it is with the "eternal life" (John
3:16,36; I John 5:12,13) of Jesus Christ.
The devil is identified as "the one
having the power of death." The verb is not a past tense,
but a present participle. How is it that the devil, the
accuser, the evil one has the "power of death"? This "power
over death" is not an absolute power, for such would
constitute a cosmic dualism between Satan's power of death
and God's power of life. Therefore, it must be regarded as a
contingent power conferred upon the evil one to employ and
enact as a consequence of the expression of his evil
character in sinfulness. In the Jewish intertestamental
literature, the writer of the Wisdom of Solomon
explains the Jewish theological understanding of that time,
writing, "God did not make death, and He does not delight in
the death of the living" (Wisd. 1:13). Later he writes, "God
created man for incorruption, and made him in the image of
His eternity, but through the devil's envy death entered the
world, and those who belong to his party experience it"
(Wisd. 2:23,24). Jewish and Christian theodicy recognize
that Satan has the derived "power of death" because of man's
sin.
In taking the death consequences of sin
upon Himself and extending life in Himself to mankind, Jesus
renders Satan's "power of death" inconsequential,
ineffectual and impotent. "The Son of God appeared for this
purpose, that He might destroy the works of the devil" (I
John 3:8). "By His appearing He abolished death and brought
life and immortality to light through the gospel" (II Tim.
1:10). Jesus said that "the ruler of this world (Satan)
would be cast out" (John 12:31) and "has been judged" (John
16:11), allowing us to be "delivered from the domain of
darkness and transferred to the kingdom of the beloved Son"
(Col. 1:13).
How is it that the devil is "rendered
powerless" by Jesus death? Satan seems to be "alive and well
on planet earth," continuing to empower death in its many
forms. The evil one was not eliminated, annihilated or
obliterated at the time of the crucifixion, but the victory
has been won by Christ and the "finished work" is being
worked out. Satan's "power of death" in man has been
annulled and incapacitated by Jesus taking the death of
mankind. The devil's derived legal right to enact death in
man has been disenfranchised. The evil one has no right to
empower spiritual death and behavioral death in those who
have received Christ's life, made available by His death
that satisfied the just consequences of death for sin.
Christians have been delivered "from the dominion of Satan
unto God" (Acts 26:18), and the Spirit of Christ has been
franchised to exercise His power (cf. Eph. 1:19; Col. 1:11)
of life and righteousness in our lives as Lord. Though our
physical bodies are still mortal, that remnant of the
devil's "power of death" will be removed when we receive a
"spiritual body" (I Cor. 15:44), an "imperishable body" (I
Cor. 15:42), and "the last enemy that will be abolished is
death" (I Cor. 15:26) when Satan and his death power are
thrown into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:14).
2:15 Let us not forget that
the great "stumbling-block" (I Cor. 1:23) for those of
Jewish heritage was the death of the Messiah. Paul is
explaining how the death of Jesus was the necessary negation
of the death consequences of sin, so that Christ's divine
life could function in and through Christians. On a more
experiential level, Paul proceeds to explain that by the
death of Jesus which disenfranchised the devil's power of
death, Jesus "should have delivered those who through
fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives."
The awareness of human mortality has long been a source of
anxiety to mankind. Hopeless anticipation of physical death
with no expectation of living beyond the grave can lead to a
debilitating phobia of diabolic enslavement. The gospel is
the good news of our deliverance from the existential
unknown of death.
In becoming "the better Man for man"
Jesus fully identified Himself in solidarity with humanity.
His humanity included temptability and mortality, both of
which He experienced as He prepared for and was crucified on
the execution instrument of the cross. But His death was
part of God's greater objective for mankind. Though Himself
sinless, He took the death consequences of sin on our
behalf, substitutionally and vicariously. Jesus incurred all
of the death consequences that had occurred in Adam, in
order to restore us to God's intent. Because He was without
sin (cf. 4:15) "the one having the power of death" (14), the
devil, could not hold Him in physical death. "He was not
abandoned to Hades, nor did His flesh suffer decay" (Ps.
16:10; Acts 2:31). By resurrection He made His divine life
available to mankind, that by the receipt of His Spirit
individuals might also experience life out of death
spiritually, being "raised to newness of life" (Rom. 6:4).
Thereby Satan's "power of death" (14) was rendered
ineffectual. Now having spiritual life in Christ and full
provision for behavior expression that glorifies God, the
Christian recognizes that the only remnant or residual of
Satan's "power of death" is the physical death of the body.
Since the life we have in Christ is eternal, we confidently
expect the continuum of His life in perpetuity within the
heavenly realm. Physical death of the body is just a
transition necessitated for a new context of life, a
"graduation to glory." We will not be "found naked" (II Cor.
5:3) or disembodied, but will shed the physical body and
exchange it for a spiritual body, a heavenly body, a
glorified body (cf. I Cor. 15:42-49). Christians are
therefore "delivered from the fear of death," viewing
physical death as part of the triumphant progress of life in
Christ. As Paul expressed it to the Corinthians, "O death,
where is your victory? O death, where is your sting? The
sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; but
thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord
Jesus Christ" (I Cor. 15:55-57).
How, then, does the "fear of death
subject men to slavery all their lives"? Apart from Christ
and confidence in the continuum of His life, the fear of
physical death enslaves men in mental and emotional
uncertainty the paranoid insecurity of asking, "Is there
life after death? How about reincarnation? Am I just going
to be devoured by worms?" The fear of death also enslaves
men in the escapism of denial and avoidance seeking to
live for the moment (carpe deim) in self-indulgence,
occupying their present physical lives to the fullest with
material things and activities, saying, "Eat, drink, and be
merry for tomorrow we die." The fear of death enslaves
others in a preoccupation with attempting to please and
appease God by their performance the self-effort of
religious striving within the confining and enslaving
bondage of ethical rules and regulations and rituals of
devotion.
Paul explains that Jesus' death and
consequent life in Christians delivers us from the fear of
death and its various forms of slavery. Yes, we will likely
all die physically, for later he writes, "It is appointed
unto man once to die, and then comes judgment" (Heb. 9:27).
But judgment holds no fear for Christians. Fear of judgment
is usually based on the psychologically enslaving fear of
inadequate performance. Understanding the grace dynamic of
the gospel, Christians do not rely on their own performance,
but on Christ's performance on their behalf, both in dying
for them and living through them. Divine judgment is but the
glorious confirmation that Jesus took the judgment for our
sin and the responsibility for our righteousness. Jesus
said, "he who believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life,
and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death
into life" (John 5:24). "For God did not sent the Son into
the world to judge the world; but that the world should be
saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he
who does not believe has been judged already, because he has
not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God"
(John 3:17,18). By His death, resurrection and Pentecostal
outpouring, Jesus has provided His life which delivers those
receptive to Him from the enslaving consequences of the fear
of physical death. Christians are set free to live life to
the fullest with the confident hope of the perpetuity of
life into the eternal future.
Perhaps Paul was aware that the
Christians in Jerusalem were not very confident of the
implications of life in Christ Jesus. They may have
succumbed to some of the enslaving effects of the fear of
physical death. The political situation in Palestine at that
time could certainly have been a cause for anxiety. Rumors
of the Roman army marshaling their forces to wage war on the
insurrection of the Jewish zealots would have been
particularly frightening. Roman soldiers were notorious for
committing every kind of atrocity against their defeated
foes prior to slaughtering them in death. Paul wanted to
assure the Christians of Palestine that the life effected by
the death of the Man, Jesus, was sufficient to sustain them
and deliver them from the "fear of death".
2:16 To assure them in their
present situation and to affirm again that mankind, because
of Christ's work as Man for man, is elevated to a divinely
intended dignity and dominion above the angelic hosts, Paul
confidently asserts, "For assuredly He does not give
help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of
Abraham." The Christians in Jerusalem apparently
needed the assurance that Jesus had identified with their
humanity. Jesus did not act on behalf of the angels for
there was no need to identify in solidarity with their
angelic form, and there was no need to redeem them by death.
Mankind, on the other hand, did need the divine help of
Someone to act on their behalf, which could only be
accomplished by the Son of God being incarnated in
solidarity with humanity as the God-man. Only as man could
Jesus then die and assume the death consequences of sin for
mankind in order to redeem man. Only by the conquering of
death in resurrection could the Savior restore divine life
to the spirit of individuals, restoring their intended
dignity and dominion. Only by the restoration of God's life
in man, i.e. Christ's presence and function in the
Christian, could man glorify God which is his purpose for
existing. Jesus Christ has acted historically on man's
behalf and continues to live and act on man's behalf in
Christians today.
Who is "the descendant of Abraham" that
Paul writes of? Some commentators have suggested that there
is an allusion here to Isaiah 41:8-10 where the prophet
refers to the "descendant of Abraham" and goes on to say
"surely I will help you." It is possible that Paul had these
verses in mind, but we must still ask what he meant by "the
descendant of Abraham" in this verse. Physically, racially,
or ethnically "the descendant of Abraham" could refer to
both the Hebrew and the Arabic people, descendants of
Abraham through his sons Isaac and Ishmael, respectively.
The Jewish Christians to whom Paul wrote were obviously
physical descendants of Abraham. But as Christians they were
also spiritual descendants of Abraham. Paul explained to the
Roman Christians that Abraham was "the father of all who
believe" (Rom. 4:11), that the "descendants of Abraham
are...those who have the faith of Abraham" (Rom. 4:16), and
that all Christians who are "children of the promise are
regarded as descendants" (Rom. 9:6-8) of Abraham. Writing to
the Galatians, Paul earlier indicated that "if you belong to
Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to
promise" (Gal. 3:29). Jesus acted objectively in behalf of
all men in the solidarity of His incarnation and in His
redemptive death, but the specific subjective efficacy of
His life and work is enacted in those persons who are
receptive to Jesus' activity in faith, and are thus
"descendants of Abraham." All Christians are thus
"descendants of Abraham" and "inherit the promises" (Heb.
6:12,13) of God to Abraham (cf. Gen. 12-15), as those
promises are affirmed and confirmed as fulfilled in Jesus
Christ and those who receive Him (cf. II Cor. 1:20).
Paul was assuring the Palestinian
Christians that Jesus Christ had acted on their behalf in
redemption and was continuing to act on their behalf in the
present situation that they were confronted with. He wanted
them to know that the living Lord Jesus was far more
interested in them than He was in assisting angels who
needed no help. As the "better man for man" Jesus was
superior to angels and made all those who are "in Him"
superior to angels.
2:17 In the concluding two
verses of this section, Paul summarizes his argument of
Jesus' identification with mankind and introduces a future
theme of the priesthood of Jesus. "Therefore, He had
to be made like His brethren in all things,..."
Because He came to deliver man, not angels, it was logically
necessary that Jesus assume solidarity with the human race.
The "brethren" with whom He identified are not just those of
Jewish heritage, but are those human beings who became
"brethren" (2:11,12) by their identification with Him
through faith. Jesus partook of the full human experience
"in all things," with the exception that He did not
participate personally in sin. Though He was "in the
likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom. 8:3), meaning that the death
consequences of sin affected His body in terms of mortality,
Jesus did not share in the depravity of spiritual death, and
therefore did not develop the sinful patterning of the
"desires of the flesh" (Gal. 5:24; Eph. 2:3). Such "flesh"
patterning is not implicit in humanity, however, and
therefore does not negate that Jesus was "made like His
brethren in all things."
The purpose of this complete solidarity
with mankind was "that He might become a merciful and
faith high priest in things pertaining to God,..."
Here we have the first mention of Jesus as "the better high
priest" which will occupy much of the rest of this epistle.
Jesus became the fulfillment of the type of the high
priesthood of Melchizedek (cf. 5:10; 6:20), as well as the
Levitical priesthood. The high priest was a man who
represented the people before God. Jesus, as "the Man for
man", represented humanity as no religious high priest could
ever do, for as the God-man He was fully aware of what was
required to redeem, reconcile and restore man "in things
pertaining to God" forever.
What was required was that as a priestly
man Jesus should serve "to make propitiation for the
sins of the people." The high priest in Judaism
offered sacrifices for the sins of the Hebrew people on the
Day of Atonement (cf. Lev. 16). Jesus not only served as the
antetype of the high priest, but He Himself was the
sacrificial satisfaction, offering His own life in death as
the only sacrifice that could satisfy the just consequences
of death that God had imposed for sin, the violation of His
character. This was not an attempt to appease or placate an
angry God offended in moral outrage (a concept prevalent in
many religions), but this was what had to be accomplished
for divine justice to be satisfied. God is a God of His
word, and He had determined that death would be the
consequences of sin (cf. Gen. 2:17). That penalty of death
had to be paid for the expiatory and propitiatory
satisfaction of God's justice. God was fully satisfied with
the sacrificial death of Jesus for "the propitiation of the
sins of the people" (cf. Rom. 3:25; I John 2:2; 4:10).
Having died for the sins of all people, the stigma and
penalty of sin that alienated God and man has been dealt
with, allowing for reconciliation and atonement between God
and man.
The Jewish high priests in the temple at
Jerusalem were never able to effect redemption and
propitiation for sin. Paul declares that they "can never by
the same sacrifices year by year...make perfect those who
draw near" (Heb. 10:1). Only Jesus, as the sinless God-man,
could satisfy divine justice in the sacrifice of Himself in
death. Why then, Paul might be asking the Jerusalem
Christians, would you even consider reverting back to the
inferior representation of religious priests in the temple
at Jerusalem when Jesus was the only sacrifice sufficient?
2:18 Jesus can serve as "a
merciful and faithful high priest" (17), "since He
Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered,..."
In the "suffering of death" (2:9) Jesus experienced the
utmost of testing and temptation in full solidarity with
mankind. As a man He was tempted to avoid death, saying,
"Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me."
(Matt. 26:39; Mk. 14:36; Lk. 22:42). Those who advocate the
divine impeccability of Jesus, and thus deny the possibility
of Jesus' sinning in response to temptation, forget that the
entire context of Paul's argument is Jesus' solidarity with
humanity, and that it was in His function as a man that
Jesus was "tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin"
(Heb. 4:15).
Because of that solidarity of human
temptability, "He is able to come to the aid of those
who are tempted." Jesus knew how difficult the
tests, trials and temptations of life can be, and now serves
to intercede on behalf of Christians. "He holds His
priesthood permanently,...and always lives to make
intercession...for those who draw near to God through Him"
(Heb. 7:24,25). Jesus "intercedes for the saints" (Rom.
8:27), serving as the "Advocate" (I John 2:1) "at the right
hand of God, who intercedes for us" (Rom. 8:34). As
Christians continue in their humanity, susceptible to
temptation, we can "draw near with confidence to the throne
of grace, that we may receive mercy and may find grace to
help in time of need" (Heb. 4:16). Never let anyone tell you
that Christians should not be tempted, or that temptation is
a result of unbelief or sin. To be human is to be tempted.
It is intrinsic to our humanity, allowing for the continued
exercise of our freedom of choice, that we might be
receptive to His continued activity for us and in us and
through us by faith.
Concluding Remarks
Paul has been encouraging the Jerusalem
Christians to endure and not "drift away" (2:1) from all
they have and are in Christ. They had "endured a great
conflict of sufferings...by being made a public spectacle
through reproaches and tribulation" (10:32,33). They were
likely being tempted to revert back to the religious forms
that predominated in the Jewish capital of Jerusalem. Paul
wanted to encourage them that Jesus had identified with
their humanity and temptation, and He remained compassionate
and dependable as a permanent priestly representative before
God to intercede for them and satisfy God's expectations for
righteousness. The words that Paul wrote to the Corinthians
contain the basic theme that he was attempting to convey to
the Christians in Judea: "No temptation/trial/testing has
overtaken you but such as is common to man, and God is
faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted/tested/tried
beyond what you are able, but with the
temptation/trial/testing will provide the way of escape
also, that you may be able to endure it" (I Cor. 10:13).
Peter's reminder was that "the Lord knows how to rescue the
godly from temptation/testing/trial" (II Peter 2:9).
In like manner as the death of Jesus was
a "stumbling-block" (I Cor. 1:23) for Jewish minds, many
Gentiles today cannot fathom or accept how a loving God
could allow (or purpose) His own Son to die by crucifixion.
They fail to understand the point that Paul is making in
these verses, that God's objective in sending His Son to
become a man was that He might die on behalf of all men in
order to restore human dignity and dominion as God first
intended. Jesus is thus better than any religious
intermediary, angelic or otherwise, because He became "the
better Man for man," dying in our place on our behalf to
give us His life, and He continues to intercede for us and
provide all things for us by His grace. You cannot get any
better than that!
FOOTNOTES
1
Sauer, Eric, The Triumph of the Crucified. Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans. 1951.
2
Aulen, Gustaf, Christus Victor. London: SPCK. 1931.
JESUS: THE
BETTER GROUND OF
FAITHFULNESS
Jesus is everything better! That is the
message that Paul wanted to share with the Judean
Christians, so they would avoid relapsing and reverting to
their Judaic religion of old. Jesus is the better revelation
of God (1:12:4). Jesus is better than the prophets (1:1-3).
Jesus is better than the angels (1:4-14). Jesus is the
better Man for man (2:5-18). But Paul was very aware that
those of Jewish heritage had a high esteem that verged on
veneration for Moses, who was the instrument for receiving
the tablets of the Law on Mt. Sinai. Paul continues his
thesis, then, to explain that Jesus is better than Moses.
Moses was one of the most elevated
figures in Jewish history. Although the Hebrew peoples knew
that Moses was a man, he was often not perceived as "lower
than the angels" (Ps. 8:5) like other men, but as having a
status higher than the angels because the angels served him
in delivering the tablets of the Law (cf. Acts 7:38, 53;
Heb. 2:2) on Sinai. While the angels were intermediary
messengers, Moses was regarded as the mediatorial agent
of the Law. To the Galatians, Paul explained that "the
Law...was...ordained through angels by the agency of a
mediator," i.e. Moses (Gal. 2:19), preparatory to the
fulfillment of God's promises to Abraham in Jesus Christ.
Moses was the great Deliverer of the Jewish people as
he "delivered the Israelites from the power of Egypt" (Exod.
3:8,10) in the Exodus. "The Law was given through Moses,"
John explained, but went on to write that "grace and truth
were realized through Jesus Christ" (John 1:17). Moses was
esteemed as a prophet, and Jewish Messianic
expectations anticipated "a prophet like him" (cf. Exod.
18:15,18) who would dispossess the nations. Moses was
regarded as a priest of God, along with Aaron (Ps.
99:6), having performed priestly functions (cf. Exod. 24:6).
In fact, Moses was revered among the Jews as next to God
Himself, and sometimes referred to "as God" (cf. Exod. 4:16;
7:1) or as "a god" in rabbinic literature.
The Jewish leaders of the first century
considered themselves as "disciples of Moses," confident
that "God had spoken to Moses" (cf. John 9:28,29), but were
skeptical and antagonistic of Jesus and those who followed
Him. So, for Paul to declare that Jesus was "better than
Moses" was a bold declaration to make to Jewish people
steeped in the Law. While the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem
had accepted Jesus as Messiah, they still had high regard
for Moses and the Law (cf. Gal. 1:6-10; 2:16-21).
Writing to the Corinthians, Paul had
explained the glory of Moses' ministry, but noted that "the
ministry of the Spirit (of Christ) would have even more
glory" (II Cor. 3:8). Later in this epistle to the Hebrews,
Paul wrote that the ministry of Moses was but "a copy and
shadow of heavenly things," whereas Jesus Christ "has
obtained a more excellent ministry, as He is the mediator of
a better covenant" (Heb. 8:5,6). Paul's assertion is that
Jesus served as a better mediator of a better covenant, a
better deliverer or Savior of God's people, a better
prophet-spokesman, and a better priest-representative. That
because Jesus was not only "as God" (Exod. 7:1), but was
actually the God-man, the self-revelation of God Himself,
functioning in His redemptive mission as a man faithfully
receptive to God through temptation and death.
Though Moses was faithful in the roles
that he played, in the ministry that he performed, in the
service that he rendered in the old covenant preparatory
period, there was not a sufficient ground of faithfulness
for the Hebrew people. There was no grace-provision for the
keeping of the Law, which led to the inevitable failure of
self-effort and the faithlessness of sinful disobedience.
The Israelite people who followed Moses were indeed
responsible for their unbelief and faithlessness,
repetitively refusing to be receptive to God's supernatural
action on their behalf, and suffering the consequences of
their "transgression and disobedience" (2:2). But Paul
wanted to explain to the Jerusalem Christians that Jesus was
"the merciful and faithful high priest in the things
pertaining to God" (2:17), better than Moses, "counted
worthy of more glory than Moses" (3:3), because "grace and
truth are realized in Jesus Christ" (John 1:17), allowing
for a "better ground of faithfulness," so that the new
covenant People of God need not and should not repeat the
pattern of unfaithfulness and disobedience exhibited by the
old covenant People of God. By the dynamic of Christ's life
Christians are able to "enter into the rest of God"
(3:11,18,19), functioning by God's grace rather than
self-effort. It was that faithful grace-rest that Paul
wanted the Judean Christians to understand and function by
in the midst of the difficult situation they were
encountering.
3:1 "Therefore,"
Paul writes basing his forthcoming admonition on Jesus'
ability to identify and intercede (2:18) for the
faithfulness of Christians as He serves as "a merciful and
faithful high priest" (2:17). He identifies the Jerusalem
Christians as "holy brethren." Being "the
sanctified" (Heb. 2:11; 10:14; I Cor. 1:2; 6:11), united
with the Sanctifier (2:11), Jesus Christ, the "Holy One"
(Mk. 1:24; Acts 3:14; 4:27) who lives within them as
Christians creating their identity as "holy ones" (Eph. 1:4;
Col. 1:22; 3:12), "saints" (Rom. 1:7; 8:27; Eph. 1:18;
4:12), they are set apart to function by allowing the holy
character of God to be manifested in their behavior, to the
glory of God. Thus united with Christ, they are "brethren"
(2:11,12,17) with Christ in the family of God.
They are also "partakers of a
heavenly calling." All Christians are spiritually
united (cf. I Cor. 6:17) with the living Lord Jesus, and are
"partakers of Christ" (Heb. 3:14), "partakers of the Holy
Spirit" (Heb. 6:4), and "partakers of the divine nature" (II
Pet. 1:4). To be "partakers of a heavenly calling" does not
mean that Christians are just "anticipators of a future
calling to go to heaven," but implies that Christians
participate presently in the heavenly realities that are "in
Christ Jesus." Christians are "seated with Christ in the
heavenlies" (Eph. 2;6), participating in the "heavenly
things" (9:23), the "heavenly gift" (6:4) of Christ Himself
in the realized "heavenly Jerusalem" (12:22) of the better
"heavenly country" (11:16) of which they are "citizens"
(Phil. 3:20). This "heavenly calling" gives Christians the
privileged access (10:19) to enjoy God's presence, peace and
rest presently, despite the turmoil of their surroundings.
The Christians in Jerusalem were being pressured to align
themselves with an "earthly calling," a cause celebre
to join the Palestinian revolt against Rome, which was not
destined to bring peace and rest, but destruction and death.
"Consider Jesus," Paul
implores his Christian kinsmen. This admonition served as a
primary motive for Paul's writing this epistle. It is an
imperative exhortation to "pay close attention to" (2:1); to
direct their thoughts attentively to the better spiritual
realities that are in Jesus Christ. "Fix your eyes on Jesus"
(12:2) and "consider Him" (12:3), Paul insists.
Jesus is "the Apostle and High
Priest of our confession," Paul explains. "God sent
forth His Son" (Gal. 4:4; John 17:18), "that the world might
be saved through Him" (John 3:17). The means of that
salvation was Jesus serving as the High Priest
representative (2:17; 4:14; 10:21) of man before God, a
theme that will receive amplification throughout this
epistle. Jesus was sent as the Apostle of God and serves as
the High Priest of God that we might agree and concur with
God in confessing that Jesus is the Son of God (4:14), the
only Lord and Savior of mankind, to Whom we should "hold
fast in our confession, for He Who promised is faithful"
(10:23).
3:2 "He" (Jesus
the Son) was faithful to Him (God the Father)
who appointed Him,..." Not only was Jesus
faithful to His Father in His historical, physical,
redemptive mission, but Jesus continues to be (present
participle - "being") faithful in His divinely appointed and
ordained function as mediator (I Tim. 2:5; Heb. 8:6; 12:24)
of the new covenant and intercessor (Heb. 2:18; 7:25; 9:24)
for those who are Christians.
The similitude of faithfulness between
Jesus and Moses in their respective covenantal arrangements
is made in the statement, "as Moses also (was
faithful) in all His house." The faithfulness
of Moses is not questioned, minimized or criticized, even
though his double-striking of the rock at Kadesh could have
been cited (cf. Numbers 20:1-13; Deut. 32:50-52). The point
Paul wanted to make was that Moses was faithful in the
implementation of God's provisional plan of the old
covenant, as God pictorially prefigured His Christological
intents through His household, the People of Israel, in the
Old Testament. The faithfulness of Moses in God's House
appears to be an allusion to Numbers 12:7 where God declares
(after Aaron and Miriam had faulted Moses), "My servant
Moses; he is faithful in all My household." Moses was
faithful as the mediator (Gal. 3:19,20) of the covenant
based on the Law, even though the Israelite people who
followed him were unfaithful. Jesus, on the other hand, was
faithful as the "one mediator between God and man" (I Tim.
2:5) to establish the new covenant of grace, and His
faithfulness was exhibited in His being "obedient unto
death, even death on a cross" (Phil. 2:8), allowing for a
"better ground of faithfulness" for Christians living by the
dynamic of His resurrection-life.
3:3 Despite the similarity of
faithfulness between Moses and Christ, the redemptive and
restorative efficacy of Christ's faithfulness is the reason
that Paul encourages the Palestinian Christians to "consider
Jesus" (3:1). "For He (Jesus) has been
counted worthy of more glory than Moses." Moses had
seen the glory of God on Mt. Sinai, and the Jewish people
considered Moses worthy of much honor and glory. Some
rabbinic literature indicated that Moses had more glory than
the angels. Even Joshua explained that "no prophet has risen
in Israel like Moses" (Exod. 34:10). But Paul had written
earlier to the Corinthians explaining that the glory of
Moses and the old covenant that he administered was a fading
glory (II Cor. 3:7,11), whereas the glory of Jesus Christ
and the new covenant has "even more glory" (II Cor. 3:8) for
"the ministry of righteousness abounds in glory" (II Cor.
3:9). "For indeed what had glory (Moses and the old
covenant), in this case has no glory on account of the glory
(Jesus and His work) that surpasses it," (II Cor. 3:10). The
superiority of the glory of Christ is based on the fact that
while Moses' glory was merely reflective of the presence of
God, Jesus is the essential reality of the presence of God,
the self-revelation of the all-glorious character of God,
and the self-generating source of God's glory. The glory of
Jesus is that "which He had with the Father before the world
was" (John 17:5), and was "beheld" in the incarnate Word
(John 1:14). He is also "counted worthy of more glory than
Moses" because He conveys and imparts His glory to those
united with Himself as Christ-ones, those who have "Christ
in them, the hope of glory" (Col. 1:27), and are thus being
"crowned with glory and honor" (2:7).
Employing a truism or general principle
of the construction trade, Paul wrote that Jesus is "worthy
of more glory than Moses, by just as much as the
builder of the house has more honor than the house."
The analogy of a "house" merges the concepts of a material
building structure and an interpersonal community of a
"household," allowing for a double entendre of meaning. It
is difficult to understand precisely what Paul meant by this
analogy. Since the contrast has been made between the
superior glory of Christ and the lesser glory of Moses, how
is Jesus to be identified as "the builder of the house" and
Moses with "the house"? The analogy necessitates an
interpretation that transitions from the original material
meaning to a figurative meaning of "house." If "the builder
of the house" is the Divine builder (looking ahead to the
next verse), then God certainly has more honor than the
physical universe that He created (otherwise we have
monistic pantheism), and more honor than the community of
His people identified with Him (who are what they are only
because they are related to Him). Jesus, as "the builder of
the house," is the Divine builder, creatively active in
constructing the universe as well as God's arrangements for
the restoration of fallen mankind. Jesus was instrumental in
the development of the provisional House of Israel which is
connected with Moses, therefore has more honor as the Divine
builder than the Judaic "house."
3:4 To further explain the
analogy he was using, Paul wrote (perhaps parenthetically),
"For every house is built by someone, but the builder
of all things is God." Again, we have the double
entendre of a general truism: "For every house (whether a
material structure or a figurative community of people) is
built by someone." Houses do not just self-germinate, sprout
and grow. They are the result and product of a personal
builder. The personal builder that Paul is thinking of is
God, who is "the builder of all things" through the creative
agency of His Son, Jesus Christ (cf. 1:2). God in Christ
(any reference to the deity of Christ here is implicit
rather than explicit) has created and constructed "all
things" (cf. John 1:3), including the physical construct of
the universe as well as the figurative households of the
People of God in both the old covenant and the new covenant.
God, the Divine builder, was at work in the construction of
both "households," the old covenant People of God and the
new covenant People of God, but the one in which Moses
played a part was but the prototypical blueprint, the
preliminary prefiguring, the provisional preparation for the
new covenant household enacted by the saving work of Jesus
Christ. Therefore, the faithfulness of Jesus Christ in what
He was appointed to do (3:2) is "counted worthy of more
glory" (3:3) than the faithfulness of Moses in what he was
appointed by God to do, for Christ's work serves as a
"better ground of faithfulness" by which Christian people
function as God intended, individually and collectively.
3:5 Continuing to explain the
contrast, Paul writes, "Now Moses was faithful in all
His house as a servant,..." Moses is not to be
denigrated or depreciated. He was a faithful servant (cf.
Numbers 12:7) in the "house" that God built among the Hebrew
peoples. The "house of Israel," the household of the People
of God in old covenant Judaism, was purposed by God, built
by God, and is referred to as "His house" (3:2,5,6). Though
not a servile slave (doulos), Moses freely, willingly
and voluntarily rendered his service to the Divine superior
as commanded (cf. Exod. 7:6; 16:16; 34:4) in order to build
the household of Israel; and he thus ministered with
faithfulness, honor and dignity.
But the old covenant "house of God" was
preparatory "for a testimony of those things which
were to be spoken later." Moses' ministry in Israel
was a provisional witness of "those things", the "last
things" (1:2) of God's last Word for man in the "last Adam"
(I Cor. 15:45), Jesus Christ. Every detail of the old
covenant which is identified with Moses and the Law was a
figure, a type (cf. I Cor. 10:6,11; Heb. 8:5), a symbolic
representation of the "better things" that God would do to
redeem and restore mankind in Jesus Christ. The Jewish
people of the old covenant household had great difficulty in
accepting that they were but the preliminary picture-people
of God's eternal plan. They considered themselves to be
racially, religiously, and nationally "God's chosen people,"
an end in themselves. That is why Jesus had to explain to
the Jewish leaders of the first century, "...if you believed
Moses you would believe Me; for he wrote of Me" (cf. John
5:45,46). The Mosaic writings of the Torah dealt with the
prototypical prefigurings of the spiritual realities of
Jesus Christ. The "testimony of those things which were to
be spoken later" refers to the new covenant wherein "in
these last days God has spoken in His Son" (1:2), in the
full self-revelation of Himself and His intent for mankind.
3:6 "But," in
contrast to Moses who was faithful in God's old covenant
household as a servant, "Christ" is faithful
"as a Son over His house whose house we are,..."
Jesus Christ, the Son, supersedes Moses, the servant, and is
thus "better than Moses" a similar argument to the Son
(1:5,8) superseding the ministering service (1:7,14) of the
angels. Whereas Moses was faithful "in" God's household of
Israel as a servant, Jesus is faithful "over" God's
household of the Church as the Son of God, implying His
authoritative supremacy as Divine Lord over Christian
people. The Son has been "appointed heir of all things"
(1:2), to sit on the eternal throne of God (1:8,13), whereas
Moses simply performed his service in the temporary
preparation period of the old covenant. But let it be noted
that both covenantal arrangements were "His house," God's
covenantal relation with His People. There is both a
continuity and discontinuity of God's house. The continuity
is in the recognition that both the people of the old and
new covenants were God's People, and there was no intent or
need for them to be antagonistic one with the other. The
discontinuity is to be recognized in the provisional nature
of the Mosaic covenant and the completed fulfillment of all
God's promises (cf. II Cor. 1:20) in Jesus Christ,
evidencing the superiority of the new covenant over the old
covenant, and the necessary distinction between the nation
of Israel and the Church of Jesus Christ.
Paul explained to the Jewish Christians
of Jerusalem that they (along with all other Christians in
every age) constituted the new covenant "house" over which
the living Lord Jesus reigns "whose house we are." It is
now made quite evident that "house" is being used
figuratively as a community of people. The "house of God,"
"the temple of God," and "the people of God" can be used
synonymously in the spiritual context of the new covenant.
Christians are "being built up as a spiritual house" (I
Peter 2:5), the "household of God" (I Tim. 3:15; I Peter
4:17), "which is the church of the living God" (I Tim.
3:15). The Gentiles along with the Jews are
"fellow-citizens...of God's household" (Eph. 2:19). "We are
the temple of the living God" (II Cor. 6:16; I Cor. 3:16),
and "the people of God" (I Peter 2:9,10; Titus 2:14). In
this case a house, a temple and people are all figures that
represent receptacles of the personal presence and residence
of God within them.
This was likely a difficult concept to
assimilate for the Jewish Christians to whom Paul wrote. As
ethnic Jews they were part of the household of Israel which
regarded their physical race as Hebrews to be the primary
criteria for being "the people of God," and considered the
"house of God" and the "temple of God" to be primarily a
physical structure in Jerusalem. As Christians who accepted
Jesus as the Messiah, they were now of the "household of
faith", the Church of Jesus Christ, and were the "People of
God" based on a spiritual identification and relationship
with Jesus Christ whereby they were "holy brethren" (3:1),
"sons" (2:10) and "children" (2:13,14) of God. The "temple
of God" and the "house of God" were now to be spiritually
understood as the abiding presence of Christ within them.
This required a radical transformation of perspective, and
Paul wanted his kinsmen in the faith to understand that they
were now in the "better household" of God's People which was
more glorious than that associated with Moses. These people
were being sorely tempted to focus on the physical elements
of Palestine, to fight for the physical preservation of the
Jewish nation, and to fall back in reversion to the
religious practices in the physical structure of the temple
in Jerusalem where they lived. It would have been most
difficult for the Jewish recipients of this letter to choose
the unseen spiritual realities of Christ over the visible
physical phenomena of Judaic religion.
With that in mind, Paul explains the
conditional contingency of remaining a part of the household
of faith: "if we hold fast our confidence and the
boast of hope until the end." The Christian
relationship with Christ is based on the dynamic function of
His life. It is not a statically fixed connection enacted by
a static mental assent. There was the possibility that the
Jerusalem Christians might lapse and revert back to the
Mosaic Law system and the Levitical priesthood still
practiced in the temple there in Jerusalem. Paul was
encouraging them to "hold fast," to persevere and endure, to
accept "the better ground of faithfulness" in Jesus Christ
and to live by the reality of the grace of God (cf. John
1:17), expressed in the faithful manifestation of the life
of the indwelling Lord Jesus. This was not something that
had to be generated out of their own resources and resolve,
however. The grace-dynamic of Christ provides everything
necessary for faithfulness, for as Paul explained to the
Galatians, faithfulness is part of the "fruit of the Spirit"
(Gal. 5:22,23). But, at the same time, these Christians were
responsible to make the choice of faith whereby they would
be receptive to God's activity of grace unto faithfulness.
Only thus could they "hold fast their confidence," by
"drawing near with confidence to the throne of grace, that
they might receive mercy and find grace to help in time of
need" (4:16). In a similar conditional statement that serves
almost as a parallel to this phrase, Paul writes later in
this section telling the Jerusalem Christians that they
"have become partakers of Christ, if they hold fast
the beginning of their assurance (a synonym for confidence)
firm until the end" (3:14). "Do not throw away your
confidence...for you have need of endurance" (10:35), Paul
adds later in the epistle.
Paul encourages the Christians of Judea
to hold fast to their confident assertions of faith in
Christ and to their "boast of hope." Both of these are
verbal expressions of their faith in Jesus Christ. "Let us
hold fast to the confession of our hope" (10:23), Paul
writes later, for "we have laid hold of the hope set before
us, and this hope we have as an anchor of the soul"
(6:18,19). "Christ Jesus is our hope" (I Tim. 1:1), and
Christians should "always be ready to make a defense...to
give an account for the hope that is in them" (I Peter
3:15).
Despite the difficulties and lack of
visible assurance in the "enigma of the interim" between
Jesus' cry of victory (cf. John 19:30) and the final
consummation of that victory, Christians confidently expect
that the sovereign faithfulness of God in Christ will
prevail. Such divine faithfulness is the basis for
consistent Christian faithfulness which remains "firm until
the end", whether that "end" be the end of our lives, the
end of time, the end of the world, or the end of the "last
days" (1:2) in Christ. The Jewish Christians to whom Paul
wrote did not know how it would "end" for them, but Paul
encourages them to persevere in the expression of
faithfulness whatever might happen.
This conditional clause serves as the
transition in Paul's argument from Christ's faithfulness to
the necessary faithfulness of the Christian people to whom
Paul wrote. The remaining verses of this section emphasize
the need for the readers to evidence a better faithfulness
than that exhibited by the followers of Moses, having the
"better ground of faithfulness" in Christ Jesus.
3:7 "Therefore,"
to relate the faithfulness of Moses and Christ to the needed
faithfulness of the readers, Paul leads into an extended
quotation of Psalm 95:7-11 by writing, "just as the
Holy Spirit says,..." Attributing Scripture to the
Holy Spirit (cf. 10:15), though the psalm was penned by
David, Paul evidences his belief that the Old Testament
Scriptures were divinely inspired (cf. II Tim. 3:16; II
Peter 1:20,21), divinely authoritative, and continuously
contemporarily applicable.
This quotation of Psalm 95:7-11 is again
from the Greek translation of the Septuagint (LXX).
The importance of the words of this quotation for
application in the lives of the Jerusalem saints is evident
in Paul's repeated quoting of the text (3:13,15; 4:3,5,7)
and the fact that it serves as the foundation of his
argument all the way through the next section (4:1-13).
The psalmist, David, was encouraging his
own generation to faithfulness by referring to a previous
historical occasion when the Israelite people led by Moses
in the wilderness failed to be receptive to God's direction
and action. "TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE,"
David wrote, you should learn from the negative example (cf.
I Cor. 10:6,11) of your forefathers. When God's people hear
God's voice, however expressed, they should be receptive to
what God wants to do. That was David's emphasis to his
generation, and that was Paul's application of this text for
the first-century Christians of Jerusalem.
3:8 "DO NOT HARDEN YOUR
HEARTS AS WHEN THEY PROVOKED ME, AS IN THE DAY OF TRIAL IN
THE WILDERNESS,..." David and Paul wanted their
kinsmen to have open hearts that were receptive to God's
action in their lives, individually and collectively. They
were not to "turn a deaf ear," refuse to hear God's
direction, and develop a fixed attitude of rebellious
disobedience, "as when they (previous Israelites) provoked"
God. Who are the "they" that David referred to in this
psalm, and what is the particular occasion to which he
referred? Was he referring to Moses and Aaron and the
provocation when Moses struck the rock twice at Meribah
toward the end of the forty year wilderness wandering and
Moses and Aaron were disallowed from entering Canaan
(Numbers 20:1-13)? Or was David referring to "they," the
Israelite people, and their rebellious quarrel with God
about the need for water early in the wilderness journey
prior to the giving of the ten commandments (Exodus 17:1-7)?
Or does "they" refer to the people of Israel in the incident
of their rebellion against God when ten of the twelve spies
who surveyed Canaan gave a negative report of their likely
success, and God responded by declaring that they would
spend forty years wandering in the wilderness during which
time the entire generation would die and only Caleb and
Joshua would enter the land (Numbers 13:1 14:45)?
The traditional rabbinic interpretation
of the Hebrew text of Psalm 95:7-11 understood David's words
to refer to the historical occasion in Exodus 17:1-7 when
the people of Israel demanded water, and in obedience to God
Moses struck the rock to produce water, but Moses named the
place Meribah (Hebrew for "quarrel") and Massah (Hebrew for
"test"). The Hebrew text of Psalm 95:8 is usually
translated, "Do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah, as in
the day of Massah in the wilderness." The Greek translation
of the Old Testament (translated in the third century B.C.
by 70 (LXX) Jewish elders in Alexandria, Egypt),
however, translated these words with their generic meanings,
rather than as place names, and it is the Septuagint that is
quoted in this epistle to the Hebrews. Utilizing the Greek
text of this epistle that has been preserved, it seems
preferable to allow the words of this quotation to refer to
the narrative recorded in Numbers 13 and 14. If this be the
case, then we can observe the logical progression of Paul's
thought from the allusion to Numbers 12:7 in 3:3,5 to
Numbers 13 and 14 in the remainder of the chapter.
The Israelites who followed Moses in the
exodus from Egypt "hardened their hearts," rebelling against
the Lord (Numb. 14:9) and blaming God for their plight
(Numb. 14:3,27). They "provoked God" by their grumbling and
complaining (Numb. 14:27) and by their spurning of Him
(Numb. 14:11). They put Him to the test at least ten times
(Numb. 14:22), refusing to "listen to His voice" (3:8; Numb.
14:22).
3:9 The Psalmist explains that
it was there in the wilderness (Numb. 14:2,32,33,35),
"WHERE YOUR FATHERS TRIED (ME) BY TESTING (ME),..."
Their forefathers of a previous generation (1:1) repeatedly
tried and tested God's patience (Numb. 14:22), "AND
SAW MY WORKS FOR FORTY YEARS." As a consequence of
their testing God, they observed God's works for the next
forty years in the wilderness (Numb. 14:33,34). The Hebrew
text, on the other hand, seems to connect the "forty years"
with God's anger in the following phrase, as Paul does later
in 3:17.
3:10 "THEREFORE I WAS
ANGRY WITH THIS GENERATION,..." God, who is "slow to
anger" (Numb. 14:18) was angry and provoked (Numb.
14:12,28-35) with that "evil generation" (Numb. 14:27,35) of
Israelites, "AND SAID, 'THEY ALWAYS GO ASTRAY IN THEIR
HEART; AND THEY DID NOT KNOW MY WAYS';..." That
particular generation of Hebrew people rebelled (Numb. 14:9)
against God in unfaithfulness (Numb. 14:33), iniquity (Numb
14:19) and sin (Numb. 14:40). They did not believe that God
would be faithful to His promises (Numb. 14:3,16), and they
did not know His ways. Though "our ways are not His ways"
(Isa. 55:8) and His ways are unfathomable (Rom. 11:33) to
finite thinking, "His ways are always right" (Hosea 14:9) in
accord with His Divine logic wherein suffering facilitates
sanctification, humiliation leads to exaltation, and tragedy
is often the way to triumph.
3:11 God's response to the
sinful waywardness of the people of the exodus was "AS
I SWORE IN MY WRATH, THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST."
God's character of lovingkindness and forgiveness (Numb
14:18) must, of necessity, be balanced by an intolerance for
sin and iniquity (Numb. 14:18,19,40) which is contrary to
His character. The Divine "Yes" must have its opposite
Divine "No!" The anger and wrath of God are not inconsistent
with His character but are demanded by the absoluteness of
His character, or else God becomes a sloppy sentimental sop.
God was angry (Numb. 14:12, 28-35) with the recalcitrant
Hebrews who found Him faithful enough to get them out of
Egypt, but would not trust Him to get them into Canaan. God
determined that the consequences of their unbelief and
unfaithfulness would be that they would not enter into the
promised land (Numb. 14:23) of "milk and honey" (Numb.
13:27; 14:8), the land of Canaan, the place of rest (cf.
Deut. 3:20;12:9,10). The entire generation of Jewish people,
those twenty years of age and older, would perish in the
wilderness (Numb 14:29-35) during forty years of wandering
(Numb. 14:33,34), with the exception of Caleb and Joshua,
the two spies who believed that God would keep His promises
(Numb. 14:24,38).
3:12 Paul now commences the
application of these quoted verses to his readers in
Jerusalem. "Take care, brethren, lest there should be
in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart,..."
"Look out" and "see to it" that you, the "brethren" of
Christ (2:7,9; 3:1), do not fall into the same pattern of
unfaithful response that was exhibited by your forefathers
of the exodus. A similar warning to avoid the unfaithfulness
of the ancient Hebrews, and to allow their actions to serve
as an example, was written by Paul to the Corinthians (cf. I
Cor. 10:1-13). The possibility obviously existed that the
Jerusalem Christians could develop "an evil, unbelieving
heart," or there would have been no reason for Paul to warn
against such. Given their adverse circumstances, there was
always the temptation to revert to the religion of their
past, to refuse to believe God's promises in Christ, to
rebel against God's apparent inaction, to repudiate God's
victory in Christ, and to reject Jesus as God's singular
self-revelation of life and restoration. Their faith could
turn to "no faith" (the Greek word for "unbelieving" is
apistias meaning "no faith"), unreceptive to God's
continuing grace actions, with a loss of hope that God would
follow through on all that was promised in Christ. No one
was immune from such temptation, as it was possible that
this "could be in any one of you," or even "all" of them as
was the case with the wilderness generation (3:16) in their
unbelieving disobedience.
Such a "going astray in their heart" (cf.
3:10) by developing "an evil, unbelieving heart" is further
explained as "falling away from the living God."
The "drift away" (2:1) from a dynamic relationship of
receptivity to the "living God" could result in apostasy
(the Greek word for "falling away" is apostenai), a
"standing away from" Jesus Christ in rejection. To thus
desert, defect and depart from a vital relationship with
Jesus Christ would have dire consequences, for "it is a
terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God"
(10:31).
3:13 This need not happen if
the Jerusalem Christians would "But encourage one
another day after day..." There was a mutual and
collective responsibility among the Christians of the
Jerusalem community to "encourage one another" in their
faithful expectation of Christ's continuing work. The word
for "encourage" (the Greek word parakaleite) means
"to call alongside in order to comfort, help, counsel,
assist, strengthen, encourage, etc." It is the same root
word used of the Holy Spirit being the Paraclete, the
Comforter, the Helper, the Counselor etc. (John 14:16,26;
15:26; 16:7). As the Holy Spirit functions in Christians as
the Encourager, we recognize that "we are one body,
individually members of one another" (Rom. 12:5), and being
"in Christ" together we have a responsibility to "encourage
one another, and build one another up" (I Thess. 5:11). This
mutual encouragement is one of the primary functions of the
gathering together of Christian people, as Paul will explain
later in this epistle: "Let us consider how to stimulate one
another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our assembling
together,...but encouraging one another" (Heb. 10:24,25).
Paul's encouragement to "encourage one
another day after day" has prompted some to question whether
the Jerusalem Christians were still meeting daily as they
had in the earliest days of the church (cf. Acts 2:46;
5:42). On the other hand, the phrase may simply indicate the
necessity of continuous and repetitive encouragement,
"as long as it is called 'Today,'..." Apparently
emphasizing the word "today" from the quotation made
previously from Psalm 95:7 (cf. 3:7,15), Paul wanted the
Christians of Jerusalem to recognize the present tense
imperative of encouraging one another. "Now is the day of
salvation," Paul wrote to the Corinthians (II Cor. 6:2).
Christians need to encourage one another continuously
throughout the Christian era from the first advent of Jesus
Christ to the second advent of Jesus Christ, as long as the
"day of salvation" remains "Today." The Jerusalem Christians
needed to be reminded of this present perspective of
Christ's saving life, for they were being tempted to seek a
false utopia in the future through the zealotism of
insurrection against Roman authority.
The necessity and purpose of present
encouragement of Christians one to another was "lest
any one of you should be hardened by the deceitfulness of
sin." The possibility existed for "any one of them"
to succumb to the forces that were being brought to bear
against them none were exempt. The passive voice, "should
be hardened," indicated that the Christians were being acted
upon by another who was attempting to solidify them in the
deceitfulness of sin. Who would that be other than the
diabolic deceiver who continually tempts Christians to
behave contrary to who they have become in Christ Jesus?
Similar to what he had written to the Corinthians, Paul is
in essence saying to the Jewish Christians, "I am afraid,
lest as the serpent deceived Eve (cf. Gen. 3:13) by his
craftiness, your minds should be led astray from the
simplicity and purity of Christ" (II Cor. 11:3), and this
often happens as religious agents "disguise themselves as
instruments of righteousness" (II Cor. 11:15). There was
surely a solicitory pressure being placed upon the Jerusalem
Christians to join the religious cause of nationalistic
sentiment in Palestine to refuse to be receptive to God's
promised victory in Christ. Such unbelief was sin, for
"whatever is not of faith is sin" (Rom. 14:23). The sin of
unbelief or unfaithfulness is inevitably evidenced in the
self-concerns of self-aspiration and self-indulgence, and it
might be (as some have suggested) that Paul had received
word of the Christians in Jerusalem engaged in
misrepresentative sinful behavior.
3:14 The only basis of avoiding
such a fall into sin and away from God was by recognizing
that "we have becomes partakers of Christ,..."
Every Christian person has become a partaker, a
participator, a partner of the living Lord Jesus a
"partaker of the divine nature" (II Peter 1:4), a "partaker
of the Holy Spirit" (Heb. 6:4), a "partaker of the heavenly
calling" (Heb. 3:1). We are united with Christ (I Cor.
6:17), indwelt by the Spirit of Christ (Rom. 8:9,16), and
are "joint-heirs with Christ" (Rom. 8:17). As "partakers of
Christ" every Christian has taken Christ into himself so as
to be identified by His name because He is the essence of
their life. "In Christ" every Christian has the sufficient
grace-dynamic of divine strength and activity to overcome
all temptation (Heb. 2:18; II Peter 2:9) and all trials (I
Cor. 10:13; James 1:2-4).
The conditional contingency of our
responsibility (cf. 3:6) of continued faith-receptivity is
expressed in Paul's words, "...if we hold fast the
beginning of our assurance firm until the end." That
which we have in Christ is not a static possession of a
spiritual commodity, but a dynamic relationship with the
living Lord Jesus. Such a dynamic relationship requires a
constancy and consistency of faith from "the beginning" of
our initial receptivity of Jesus Christ "until the end" of
fully realized and unhindered receptivity of all things in
Christ. That is why Paul wrote to the Colossians, "As you
received Christ Jesus (by faith), so walk in Him (by faith)"
(Col. 2:6). There is the ever-continuing necessity of our
receptivity of the dynamic of His life. That is why Paul is
encouraging the Jerusalem Christians to continue and
persevere in the faithful receptivity of God's activity,
"diligent to realize the full assurance of hope until the
end" (6:11). Continued faithfulness of receptivity allows
for a firmness of substantial assurance (cf. 11:1) that we
remain in the dynamic union with Christ "until the end" of
time, the end of the world, the end of the Messianic age,
the end of our lives, or the end objective of all that
Christ desires to be and do in us.
3:15 To reiterate the necessity
of faithful receptivity, Paul repeats a portion of the
quotation from Psalm 95:7,8. The then-present situation of
the Palestinian Christians required a renewed emphasis on
the ever-present need of faithfulness, "while is is
said" (in the Scriptural record of Psalm 95:7,8),
"TODAY, IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE, DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS,
AS WHEN THEY PROVOKED ME." Paul's point seems to be
that , "Today," right now, is the time to listen to God's
voice as He reveals (cf. Phil. 3:15) His attitude and will,
that "the eyes of your heart might be enlightened to know
what is the hope of His calling" (Eph. 1:18), and that you
might respond in the "obedience of faith" (Rom. 1:5; 16:26),
listening under God's instruction in order to be receptive
to what He is doing. Jesus explained that those who follow
Him are like sheep who know and hear the Shepherd's voice
(John 10:1-15). The Christians of Jerusalem needed to keep
listening to the revelatory voice of Jesus, being open and
receptive to His grace guidance and direction, rather than
being solidified, settled and fixed in an attitude of
unbelieving disobedience. Paul did not want the brethren in
Jerusalem to respond like their Jewish forefathers in the
nation of Israel who turned against God in unbelief, blamed
God for their problems, and provoked God in their
disobedience.
3:16 Paul commences a series of
rhetorical questions directed to the Christians in Judea.
The first question (16a) is answered by another question
(16b). The second question (17a) is likewise answered by an
interrogative response (17b). The third question (18a)
contains the answer within an attached phrase (18b) that is
part of the question.
Based on the text of Psalm 95:7-11 which
was quoted earlier (3:7-11,15), and still seeking to apply
these words to the Jerusalem Christians, Paul asks
"For who provoked (Him) when they heard?"
The identity of those who provoked God does not seem to be
the issue in Paul's question. Although some have suggested
that Psalm 95:7-11 referred to Moses and Aaron and the
incident in Numbers 20:1-13, it is generally conceded that
it has reference to the Israelite people in general, and
Paul's interrogative answer certainly reveals that to be his
understanding. But the real question has to do with the
extent of the Hebrew peoples who provoked God. The subject
of the sentence in the Greek text can have two different
meanings depending on where the emphasis is placed in the
word: tínes means "who", whereas tinés means
"some", but there were no inflection marks in the original
manuscripts. The predominant interpretation from the early
church until the eighteenth century was to make the first
question a statement indicating that "some" of the followers
of Moses provoked God, but not all of them (cf. KJV).
Biblical interpretation in the past three centuries has
recognized the series of rhetorical questions being posed by
Paul, with the first question asking, "Who provoked God?"
The answer in the form of a question is,
"Indeed, did not all those who came out of Egypt
through Moses?" The extent of those guilty of
rebelling against God was inclusive of an entire generation
(Numb. 14:27,35) of the Jewish peoples. They rejected God
en masse. There was an almost universal apostasy, with
the exception of Caleb and Joshua, the two spies who
believed God (Numb. 14:26,30,38) and Moses and Aaron who
provoked God in a later incident (Numb. 20:1-13) and were
disallowed to enter the promised land. These people of the
exodus were a privileged people, delivered out of the
slavery of Egypt, having observed the supernatural works of
God on their behalf, and yet they "all" (Numb.
14:1,2,10,22,35,36) acted together in unbelief to provoke
God. Was Paul concerned that the entire community of
Christians in Jerusalem would collectively reject the hope
that was theirs in Jesus Christ? He had already implied that
no one was exempt or immune from such temptation (3:12,13),
and that they all needed to encourage one another.
3:17 The second rhetorical
question is: "And with whom was He (God)
angry for forty years?" Again, the question does not
pertain so much to the identity of those with whom God was
angry and provoked (cf. Numb. 14:12, 28-35) as with the
extent of the Hebrew population affected, and the duration
of the consequences of having to wander in the wilderness
for forty years (Numb. 14:33,34) until every person over
twenty years of age (Numb. 14:29) had died.
Formulating the answer in the form of
another question, Paul asks, "Was it not with those
who sinned, whose corpses fell in the wilderness?"
The overwhelming majority of the People of Israel, almost
everyone (with but a few exceptions), had sinned (Numb.
14:18,19,40) against God through unbelief (Numb. 14:11) and
unfaithfulness (Numb. 14:33). In accord with God's decree
their corpses fell in the wilderness (Numb. 14:23,29,32) as
they were forced to wander for forty years. Jude confirms
this when he writes, "The Lord, after saving a people out of
the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not
believe" (Jude 5).
3:18 In Paul's third rhetorical
question the answer is contained in the question. "And
to whom did He (God) swear that they should
not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient?"
Again, it was all of the people of Israel who were
disobedient (Numb. 14:22,43), failing to believe that God
could or would do as He promised. God declared that the
whole lot of them would be excluded from "entering His
rest," which for them meant the promised land (Numb.
14:30,40) of Canaan or Palestine where they could rest from
their imposed slavery in Egypt and cease from the exodus
wanderings.
These questions were all asked of the
readers, the Jerusalem Christians, to allow them to
understand the analogical application that Paul was making
from their forebears, and the incidents recorded in Psalm
95:7-11 and Numbers 13:114:45. Paul wanted the Jerusalem
Christians to avoid the unfaithfulness and the dire
consequences incurred from such. He wanted them to learn
from the Israelite's negative example (I Cor. 10:6,10), and
to refrain from following the same course of action in
disobedience. Paul wanted them to know that God's "rest" was
not going to be found in a restoration of nationalist
governance in Palestine, but could only be found as a
spiritual reality in Jesus Christ (which he would further
explain as the theme of the next section of the epistle in
4:1-11).
3:19 "Learn from their
mistakes," Paul seems to be saying. "And we see that
they were not able to enter because of unbelief." We
can observe the obvious," Paul explains. "They (all of them)
were not able to enter into God's purposed intent for them
because of unbelief." There are consequences for
unfaithfulness, for as Paul had written earlier, "every
transgression and disobedience received a just recompense"
(2:2). The offending Israelites were excluded from the land
of promise they sought, and that despite their best efforts
to overcome God's decree and enter the land (Numb.
14:39-45), which only resulted in the immediate destruction
of many of them. They could not reverse their course after
apostasy. Was Paul warning the Christians of Jerusalem that
if they responded in unbelief, deserted Christ, and reverted
to Judaism, that they, too, would find the consequences to
be final, fatal and fixed (cf. Heb. 6:4-8; 10:26-31;
12:16,17), with no possibility of reversal?
Concluding Remarks
Failing to learn the lessons of history,
people often unnecessarily repeat their failures. Paul's
concern was that the brethren who were his Jewish kinsmen in
Jerusalem would learn from the negative example of a
previous generation of their own people. In his previous
letter to the Corinthians Paul had written,
"For I do not want you to be unaware,
brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and
all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into
Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same
spiritual food; and all drank the same spiritual drink,
for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which
followed them; and the rock was Christ. Nevertheless,
with most of them God was not well-pleased; for they
were laid low in the wilderness. Now these things
happened as examples for us, that we should not crave
evil things, as they also craved. And do not be
idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written, 'THE
PEOPLE SAT DOWN TO EAT AND DRINK, AND STOOD UP TO PLAY.'
Nor let us act immorally, as some of them did, and
twenty-three thousand fell in one day. Nor let us try
the Lord, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the
serpents. Nor grumble, as some of them did, and were
destroyed by the destroyer. Now these things happened to
them as an example, and they were written for our
instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.
Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he
fall." (I Corinthians 10:1-12)
The pilgrimage of living in faithful
relationship with God is seldom easy. It was not easy for
the Israelites as they wandered in the wilderness. It was
not easy for the Judean Christians in the middle of the
seventh decade of the first century. It is not easy for
Christians in their varied circumstances in the twenty-first
century. Engaged in the daily routine of living, it is often
difficult to see what God is doing. All of the "appearances"
around us may point to a reasonable human course of action,
a logical alternative to faith. There is always the peril of
losing sight of and disregarding the promises of God to act
on our behalf. As Christians, living in the "enigma of the
interim" between Christ's declared victory (cf. John 19:30)
and the promised consummation of that victory, there is
always the need to "hear His voice" (3:7,15) of revelation
and "listen under" (the Greek word for obedience is
hupakouo, meaning "to listen under") in the "obedience
of faith" (Rom. 1:5; 16:26), persevering and enduring in
continued receptivity of the promised activity of God in
Christ.
Our dynamic relationship of deriving life
from Christ is conditioned by the contingency of our
continued faith and pattern of faithfulness. That is why
Paul explains that we are part of the household of faith "if
we hold fast our confidence and the boast of our hope firm
until the end" (3:6). We are partakers of Christ, "if
we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the
end" (3:14). His warnings against doing otherwise are "lest
there should be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving
heart, in falling away from the living God" (3:12), and "lest
any one of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin"
(3:13). F. F. Bruce remarks on these conditional clauses:
"Nowhere in the New Testament more
than here (Hebrews) do we find such repeated insistence
that continuance in the Christian life is the test of
reality. The doctrine of the final perseverance of the
saints has as its corollary the salutary teaching that
the saints are people who persevere to the end."1
The condition of persevering faith should
not be viewed as "works" of performance that merit God's
action or require God to act in certain ways. God's actions
are not contingent on what man does. The only condition of
responsibility that man has is to exercise the freedom of
choice that God created us with, choosing and deciding to be
receptive to God's activity in faith. God does not impose
Himself upon us. A faith-love relationship with God cannot
(by definition) be coerced. Christians, having initially
been receptive in faith to Christ's performance on their
behalf, and having experienced the blessing of Christ's
presence and activity, still have freedom of choice and the
responsibility to exercise such in receptivity to Christ's
activity. "As you received Christ Jesus, so walk in Him"
(Col. 2:6) in faith and continued faithfulness. The
failure and refusal to continue to be receptive to God's
activity in faith puts us in jeopardy of final, fixed and
fatal consequences of "standing against" God in apostasy.
The avoidance of such consequences, as
were previewed in God's actions against the People of Israel
in the wilderness, is what Paul was cautioning his readers
about. The way to avoid such consequences is to avoid the
Israelites' pattern of faithlessness. The means by which
Christians can do so is to recognize and rely on the "better
ground of faithfulness" in Jesus Christ. The faithfulness of
Jesus (3:2,6) in accomplishing all that God wanted to do
through Him in establishing the new covenant, being
faithfully "obedient unto death, even death on a cross"
(Phil. 2:8), allowed for a more glorious (cf. 3:3) reality
than was ever available through Moses. By the resurrection
of Jesus from the dead the grace-dynamic of God's divine
activity is available to those who are receptive to Him.
Christians, who are "partakers of Christ" (3:14) and
"partakers of the heavenly calling" (3:1), have "all things
pertaining to life and godliness" as "partakers of the
divine nature" (II Peter 1:3,4), and thus have the "better
ground of faithfulness" in God's dynamic provision of grace,
as they remain receptive to such in faith.
FOOTNOTE
1
Bruce, F.F., The Epistle to the Hebrews.
Series: The New International Commentary on the New
Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1964. pg.
59.
JESUS: THE
BETTER REST OF GOD
Paul continues to draw application from
the Davidic text in Psalm 95:7 to the Christians residing in
Jerusalem in the middle of the seventh decade of the first
century (somewhere around 65 AD). Hebrews 3:1 through 4:13
is a cohesive section of Paul's argument in this epistle,
but we have divided our comments into two chapters to note
the differing emphases in the two subdivisions of this
section.
Having noted "the better ground of
faithfulness" (3:1-19) in Jesus Christ, Paul now keys off of
the idea of "rest" in Psalm 95:11 (cf. 3:11,18,19). The
Hebrew participants of the Exodus were anticipating a "rest"
from the oppressive tyranny of the Egyptians and
subsequently from the wearying wanderings in the wilderness.
The "rest" they sought was in a geographic location, a
"resting place" (Deut. 12:9) in a land beyond the Jordan
river (cf. Deut. 3:20; 12:10), a "promised land" (cf. Numb.
14:40; Deut. 9:28) which God had promised as an inheritance
wherein they could "rest" from their enemies and live
securely (Deut. 12:9,10). For the Exodus generation the
concept of "rest" was to be achieved by entering into the
land of Canaan or Palestine. "But they were not able to
enter because of unbelief" (3:19). So after a delay of forty
years due to the faithless disobedience of the generation
that left Egypt, the next generation of the Jewish nation
did enter into the Promised land under the leadership of
Joshua (cf. Joshua 3). The promise of God to the Jewish
peoples for a physical form of "rest" was then fulfilled.
"The Lord gave Israel all the land He
had sworn to give to their fathers, and they possessed
it and lived in it. And the Lord God gave them rest on
every side, according to all that He had sworn to their
fathers, and no one of their enemies stood before them;
the Lord gave all their enemies into their hand. Not one
of the good promises which the Lord had made to the
house of Israel failed; all came to pass" (Joshua
21:43-45).
Even though "the Lord had given rest to
Israel" (cf. Joshua 23:1), there was still the continued
conditional need for a faithfulness on the part of the
Israelites (Joshua 22:4,5; 23:6) in order to enjoy and
appreciate God's "rest" in the land of promise.
Long after the Jewish nation had entered
into the promised land of rest under the leadership of
Joshua, the psalmist David continued to refer to God's
"rest" (Psalm 95:11). Paul infers (4:8) that such a
reference indicated that there was still a divine "rest"
beyond the possession of the Palestinian land. This was
consistent with the Jewish Messianic expectations of an
eschatological "rest" to be inaugurated by the Messianic
deliverer, which usually retained the physical expectation
of such "rest" in a self-governed nation of Israel in the
land of Palestine.
The radical new understanding of Paul's
conception of God's promised "rest" was that it was a
spiritual fulfillment in the Person of Jesus Christ, rather
than a particular physical and geographical land placement
and ethnic nation. Paul regarded the "promised land rest"
sought by the Hebrews in the Exodus to be but a pictorial
prefiguring of the function of God's spiritual "rest" in
Jesus Christ (4:3) in the new covenant. Since Jesus is "the
heir of all things" (1:2), those who are "in Christ" are
"joint-heirs with Christ" (Rom. 8:17) of all the promises of
God (II Cor. 1:20), including the promise of entering God's
"rest".
Once again, the connections that Paul
makes in his argument are based upon his use of the Greek
translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint (LXX).
Paul ties together the "rest" mentioned by David in Psalm
95:11 and the previous mention of God's "resting" on the
seventh day of creation in Genesis 2:2. In the Hebrew text
of the Old Testament Genesis 2:2 uses the Hebrew word
shabbath, meaning "to cease, desist, or rest." David's
reference to "rest" in Psalm 95:11 uses the Hebrew word
menuhah, meaning "resting place." These were such
distinctly different Hebrew words and concepts that they
would not likely be drawn together to support a common
argument. But in the Greek translation (LXX) of the
Old Testament, Genesis 2:2 uses the Greek word katapause,
and Psalm 95:11 uses the Greek word katapausin, both
words being from the same root word, meaning "to cease or
refrain from" with the extended meaning of "rest." This
allowed Paul to bring them together and merge the concepts
of "rest" in order to explain that Jesus is the "better rest
of God" for Christian people, the Sabbath rest (4:9) as well
as the promised place of rest.
The historical context that precipitated
Paul's epistle was such that Paul's emphasis on "rest"
likely countered a contemporary prevailing emphasis on
"rest" in the Judean region where the recipients of this
letter resided. Consistent with the historical accounts of
the Israelites in the wilderness seeking "rest" from the
oppressive Egyptians and other enemy nations, the zealots of
Palestine in the first century were advocating that the
Jewish peoples needed to seek "rest" from oppressive Roman
rule by revolting against this occupying enemy of God's
people. This was integrated, of course, with the long-held
eschatological expectation of a Messianic "rest" wherein the
Jewish people who regarded themselves as "God's chosen
people" would occupy their "promised land" of "rest" as a
self-governing nation once again.
The Jewish Christians in the church at
Jerusalem had accepted Jesus as the promised Messiah, but
they were repeatedly caused to question whether the expected
Messianic "rest" was being realized in their experience. The
physical forms of such "rest", as understood historically by
their forefathers, were obviously not materializing. Their
Jewish kinsmen were constantly pressuring them to expect the
traditional understanding of "rest" rather than some
ethereal concept of spiritual "rest" in Jesus Christ.
Perhaps they were having reservations about whether the
Messianic expectations were really fulfilled in Jesus, and
were being tempted to revert back to tangible and physical
Jewish expectations of national and religious "rest". What a
tempting prospect that would have been, to join the
insurrection against Roman rule in hopes of effecting a
renewed Jewish kingdom in that geographic place of Palestine
that had been promised to their forefathers of previous
generations as a "land of rest," and to thereby also protect
their Jewish religious worship practices on the Sabbath "day
of rest," patterned as it was on God's resting on the
seventh day of creation.
Understanding the Jewish mindset (being
of Jewish heritage himself), Paul could sympathize with the
struggle the Jerusalem Christians were confronted with.
Perhaps he had also been appraised of their difficulties by
someone who had recently visited the Jerusalem church. Paul
writes to his "brethren" (both physical and spiritual), to
explain that the risen and living Lord Jesus is the basis of
"the better rest of God." The better rest of God is not to
be sought in a restoration of a physical "place of rest" in
Palestine, nor is it to be found in religious rituals on a
particular Sabbath "day of rest." Paul's premise is that the
spiritual reality of the presence and function of the Spirit
of Christ in the Christian allows for the divine dynamic of
God's grace to function in the Christian's life, and thus
allows the Christian to "rest" from all performance efforts
to seek God's approval, and thereby to enjoy God's creative,
redemptive and restorative action.
The "better rest of God" in Jesus Christ
is the fulfillment of the prototypical creation story, for
now in the spiritual "new creation" (Gal. 6:15) of the Body
of Christ, the new "Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16), God "rests"
after having done everything necessary to create "new
creatures in Christ" (cf. II Cor. 5:17) by the regenesis of
spiritual regeneration. In the resultant new creation
Sabbath rest (4:9) God's sustaining grace continues to
function, allowing all of His new creation to enjoy all that
He has done and is doing in His Son, Jesus Christ. Jesus
also serves as the fulfillment of the new Exodus, for Jesus
has delivered people from the slavery of sin to the new
place of rest "in Christ." This was God's spiritual intent
for His People from "before the foundation of the world"
(4:3), and the physical genesis of creation and historical
exodus were typological prefigurings of what God determined
to enact in Jesus Christ and those united with Him as
Christians.
When the Spirit of Christ dwells and
abides in Christians, the place of God's "rest" is within
us. In his defense before the Jewish high priest, Stephen
explained that "the Most High does not dwell in houses made
with hands" (Acts 7:48), and quoted God's statement from
Isaiah 66:1: "'Heaven is My throne, and earth is the
footstool of My feet; What kind of house will you build for
Me?' says the Lord; 'Or what place is there for My rest
(Greek katapauseos)?'" (Acts 7:49). The place of
God's "rest" is in His new creation people, in the
"household" that Jesus Christ has built (3:6), in the church
of the living God, in Christian people. Having "Christ in
us, the hope of glory" (Col. 1:27), God "rests" in the
temple house (I Cor. 3:16; 6:19; II Cor. 5:1; 6:16) of our
individual bodies and the collective Body of the Church,
expressing His own character in Christians' behavior by His
grace, and enjoying the results of His new creation.
Christians, who have experienced God's spiritual knife in
the cutting off of sin in "the circumcision of the heart"
(Rom. 2:28,29), continue to experience Christ's penetrating
work as He exposes the subtle differences between religious
performance and the inner "rest" of relying on God's grace.
Paul's desire for the Jerusalem Christians was that they
recognize "the better rest of God" and cease from their
"works" as God has rested from His works (4:10), which would
entail refraining from all nationalistic endeavors and
avoiding all religious performance in order to enjoy the
continuing grace-work of God in Jesus Christ.
4:1 - In light of the failure and
exclusion of the initial Exodus generation from the promised
land of God's rest, Paul wrote, "Therefore, let us
fear lest, while a promise remains to enter into His rest,
any one of you should appear to have failed to obtain it."
Writing with a sense of urgency, Paul explained to the
Jerusalem Christians that God's promise remains open and
available to enter His rest. God's "rest" was not revoked
when the older Exodus generation rejected such in unbelief
(3:19). The next generation (Numb. 14:31) entered the land
of rest with Joshua (Josh. 3). The promise of God's "rest"
remained open in David's day (4:7), and continued in
subsequent generations to be expected in the reign of the
Messianic deliverer. Since the ultimate fulfillment of all
of God's promises is in Jesus Christ (II Cor. 1:20), Paul
explained to the Christians of Jerusalem that God's promised
"rest" remained available only in Jesus. Since Jesus is the
"heir of all God's promises" (1:2), those who are "in Him"
as Christians are heirs of all God's promises (6:12; 9:15;
10:36; 11:39,40). The Christians in Jerusalem still had the
opportunity to enter into the experiential efficacy of God's
dynamic activity of grace, and "rest" in His sufficiency
rather than trying to perform for God and make things happen
for God. They were doubtless being encouraged by their
Jewish relatives there in Judea to join the action of revolt
against Rome in order to effect a utopian dream of restful
self-rule in Palestine. Such striving performance that
fought to acquire "rest" was contrary to the spiritual
"rest" that Paul was advising them was already available in
Jesus Christ.
Identifying himself with his readers,
Paul wrote, "Let us fear lest any one of you should appear
to have failed to obtain it." Doesn't "perfect love cast out
fear" (I John 4:18)? Yes, the action of the God who is
perfect love (I John 4:8,16) does overcome all human fears,
but that does not negate a healthy fear-respect for God (II
Cor. 7:1; Col. 3:22; I Pet. 2:17) and the divine
consequences of unbelief (2:2,3; 3:12,13), nor genuine
Christian fear-concern that our Christian brethren might
miss the availability of the abundance of God's grace (cf.
Eph. 3:20) and the opportunity to "rest" in His sufficiency
(cf. II Cor. 3:5). The possibility of such failure obviously
existed or there would not have been any cause for fearful
concern about "coming short of the grace of God" (12:15).
Paul was concerned that each individual Christian in the
Jerusalem church ("any one of you" - cf. 3:12), should fail
to enter God's grace-rest. The concern was not that these
Christians might "seem" or "appear" to miss the opportunity
of God's rest in some apparently delusionary misconception,
but that it might be evidenced in the manifested appearances
of their behavior that they were engaged in religious
self-effort rather than relying on God's grace. Did it
appear to Paul that the Jerusalem Christians were in danger
of coming short of God's rest? In that the temptation of
religious activism always opposes the availability of God's
"rest", and the Christians in Jerusalem were tempted to
engage in such activism to implement nationalistic and
religious interests, then it is likely that Paul considered
them in danger of failing to enter into God's "rest". Coming
short of, or failing to obtain, God's "rest" is always a
result of faithlessness, unbelief (3:12,19; 4:2), and
unwillingness to be receptive to God's activity in
accomplishing His objectives in His way.
4:2 - To further explain the
danger and peril of failing to be receptive in faith to
God's "rest", Paul wrote, "For indeed we are those
having had good news presented to us, just as they also
did,..." Paul and the Jerusalem Christians to whom
he wrote had the good news of God's promised grace-rest
presented to them. The "good news" of the gospel is the
Person of Jesus Christ, the living dynamic of His
resurrection life which allows the grace-rest of God to be
operative in Christian lives. The "good news" they received
was not just historical data or doctrinal interpretations,
but was the vital dynamic of the life of the risen Jesus who
provides all the performance necessary for the Christian
life, allowing them to "rest" in His grace-action.
There is a shared root of words in the
Greek text that is not apparent in the English translation.
The word "promise" in verse 1 is epangelias, and the
word for "good news preached to us" in verse 2 is
euangelismenoi, both employing the Greek word angelia,
meaning "message." The message of God's promised "rest" was
presented to the Exodus generation of Israelites as well as
to Paul and his readers. This does not mean that the Hebrews
who exited Egypt were evangelized with the gospel of Jesus
as Paul and the Jerusalem Christians were. Paul's statement
here is not equivalent to Paul's statement to the Galatians
that "the gospel was preached beforehand to Abraham" (Gal.
3:8), so that Abraham could recognize that the promises made
to him pertained to all that God was going to make available
in Jesus Christ by faith. Paul's words in this verse simply
mean that the initial Exodus generation was presented with
the good news of a promised "rest" in the land of Canaan
when Joshua and Caleb returned from their surveillance of
the land (Numb. 13:30; 14:7-9). Paul and his fellow Jewish
Christians in Jerusalem were similarly presented with the
good news of God's promised "rest", but the difference was
that this spiritual "rest" was in Jesus Christ alone,
wherein the "finished work" of Christ's redemptive
performance allowed for the sanctifying performance of the
indwelling Spirit of Christ in Christian behavior.
There was a similarity in the Exodus
Israelites and the Jerusalem Christians in that both groups
were presented with the good news of a promised "rest," but
there was a dissimilarity in the content of that "rest"
between a geographical land and the spiritual function of
God's grace. Paul's concern was that there should not be a
similarity in the way that these old covenant and new
covenant Peoples of God responded to the good news of
promised "rest." Contrasting the Israelites response with
what he was advocating for the Jerusalem Christians, Paul
wrote, "but the word they heard did not benefit them,
because it was not connected with faith in those having
heard." Those Hebrews who departed Egypt with Moses
heard God's message of a promised "rest" in Canaan, but they
never benefitted or realized the advantage of that promise
because they were unwilling to connect or unite with God's
promise in the receptivity of faith. It was a useless and
futile promise to them because they cut themselves off from
God's action through unreceptive disobedience. "Whatever is
not of faith is sin" (Rom. 14:23). The conditional
contingency for receiving all that God has available in His
Son, Jesus Christ, is the receptivity of faith that is
available to God's action. This theme of the responsibility
of faith is repeated throughout this epistle as the Greek
words for faith, pistis and its derivatives, are
employed at least thirty-nine (39) times.
It should be noted that the final phrase
of verse 2 has been translated by some, "because they did
not share the faith of those who heard," indicating that the
faithless wilderness generation did not share the faith of
Joshua and Caleb, who listened to and were receptive to
God's promised action of "rest." This interpretation is not
the most accurate translation of the Greek text and not
likely to have been Paul's intent when he wrote.
4:3 - They, the rebellious Hebrews
in the wilderness, did not connect with God's promised
"rest" by faith (4:2) and did not enter because of unbelief
(3:19), but in contrast, "we," Paul and the Jerusalem
Christians, can enter God's new covenant "rest" by faith.
"For we, those having believed, can enter into rest."
"Those having believed" are Christians who "have been saved
by grace through faith" (Eph. 2:8). Their initial
receptivity of faith to Christ's redemptive work allows them
to enter into the continued grace performance of Christ's
life and to cease from repetitive religious performance.
This "rest" is not an externalized objective place of "rest"
outside of ourselves, but is the subjective experience of
resting from self-effort by receiving God's activity. This
is not a place of "rest" entered once and for all wherein we
are statically confined, but is a dynamic "rest" to be
constantly realized by "holding fast" (3:6,14) in the
condition of faithful receptivity. This is not a place of
"rest" in heaven in the future, but is the present process
and experience of being receptive to God's grace. This
present experience of "rest" is available to all Christians.
"For we, those having believed, can enter into rest."
In contrast, "just as He has said,
'AS I SWORE IN MY WRATH, THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST.'..."
Whereas Christians have the opportunity to enter God's
"rest" in Christ, God declared that the faithless grumblers
of the wilderness could not, and would not be given the
opportunity to, enter His "rest" in the land of Canaan. The
way into God's grace-rest remains open to Christians, but
the threat of exclusion based on unreceptiveness still
remains, as illustrated in the faithlessness of the
unbelieving Hebrews who serve as the example not to be
followed (4:11; I Cor. 10:1-13).
Although God banned the initial
generation of Exodus Hebrews from the land of "rest" in
Canaan, Paul wanted to explain that God's "rest" was not to
be statically historicized only as the entry of the
Israelites into Canaan at the time of the Exodus. "And
yet," Paul breaks his train of thought with yet
another contrast, "the works" (of God)
"had been brought into being from the foundation of the
world." The dynamic working of God that allows man
to rest in God's working was effectively implemented from
the founding and creation of the cosmos, and from the point
of humanity being brought into being in the Genesis. God's
works, His intent and willingness to do all the necessary
energizing and performing within His creation, were
established and available from the beginning of the created
order. Man was created, not as a self-generative actuator,
but as a receptive vessel, a contingent, dependent, and
derivative creature, who would derive character and action
from God. The divine generation and working of all things
that would bring glory to Himself within His creation was
actuated from the commencement of creation, thus allowing
humanity to "rest" in God's activity by receptivity. In
other words, God's "rest" for mankind is not a reality
initiated at the time of the Exodus, but was brought into
being in the Genesis of all created things.
Various misunderstandings result from
mistranslating the verb in this phrase. The Greek word used
here is ginomai, which is the root of the word
genesis, meaning "to bring into being." When this verb
is translated and interpreted as "finished" (KJV, RSV, NASB,
NIV), as if it were the Greek word teleo, derived
from telos, then interpreters often mistakenly
indicate that the "finished work" of Christ (cf. John 19:30
- tetelestai) was completed from the inception of the
cosmos, or even before the foundation of the world. Such
interpreters often cite Revelation 13:8 as a parallel text,
and if they are using the KJV translation mistakenly
indicate that "the Lamb was slain before the foundation of
the world" (Rev. 13:8 - KJV). Jesus' function as the
sacrificial lamb "was foreknown before the foundation of the
world" (I Pet. 1:20), and God's foreknowledge allowed the
names of receptive believers to be written in the book of
life before the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8), but we
must beware of mystical interpretations that project God's
redemptive work outside of space and time, thus
dehistoricizing God's work in Christ and making the
historical passion of Christ into a redundant exercise.
4:4 - The recognition that God's
"rest" was available to man from the creation of the world
when God's working in His creation was "brought into being",
allows Paul to make a mental connection with God's "rest"
from His creative work. "For He has said somewhere
concerning the seventh day, thus:" Again, as in 2:6,
it is not that Paul had forgotten the reference of the verse
he was quoting from Genesis 2:2. This was a common indirect
way of referring to a well-known text. "God has said
somewhere (and we all know where)..."
Continuing his documentation of the
preexistence of God's "rest" prior to the Exodus, Paul
quotes Genesis 2:2: "AND GOD RESTED ON THE SEVENTH DAY
FROM ALL HIS WORKS;..." As usual throughout this
epistle, Paul's quotation of the Old Testament text is from
the Greek translation of the Septuagint (LXX). This
allowed him to connect the idea of "rest" in Genesis 2:2 to
the mention of "rest" in Psalm 95:11, for in the Septuagint
the Greek word for "rest" in Genesis 2:2 is katapause
and the Greek word for "rest" in Psalm 95:11 is
katapausin, both derived from the same root word meaning
"to cease or refrain from," often in the sense of "rest"
from working. Had Paul been using the Hebrew text, the word
shabbath in Genesis 2:2 (meaning "to cease or
desist") and the word menuhah in Psalm 95:11 (meaning
"resting place") would not have allowed for such a
convenient connection, as they had very different
connotations. Paul's objective in using the word connection
of the Septuagint translation was to explain how God's
"rest" pre-dates the pictorial land provision of the Exodus,
and has been God's intent from the very beginning of man's
existence.
Why did God cease from His creative work
and "rest" on the seventh day of creation? It was not
because He was exhausted or worn-out, because God "does not
become weary or tired" (Isa. 40:28). It was not because
there was nothing else to do and God ceased working to
become quiescent or inactive, for God "is working until now"
(John 5:17) and His very Being requires active expression in
sustenance, providence, grace, intercession, judgment, etc.
within His creation. God's Being and action can never be
separated or detached, for His Being is always expressed in
consistent action, and His action is always expressive of
His invested Being. This is why the deistic concept of God's
creating all things and then passively detaching Himself
from that creation to watch it function reduces God to an
abstracted and impotent deity-figure. God rested from His
creation work because He wanted to allow creation to
function as intended by the dynamic of His working within
it, and thus to allow the created order to "rest" in His
expression of His Being within it. God looked down upon His
creation after He created mankind, and said, "It is very
good" (Gen. 1:31). Since God alone is good (Matt. 19:17; Mk.
10:18; Lk. 18:19), the creation can only be "very good" if
God is functioning within His creation expressing His
all-glorious character of goodness unto His own glory (Ps.
19:1). This is the raison d'etre of mankind; we were
"created for His glory" (Isa. 43:7), and He can only be
glorified as we "rest" in the receptivity of His active
expression of His character. God "rested" on the seventh day
of creation so He could enjoy the function of His creation
and allow mankind to enjoy the creation with Him by
"resting" in the divine dynamic and sufficiency of His
continued working.
It was the shabbath "rest" of God
mentioned in Genesis 2:2 that was the stated basis of the
Jewish Sabbath celebration on the seventh day of each week,
as explained when God gave the ten commandments on Sinai
(Exod. 20:8-11). The seventh day Sabbath was intended to be
a day when God's people would cease from their labors in
order to enjoy God's working in celebration and praise.
Unfortunately the Sabbath day observance in Judaic religion
became loaded with legalistic limitations of what could and
could not be performed on Saturday, and the intended
function of the Sabbath was seldom realized. Paul will
explain the spiritual fulfillment of the seventh day Sabbath
when he refers to the new covenant "Sabbath rest" in verse
9.
4:5 - Reiterating the connection
he was making between Genesis 2:2 and Psalm 95:11 to explain
that the "rest" of God was always God's intent for man, Paul
repeats (cf. 3:11,18,19; 4:3) the quotation from Psalm
95:11: "...and again in this (place, passage,
text), 'THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST'." The
failure of the followers of Moses to enter into the Canaan
land of "rest" was due to their own unbelief (3:12,19; 4:2);
they were culpable for their inexorable incredulity and
inflexible iniquity. But God's promise of "rest" for His
People would not be thwarted (cf. Job 42:2). God allowed the
next generation of Israelites to enter the land, even though
they seldom found the "rest" that could have been theirs in
the land because of their continued faithlessness. David
still believed in the promised "rest" many generations later
when he wrote the Psalms (this will be Paul's subsequent
argument in verse 7 and 8). God's promised "rest" could not
be defeated! He continued to act on man's behalf to provide
the "rest" that could only be fully realized in the dynamic
grace function of His Son, Jesus Christ, when man was
restored to function as God intended by His indwelling
presence and activity in man. It has been noted that when
God "rested" on the seventh day of creation there was no
"evening" to the seventh day, as there was on all previous
days of creation (Gen. 1:5,8,13,19,23,31), perhaps implying
that the day of God's "rest" is eternal, without end, and
never to be nullified. That eternal "rest" of God is
available in Jesus Christ, who said, "Come to Me, all who
are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My
yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble
in heart; and YOU SHALL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS." (Matt.
11:28,29; cf. Jere. 6:16).
4:6 - "Since" God's
rest was available and accessible prior to and subsequent to
the Exodus generation "therefore it remains for some
to enter into it." God's promised "rest" will not
lack for fulfillment. it remains open and available for
God's People (4:1). Paul's statement that it remains
available for "some" to enter into such rest does not
constitute an arbitrary divine delimitation of the privilege
of God's rest. Rather, it takes into account that God's rest
is conditioned and contingent upon a Christian's receptivity
of faith to allow God to act, and realistically recognizes
that not all of God's people are willing to receive His
grace-provision in order to enjoy His rest.
"And" a case in point of
such refusal is that "those previously having had good
news presented to them did not enter in (to God's
rest) because of disobedience." The faithless
generation at Kadesh had the good news (4: 2) of a promised
land of rest presented to them by Moses (Exod. 13:5) and by
Joshua and Caleb (Numb. 13:30; 14:6-9), but they forfeited
their opportunity to enter into that provisional portrayal
of divine rest because of their defiant disobedience (3:18;
4:11; cf. Numb. 14:11,12, 21-23). In contrast to the
"obedience of faith" (Rom. 1:5; 16:26) that God desires, the
initial generation of Israelites that departed Egypt
responded in "the disobedience of faithlessness,"
unreceptive to what God promised to do for them, and not
persuaded that God could or would provide what He promised.
It was their choice; they chose not to enter into the land
of promised rest, and God gave them the consequences of
their choices. They had no one to blame but themselves!
4:7 - As it is the ever-persistent
desire of God to make His rest available to man, "He
again delineates some day: 'Today,'..." in which His
rest can be realized. This is not a reference to a certain,
specific or particular day, for Paul notes that the word was
used in David's "day," and Paul is employing the Davidic
text to apply to the Jerusalem Christians of the first
century. These "last days" (1:2) of the Christian era, the
"day of salvation" (II Cor. 6:2; cf. Isa. 49:8), constitute
the continued period of opportunity to experience God's
grace and rest in Jesus Christ. But more specifically for
the Jerusalem Christians to whom he was writing, Paul wanted
to emphasize the ever-present "rest" of the ever-present I
AM, for "right now."
God was "saying through David after
so long a time, as has been said before, 'TODAY IF YOU HEAR
HIS VOICE, DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS.'" The promised
rest was not terminated or withdrawn when the younger
generation of Israelites finally entered Canaan after forty
years of wandering. "After so long a time," the interval
between Moses and David, between the account in Numbers 13
and 14 and the statements of David in Psalm 95:7-11, a
period of approximately 450 years, David could still
encourage his generation to be receptive to God's promise of
rest by listening to God's revelatory voice and refraining
from hardening their hearts. When David wrote these quoted
words (which Paul admits have been previously cited in his
epistle - 3:7,13,15) the people of Israel were already in
the land of Canaan, but they were still being encouraged to
enter into God's rest, evidencing that such rest was not
just the occupation of a particular geographic land parcel,
nor was it limited to a particular time period. God's rest
is still available, Paul is repeatedly explaining to his
readers.
4:8 - Continuing to document his
argument, as all good lawyers do, Paul wrote, "For if
Joshua had provided them rest, He (God, through
David) would not have spoken of another day beyond
that day." The name Iesous is the Greek form
of both Joshua and Jesus, both meaning "Jehovah saves or
delivers." The context of Paul's argument concerning the
historical usage and availability of God's "rest" dictates
that the most likely reference here is to Joshua, just as
the name is translated in Luke 3:29 and Acts 7:45. The
Authorized Version (KJV) translated the name as Jesus,
creating numerous unnecessary interpretive problems.
When Joshua led the next generation into
the promised land of rest across the Jordan river, they
remained a people of bickering unbelief. They had arrived in
the promised physical location of rest (Neh. 21:43-45; Josh.
21:43-45; 22:4,5; 23:1), but they had not found the "rest"
that faithfully derived from God's provision. God's "rest"
was not encompassed merely in residence in a particular
country. One need only consider the period of the Judges and
Kings in Israel's history to observe the unrest that the
Hebrew peoples experienced in Canaan. By the time David
became king of Israel (approximately 400 years after
Joshua), he was still speaking for God of an available
"rest" that required the receptivity of "hearing His voice"
and the availability that refrained from "hardening their
hearts" in self-determined actions. That continued promise
of "rest" evidenced that God's 'rest" was not limited to a
particular place/time context in Canaan in the fifteenth
century B.C. The promised land where the Hebrews could cease
from oppressive enslavement was but another shadow-picture
of a physical representation that pointed to a spiritual
reality that could only be fully realized in Jesus Christ.
Paul's argument in well-reasoned, as
usual: If God's rest was to be in the land of Canaan, and
Joshua led them into the land, but they continued to
experience unrest, then there must be a rest of another kind
that is beyond the located placement of the land and
residence therein. Likewise, if the day of God's rest was in
Joshua's day, and God (through David) still promised a rest
in David's day, then the "Today" of God's promised rest is
not limited to yesterday, but to "another day beyond that
day" to the ever-present "Today" of God's people.
4:9 - The conclusion Paul draws
is: "There remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the
people of God." God's promised rest remains open,
available and accessible to be experienced by His people
"Today." Paul's emphasis is on the present availability of
God's rest, for he wanted the Jerusalem Christians to focus
on all that was available to them in Christ Jesus in the
present, rather than on a future expectation of a
nationalistic "rest" after the hoped for defeat of the
Romans a false hope, indeed, as verified by subsequent
history within a few short years. Paul was encouraging the
Christians of Judea to live their present lives in
receptivity to the divine dynamic of the indwelling Spirit
of Christ within them, rather than thinking that the "rest"
of God was only an historical phenomenon of yesteryear or a
utopian hope for the future. Those who have interpreted this
verse to mean that "there remains in the future a Sabbath
rest for the people of God" have missed Paul's point
entirely, and fall prey to the same utopian hopes that Paul
was warning his readers against. The "Sabbath rest" that
Paul refers to is not a paradisiacal repose in a millennial
period of time with governance located once again in the
Palestinian land as some have speculated. This is not to
deny, however, that the Sabbath rest already available to
the Christian presently does not also have a continuum of
fulfillment into the future and unto eternity.
Paul's reference to a "Sabbath rest"
picks up on the previous citation of Genesis 2:2 where the
Hebrew word for "rest" was shabbath. As noted above
(4:4), the seventh day Sabbath observance of the Jewish
people was based on the seventh day "rest" of God in
creation (Exod. 20:8-10), and was intended to be a
celebration of God's provision and a time to enjoy God's
creation. The people and the land did not "enjoy the
Sabbaths" (cf. Lev. 26:34,35) in Judaic religion, but now in
the spiritual fulfillment of the new covenant God's people
can enjoy the Sabbath rest by being receptive to what God
has done and is doing, by living in the abundance of God's
grace-dynamic. Paul's use of the Greek word sabbatismos,
"Sabbath rest", instead of katapausis, "rest"
(3:11,18; 4:1,3,5,10,11), is apparently designed to
emphasize to his Jewish readers in Jerusalem that the Jewish
seventh day Sabbath observance was also a provisional figure
of the grace-rest that is available every day in every place
to enjoy God in every way as Christians.
Whereas the "People of God" in the old
covenant were the Israelites who were divinely selected to
provide the physical prefiguring of God's intent in His Son,
the "People of God" in the new covenant are those who are
identified with the Son as Christians. Later in the epistle
Paul will quote from the prophecy of Jeremiah indicating
that in the promised new covenant, when God puts His Spirit
and laws into the hearts of those receptive to His Son, "I
will be their God, and they shall be My People" (8:10; Jere.
31:33). The apostle Peter explained to the Christians to
whom he wrote, 'You are a people for God's own
possession...; you once were not a people, but now you are
the People of God" (I Pet. 2:9,10; cf. Ezek. 37:23; Hosea
1:10). Christians are the new covenant People of God, the
spiritual fulfillment of Israel (Rom. 9:6,7; Gal. 6:16) and
the people known as Jews (Rom. 2:28,29).
There remained available to the
Christians of Jerusalem the opportunity to participate in
the Sabbath rest of God, to cease from all their striving to
please or appease God by keeping the Law, to refrain from
trying to bring into being what they might have perceived to
be God's plan to reestablish the nation of Israel, and to
restfully enjoy God's grace moment-by-moment of every day.
Such a Sabbath rest remains available to the Christian
People of God in every age.
4:10 - Continuing to develop the
theme of "Sabbath rest" available for all Christians, Paul
more specifically connects Christian "rest" with God's
creation "rest" in Genesis 2:2, noting that God's rest in
both categories involves a resting from "works." "For
the one who has been entered into His rest has himself also
rested from his works, just as God did from His own."
Who is "the one" who has entered into God's rest and rested
from his works? Some have understood this in a
Christological sense as referring to Jesus Christ and His
having entered back into the Father's rest after having
rested from His redemptive works, just as God the Father
rested from His creative works. The problem with such an
interpretation is (1) it bifurcates the work of the divine
Father and Son, thus impinging upon the trinitarian oneness
of the Godhead, and (2) there is nothing in the immediate
context of Paul's argument that would justify the insertion
of a reference to Christ's redemptive work at this point. It
is preferable, therefore, to understand "the one" being
referred to as any (and every) individual Christian who is
part of "the People of God" (4:9). Every regenerated
Christian person "has been entered into" God's rest in Jesus
Christ. The verb (eiselthon) is passive, meaning that
the subject has been (aorist tense) acted upon by another.
As Joshua (4:8) had ushered the Hebrew nation into the
promised land of rest in Canaan, Jesus has ushered every
Christian into the opportunity and availability of God's
rest in Himself. But, as previously noted in the case of
those who went into the promised land with Joshua, to be led
in entrance into the place of rest does not necessarily
entail experiencing God's rest subjectively by faithful
receptivity to His activity. Likewise, it is true for
Christians that "having been entered into" God's place of
rest in Jesus Christ, there remains the choice of faith to
experience God's rest by ceasing from our "works"
orientation of religious performance, in order to rest in
the sufficiency of His grace. This Christian responsibility
to choose to experience God's rest will be emphasized anew
in the next verse in an exhortation to diligence.
When the Christian enters experientially
into God's grace-rest, he/she ceases and refrains from
trying to perform for God. The "works" theology of dedicated
performance that motivates so much of religious endeavor
must be exchanged for a "grace" theology that recognizes
that the objective of the Christian life is what God does in
and through us, not what we might try to do for God. We
"work out our salvation" by recognizing that "God is at work
in us both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Phil.
2:12,13), and allowing for His outworking expression as we
are receptive to His activity (cf. James 2:17-26).
Since Christians are to rest from their
works "as God did from His own" (Gen. 2:2), this must mean
that as we rest in His sufficiency we appreciate and enjoy
His sustaining work. To participate in God's rest is not
passivism, for God always functions in accord with His
character, and by our receptivity of faith we continue to
allow for the outworking of His character in our behavior.
4:11 - Paul exhorts his Jewish
readers again (cf. 3:12; 4:1), "We should be diligent,
therefore, to enter that rest, lest anyone fall by the same
example of disobedience." He is emphasizing that
Christians are responsible for choosing to be receptive in
faith to what God in Christ wants to do in their lives. They
should be eager and zealous to enter in to that experiential
"rest".
To make his point, Paul refers again to
the "example of disobedience" (3:18; 4:6) of the initial
exodus generation (Numbers 13 and 14), who had no confidence
that God was trustworthy to provide what He had promised. As
a consequence their bodies "fell in the wilderness" (3:17).
Using the same word (Greek pipto) Paul expressed his concern
that any one (cf. 3:12; 4:6) of the Jerusalem Christians
should likewise "fall" and fail to participate in all that
was available to them in Jesus Christ. Similar language was
employed by Paul in his letter to the Corinthians, where he
referred to the Hebrew forefathers of the Exodus who "fell"
(I Cor. 10:8), and who should serve as an "example" (I Cor.
10:6,11 Greek word tupos has essentially the same
meaning as hupodeigma used here). The exhortation to
the Corinthians is similar to that made here to the Hebrew
Christians in Judea: "Let him who thinks he stands take heed
lest he fall" (I Cor. 10:12).
4:12 - Many commentators have
struggled to explain the connection of verses 12 and 13 to
the foregoing argument. Does the "word of God" relate to the
previous mention of "hearing His voice" (Ps. 95:7; Heb.
3:7,15; 4:7)? Is Paul indicating that in order to enter into
experiential Christian rest Christians must allow for a
piercing and penetrating evaluation of their motivations to
examine what they are doing what they are doing? The answer
to both questions appears to be "Yes".
"For" (to facilitate
entering into God's rest) "the Word of God is living
and energizing and sharper than any two-edged knife,..."
Prior to the Reformation in the sixteenth century, the "Word
of God" was interpreted almost exclusively as reference to
the personified Word of God (John 1:1) incarnated in the
person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14). Reformation reaction to
the ecclesiastical authority and pronouncements of the Roman
Church, emphasized sola scriptura and elevated the
Bible as the ultimate authority of the "word of God."
Protestant interpretation for almost five centuries has
tended to interpret "word of God" in this verse to refer to
the written revelation of Scripture, or to a more
generalized reference to the gospel message or teaching that
accords with the Biblical record. The context, however,
seems to demand reference to the living Lord Jesus who
indwells Christians by the Spirit (Rom. 8:9), Who as the
living "Word of God" continues to speak to our hearts that
we might "hear His voice" and enter in to the grace-rest
that God intends for Christians. The personal pronouns of
the following verse (13), "His sight" and "the eyes
of Him," serve to verify that Paul wrote of the
personified "Word of God," Jesus Christ.
A book is not a living and energizing
entity, although God's message can be effective and
energizing (I Thess. 2:13). Through Isaiah God said, "My
word which goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to
Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without
succeeding in the matter for which I send it" (Isa. 55:11).
As the living "Word of God", Jesus is alive. He is life (Jn.
11:25; 14:6). The words that He speaks "are spirit and life"
(Jn. 6:63). The power of his life energizes within us (Eph.
3:20), providing an ongoing personal revelation (cf. Eph.
1:17,18; Phil. 3:15) that penetrates into the recesses of
our hearts.
The analogy that Paul uses to illustrate
the Spirit of Christ's penetrating power is that of a
"two-edged knife." The metaphorical reference in Revelation
1:16 to a "two-edged sword" proceeding from Jesus' mouth
uses the Greek word romphaia which refers to a larger
sword, spear or lance. The Greek word machaira used
here usually referred to a smaller instrument more like a
knife or dagger. It is interesting that the Greek Old
Testament (LXX) uses this word machaira as the
instrument used when Joshua required all the males to be
circumcised immediately upon entry into the promised land of
rest (Josh. 5:2-8). Is there an allusion here to Christ's
"circumcision of the heart" (Rom. 2:29; Col. 2:11), and the
continued penetrating action of the Spirit of Christ as He
seeks to expose all considerations that would keep
Christians from resting in the grace of God?
Christ's action as the "Word of God" in
the Christian is analogous to a "two-edged knife"...
"piercing as far as the division of both soul and spirit, of
both joints and marrow, and able to discern the inner
passions and insights of the heart." A physical knife can
penetrate down to the bone, to the inmost marrow of the bone
and to where the bones fit together at the joints.
Metaphorically, Jesus Christ as the "Word of God" functions
like a two-edged knife that penetrates into the depth of our
innermost being of soul and spirit (cf. I Thess. 5:23). The
purpose of the penetration is not destructive, but a
constructive division in order to expose differentiation.
Christian theologians, at least since the Reformation, have
by and large not wanted to admit any division or
differentiation between soul and spirit in man, choosing
instead to perpetuate an ambiguous merging of the
psychological and spiritual functions of the human
individual. In so doing they have obscured the regenerative
and sanctifying work of the Spirit of Christ, and denied
many Christians a clear understanding of Christ's revealing
work to lead us into God's grace-rest.
In His desire to protect us from a
"hardened heart" (3:8,15; 4:7), and from "an evil,
unbelieving heart" (3:12), the Spirit of Christ penetrates
"to discern the inner passions and insights of the heart" of
the Christian. The contrasted dichotomy of "soul and spirit"
is likely retained in the respective differentiations of
Christ's discernment between the inner functions of the
inner being of the Christian individual. The New Testament
usage of the word "heart" is inclusive of both psychological
function (cf. II Cor. 8:16; II Thess. 2:17; James 1:26; I
Jn. 3:19-21) and spiritual function (Rom. 5:5; II Cor. 1:22;
Gal. 4:6; Heb. 8:10; 10:16). The indwelling Christ, the
"Word of God," is able to differentiate between the
psychological patterns of impassioned commitment and
dedication to please God in the self-effort of performance
and the spiritual impulse to operate by "the mind of Christ"
(I Cor. 2:16) allowing God to function in and through us by
the dynamic of His grace. Many Christians have the spiritual
intent and purpose (cf. I Pet. 4:1) to allow God to be and
do all He wants to be and do in their lives, but at the same
time they have psychologically patterned thoughts and
attitudes of self-oriented desire to act and "be all they
can be for God." The differentiation between the spiritual
motivations of God's intent and the psychological
motivations of a fleshly desire to seek "a logical
alternative to faith" can be very difficult to discern. Many
Christians seldom take the time to evaluate their
motivations of why they are doing what they are doing in
their Christian lives. To that end the Spirit of Christ acts
within us to make that discernment and to reveal such to us
that we might choose to be receptive to God's grace and
participate in His rest.
Paul wanted the Christians in Jerusalem
to "hear the voice" of the indwelling Christ who could and
would reveal to them that the psychologically-based,
well-reasoned efforts to oust the Romans and establish their
own nation would not accomplish the purposed spiritual rest
of God. All of their impassioned efforts of the "flesh"
would end in naught, and they would never experience God's
grace-rest in Christ, if they would not open themselves up
to Christ's penetrating evaluation of their real motives and
let the "Word of God" reveal what was going on in their
inner man.
4:13 - Christ is able and
willing to discern and reveal our hearts, "and there
is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are
exposed, having been opened to the eyes of Him, the Word,
before Whom (we have to do)." God is omniscient,
i.e. all-seeing and all-knowing, and no created thing is
obscured from His sight. Adam and Eve tried unsuccessfully
to hide from God (Gen. 3:9). Ananias and Sapphira thought
they could pull the wool over God's eyes, but the Spirit of
the Lord revealed their charade to Peter (Acts 5:1-11).
Christian people, in particular, are transparent before the
Spirit of Christ, for He knows every thought, attitude and
motivation. We are naked, bare, exposed and vulnerable
before the living "Word of God." It is impossible to deceive
Him with any masks, facades or pretenses.
The final phrase of this verse is
difficult to translate, as it appears to lack adequate verb
action. Literally translated in accord with original
word-order it reads, "...of Him before whom to us the word."
Paul repeats his mention of "the Word" (Greek ho logos)
with which he began the previous sentence (12). The
objective was to explain to the Christians in Jerusalem that
the personified "Word of God," the living Lord Jesus who
lived in them, knew what was motivating them and wanted to
reveal how He could lead them into spiritual rest. Paul's
intent was similar to his statement to the Romans: "He who
searches our hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is,
because He intercedes for the saints according to the will
of God" (Rom. 8:27). The theme of Christ's all-knowing
discernment leads directly into the following explanation of
Christ's intercessory work as high priest.
Concluding Remarks:
The first readers of this epistle found
themselves in the turmoil of political unrest, as well as
the unrest of religious and economic ostracism from their
Jewish kinsmen for having accepted Jesus as the Messiah. A
pseudo-rest was being promised by the zealots of Palestine
a false-rest that corresponded with the land promise of rest
made to another generation of their forebears approximately
one and a half millennia earlier. The insurrectionists were
promising that by revolt against Rome the Jewish people
would again govern their own nation in the land that God
promised them, and be able to "rest" from the oppression of
Rome.
Paul explained to the Christians in
Jerusalem that the risen Lord Jesus, the "Word of God" who
lived in them, knew the pressures that were being brought to
bear upon them. Similar pressure was brought to bear upon
Him to be a military and political deliverer when they
wanted to make Him "King of the Jews." Paul seems to be
saying, "Jesus knows your tendencies to put your faith in
physical realities of land, race, nation and religion. Jesus
knows your psychological inclinations to declare, 'We can do
it! We can pull it off!" by the fleshly self-effort of
dedication and commitment to what is perceived to be 'God's
cause.' But the rest of God is in Jesus Christ alone, for it
is a spiritual rest that relies on God's grace within the
dynamic of Christ's life, allowing you to cease from all
your performance efforts to accomplish great things for God.
Now is the time, 'Today,' to listen to His voice and remain
receptive to God's supernatural divine activity. Jesus knows
the external circumstances you are confronted with, as well
as the internal motivations of your hearts, and that is why
He can be a sympathetic high priest representing you before
God as well as providing His rest within you."
The message remains pertinent to all
Christians in subsequent times and in diverse places. The
fallen world-order always presents us with a form of unrest,
whether it be political, economic, religious, interpersonal,
etc. Since the fall of man into sin we have been brainwashed
with the humanistic premise that mankind has what it takes
to solve the world's problems and create "rest." "The way to
rest," the modern-day zealots declare, "is to get better
educated, develop better skills, elect better government
with better leaders, get better organized, and utilize
better technology for increased productivity." On a more
personal level "rest" is sought on the weekend, by taking a
vacation at a resort or on a cruise line, or by taking a new
job or a new spouse. The false offers of "rest" are
presented to us just as they were to the first recipients of
this letter.
Jesus said, "Come unto Me, all who are
weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. You shall
find rest for your souls" (Matt. 11:28,29). Augustine
responded, "My heart, O Lord, does not rest until it rests
in You." Rest is not found in increased religious dedication
and commitment to performance and "works," but by living out
of the divine dynamic of God's grace, by recognizing that
"it is no longer I who lives, but Christ lives in me" (Gal.
2:20), by appreciating that our "good works" are only those
which "God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them"
(Eph. 2:10), and by enjoying "the power that works within
us" (Eph. 3:20). This is not to imply that we replace the
self-effort of performance with acquiescent passivism, but
rather with the active power of God. Neither is there any
implication that participation in God's rest in Christ will
lead to avoidance of all the unrest of the world around us,
for God's rest is not a rest from the circumstances
and trials of life, but a rest in the midst of the
problems of a life that may be busier than ever before. It
is resting in His sufficiency, for "we are not adequate to
consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy
is of God" (II Cor. 3:5).
Christians continue to participate in
God's rest as they continue to respond to God in faith
(4:2). Christian faith is our receptivity to God's activity.
Christians are not excluded from participating in the
experience of God's rest because they have trials or are
being tempted, nor even because the fail and misrepresent
Jesus Christ in sinful behavior. Exclusion from God's rest
comes only by a settled attitude of unbelief, a disposition
of distrust in God that leads to disobedience day in and day
out. In that case God will let such persons have their
choice of unrest without and within. But God continues to
make available "the better rest of God" in Jesus Christ.
"Let us be diligent, therefore, to enter that rest" (4:11).
JESUS: THE
BETTER
DIVINE-HUMAN HIGH PRIEST
Paul had previously given his readers a
clue that he intended to address how Jesus Christ is the
better High Priest of God. In the context of explaining that
Jesus is the "better Man for man" (2:5-18), Paul noted that
"He (Jesus) had to be made like His brethren in all things,
that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in
things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins
of the people" (2:17). He continued by writing, "Therefore,
holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider
Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession" (3:1).
The topic of Jesus as "the better high priest" is a primary,
if not the predominant, theme of this epistle, mentioned, as
noted, in 2:17 and 3:1, considered preliminarily in
4:145:10 (the passage presently being exegeted), and dealt
with at length in the four chapters 7:110:18. Taken
together, these passages comprise over thirty-three percent
(33%) of the epistle.
Reading these words almost two millennia
after the termination of the high priesthood function in the
Jewish religion, it is necessary that we recall the
importance of this priestly office in the history of
Judaism. The position of High Priest or Chief Priest was
implemented in the Levitical regulations that God revealed
to the Israelites people through Moses (cf. Lev. 21:10;
Numb. 35:25). The first high priest was Aaron, the brother
of Moses, and the succession of subsequent high priests was
transferred to a son (usually the eldest son) of the
previous high priest (cf. Ezra 7:1-5). The lineage of the
Jewish high priesthood was originally determined by heritage
of birth, and the duration was for the lifetime of the high
priest. One of the prominent high priests in the Aaronic
succession was Zadok, who served during the transition of
the royal throne from David to Solomon (cf. I Kings
1:32-48). Subsequent high priests often linked their
hereditary right to the high priesthood through Zadok.
After the exile of the Hebrew people in
Babylon and their return to Canaan, the absence of a king in
the line of David allowed the high priest to assume a
position of defining importance to the people of Israel,
often effectively serving as both priest and king. In the
second century B.C., when Antiochus IV Epiphanes (215-163
B.C.), king of Syria, invaded Palestine, there was a power
struggle between Onias II, the last high priest in
legitimate Aaronic succession, and Jason, who though from a
priestly family, was appointed by Antiochus IV Epiphanes to
serve as high priest (175-172 B.C.). Menelaus, from a
non-priestly family, was subsequently appointed high priest
by Antiochus, and served from 172-163 B.C. The atrocities of
Antiochus IV Epiphanes in killing Jewish leaders, pillaging
the temple, establishing pagan religion in the temple, and
sacrificing a pig on the altar, led to the Maccabean Revolt
(cf. I, II Macabbees). When Jonathan the Hasmonean assumed
the robes of the high priesthood in 153 B.C., he was not
from the Aaronic-Zadokian lineage, and the newly formed
Pharisee movement protested the legitimacy of his high
priesthood.
By the time of Herod the Great, Roman
king of Judea (37-4 B.C.), the Jewish high priesthood was
granted by appointment of the Roman king from among
candidates in the Levitical priesthood, though not
necessarily from the Aaronic-Zadokian family line. During
the first century A.D., Herod Agrippa I, Herod of Chalcis,
and Herod Agrippa II granted the high priestly office to a
few wealthy priestly families with arbitrary depositions and
appointments. The Jewish Talmud indicates that the high
priest purchased the office from the Roman government in an
annual auction to the highest bidder. The high priest
continued to perform ceremonial duties in the temple at
Jerusalem, especially on the occasion of the annual Day of
Atonement, and served as a liaison between the Jewish people
and the Roman government. This wealthy group of high
priestly families was unscrupulous and took advantage of the
common people by graft and assumption of others' property.
"During the 106 years between 37 B.C. and 70 A.D., 28 high
priests discharged the office, and 25 of them were of
non-legitimate priestly families."
1
Knowing that the high priests purchased
their position from the Roman government, and being the
victims of their avarice, the people of Palestine regarded
them with suspicion and contempt. As the anti-Roman
sentiment grew in the middle part of the first century, the
high priests were increasingly suspected to be Roman
collaborators and traitors. The Pharisees, always concerned
with the Law, still wanted the high priesthood returned to
the Aaronic and Zadokian descendants. The Zealots exploited
that conservative desire to foment revolutionary aspirations
of insurrection against Rome, promising that the success of
such revolution would reestablish the legitimate high priest
in the temple and reestablish the Jewish nation with a king
in the Davidic line.
That was the situation when Paul wrote
this epistle to the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem. The
Judean Christians were being pressured to join the cause
celebre to reestablish their ethnic rights in the land.
It would have been very difficult to avoid getting drawn
into the political, racial, and religious tidal wave of
discontent. Paul wrote to explain to these Christians that
what they had received in Jesus Christ was superior to all
the utopian dreams being offered by the revolutionaries.
Jesus is better than Moses in leading the People of God into
faithfulness (3:1-19). Jesus is better than Joshua in
ushering the People of God into divine Rest (4:1-13). Now
Paul will explain that Jesus is better than Aaron, for He is
the fulfillment of God's intent for a High Priest, serving
as the universal and eternal High Priest in the order of
Melchizedek. From Paul's perspective, to seek after the
physical phenomena was but a backward reversion to the
pictorial prefigurings that preliminarily pointed to Jesus
Christ. Paul wanted the Christians of Jerusalem to
understand that the intents and promises of God for His
People were all fulfilled in the Person and work of Jesus
Christ, who now served as the more effective Divine-human
High Priest. Traditional Jewish thinking would have
questioned how Jesus could serve as high priest since He did
not have Aaronic and Zadokian heritage, and was from the
tribe of Judah (cf. Matt. 1:3; Lk. 3:33) rather than the
priestly tribe of Levi. Paul's explanation was that the
previous high priesthood of Melchizedek took precedence,
allowing Jesus to serve as the spiritual fulfillment of the
ultimate High Priest of God, as well as the King of Kings in
the fulfillment of David's royal rule.
From the perspective of historical
hindsight we can look back to see the false promises being
offered to the Christians of Jerusalem by the Zealot
revolutionaries. Soon after this letter was written the
Zealots took control of Jerusalem during the war that raged
from 66-70 A.D. When they did so, they killed many from the
wealthy high-priestly families. A new high priest was
selected by random lot from among the priestly families. His
name was Phinehas ben Samuel, a stonemason by trade. He was
the last to serve as Jewish high priest, for the position
was terminated in 70 A.D. when the Romans destroyed the
temple in Jerusalem and decimated the Jewish people in
Palestine, rendering the Jewish high priesthood as but an
historical phenomenon.
Paul's assertion that Jesus is the
universal, permanent High Priest of God was the only viable
option that his Christians readers in Jerusalem had. Almost
two millennia after Paul's writing, Jesus continues to serve
as the eternal Divine-human High Priest of God, verifying
Paul's words to the Hebrews, and allowing for "a kingdom of
priests" (Exod. 19:6) as God intended, a "royal priesthood"
(I Peter 2:9) inclusive of all Christians identified with
Jesus Christ, functioning as the "priesthood of all
believers" in the Body of Christ, the Church.
4:14 - "Since then"
the Spirit of Christ lives in the Christian as the living
Word of God who penetrates to the core of our being and
knows our every thought and intent (4:12,13), "we have
a great high priest who has passed through the heavens,
Jesus the Son of God,". Christians have a High
Priest who is better and superior to the Judaic high
priesthood, which had been politically corrupted for
centuries. The high priesthood of Jesus, standing as the Man
closest to God representing man before God, is of a
different order that transcends the physical priesthood that
functioned in the temple at Jerusalem. The high priests of
the old covenant passed through the outer courts and the
Holy Place into the Holy of Holies of the temple once a year
on the Day of Atonement. Jesus, the High Priest par
excellence, has passed through the ultimate Holy of
Holies, the very presence of God, having come from God (Jn.
6:38,42; 8:42; 17:18) and returned to (Jn. 14:3,4; 16:5,10;
17:5,13) the presence of God the Father, as He is in Himself
the Son of God (cf. 1:2,5,8; 3:6). The divine Son of God
(cf. Jn. 10:30; 14:10) has become the human High Priest on
behalf of all mankind. This integration of the divine Son
and the human high priest (cf. 5:5,6,8,10) is central to
Paul's argument. The ontological Being of the divine Son is
expressed in the operational function of the human high
priest as could only be accomplished in the God-man, Jesus
Christ. As God, who alone can forgive sin, Jesus served as
the human high priest representative of man before God the
Father, becoming the only sufficient sacrifice that
satisfied the death consequences of man's sin before God.
Having accomplished what God the Father had sent Him, as the
Son of God, to do (Jn. 17:4; 19:30), He "passed through the
heavens" and ascended again to take His rightful place
seated at the right hand of the Majesty in the heavens (cf.
1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2), thereby opening the way for all
those "in Him" to enter into the Holy of Holies of God's
heavenly presence also (cf. Jn. 14:2-6; Heb. 10:19-23).
On the basis of this superior and supreme
high priesthood function of Jesus, the Son of God, Paul
encouraged the Jerusalem Christians, saying, "We
should hold fast our confession." The precarious
political situation in Jerusalem was such that prevailing
winds of public opinion were clinging to the false hopes of
revolutionary triumph over Rome. Paul wanted these embattled
Christian brethren to cling to their confession of Jesus
Christ instead of the false physical hopes. They had
confessed Jesus as Lord (Rom. 10:9), agreeing and concurring
with God that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God, the
only basis of redemption from sin and the restoration of
humanity to function as God intended. As Paul repeats later
in the epistle, "Let us hold fast the confession of our hope
without wavering, for He who promised is faithful" (10:23).
4:15 - The Jewish Christians in
Palestine were vulnerable and susceptible to the temptation
to revert to the physical aspirations of their kinsmen. No
doubt they were sympathetic to their plight and their plea
to join the effort to overthrow the oppression of the
Romans. The frailty of human perseverance could easily have
capitulated in volitional weakness.
Paul wanted to emphasize that even though
Jesus was the supreme High Priest who had passed through the
heavens (14), He was not aloof, remote and transcendent to
the extent that He was unable to understand what the
Jerusalem Christians were being confronted with. "For
we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our
weaknesses," The high priest was always human, and
Jesus was "made like His brethren in all things" (2:17), in
complete solidarity with human experience, qualifying Him to
serve as high priestly intercessor. The double negative of
"do not...cannot" constitutes a positive expression of
Jesus' ability to sympathize with the tough choice that the
Jerusalem Christians were being asked to make in holding
fast their confession. Such sympathy was not just an
emotional feeling, but was the result of physical
identification with humanity faced with life and death
choices. The "weaknesses" with which Jesus could
empathetically identify were not physical lack of strength,
but the human vulnerability of volitional perseverance, the
fallible and fickle weakness of the human will in continuing
to choose God's way. The only way for the Christian to
overcome such volitional lack of strength (the Greek word
for "weakness" is asthenos, meaning "no strength") is
to rely on "Him who strengthens us" (Phil. 4:13).
Jesus, the supreme High Priest, could
sympathize with the volitional vulnerabilities of the
Palestinian Christians for He was "one having been
tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin."
The Greek word for "tempt" (peirazo) has a root
meaning of "piercing in order to test or examine," but when
used in reference to sin (as it is here), the English word
that conveys a solicitation to sin is the word "tempt." The
Christians in Judea were being sorely tempted to take the
path of least resistance and to "give in" to the pressures
being brought to bear upon them, and it would have been the
easiest course of action to claim to lack the strength to
resist and to hold fast to their confession of Jesus.
Functioning as a man during His redemptive mission on earth,
Jesus was likewise vulnerable to the temptation to choose to
take the path of least resistance, to avoid the ostracism
and the rejection of His own Jewish peoples, and that in the
midst of life and death choices. But Jesus "held fast" to
His confession of divine identity, and when faced with death
declared, "Father, if You are willing, let this cup (of
suffering and death) pass from Me; yet not My will, but
Thine be done" (Matt. 26:39; Mk. 14:36; Lk. 22:42). Paul was
asking the beleaguered Christians in Jerusalem to find their
strength in Jesus Christ, and to "hold fast" as Jesus
Himself had "held fast" when faced with temptation.
Some have questioned whether Jesus could
actually be tempted to sin. They reason that since Jesus is
God, and "God cannot be tempted by evil" (James 1:13),
therefore Jesus experienced a trial of testing, but it was
not a temptation to sin. The context of Paul's reference to
Jesus' identification with the volitional vulnerabilities of
humanity, and the statement that the solicitation to sin did
not result in a choice to sin in Jesus' experience, serve as
an exegetical dismissal of those who would deny Jesus' real
temptation to sin. Theologically, this theory of
impeccability that posits that it was not possible for Jesus
to sin is based on a deficient Christology that fails to
account for Jesus' functional humanity (the very emphasis
that Paul is making in this passage concerning the human
high priesthood of Jesus). Calvinistic theology, in general,
tends to overemphasize the deity of Jesus to the neglect of
His functional humanity and the human responsibility that
Jesus faced in making choices of faith. The remarks of W.
Ian Thomas are pertinent here:
"It is no explanation to suggest that
though tempted the Lord Jesus Christ was not tempted
with evil, but only in the sense that He was tested
for the statement "yet without sin," clearly indicates
that the nature of the temptation was such that it would
have led to sin had it not been resisted."
"...inherent in His willingness to be made Man, was the
willingness of the Lord Jesus Christ to be made subject
to temptation, for strange as it may seem, inherent in
man's capacity to be godly is man's very capacity to
sin!
"...it was not as God that Christ was tempted, but as
Man" 2
How can it be said that Jesus was
"tempted in all things according to the likeness" of our
temptations? Obviously there are external situations
(trials) that Jesus never confronted, i.e. automobile
traffic, marriage, parenting, technology, etc. But "made
like His brethren (humanity) in all things" (2:17), He was
"tempted in all things as we are" tempted to make
decisions to act and react contrary (outside of) the
character and behavior derived out of God, which constitutes
sin in its broadest sense. The "all things" of Jesus'
temptation are not the same circumstances, but are the same
manner of being solicited to choose selfish action and
reaction. In the wilderness (Matt. 4:1-11; Lk. 4:1-13),
Jesus was solicited to choose personal aspiration, personal
gratification, and personal reputation (cf. I John 2:16)
instead of being the available vessel of God's ministry of
redemption. In the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus appears to
have been tempted to react with fight and fright and flight,
rather than choosing to give His life a ransom for all men
(Matt. 20:28; I Tim. 2:6). It might even be argued that
Jesus was tempted beyond the likeness of normal human
temptations, being tempted to opt out of His functional
subordination as man, and to act independently out of His
inherent deity, in which case He would not have been totally
identified with the experiences of mankind, and could not
have fulfilled his redemptive and intercessory work on our
behalf. Such is but hypothetical speculation, for the facts
of the matter are that though "tempted in all things as we
are," He was "yet without sin," choosing not to succumb to
the solicitations to sin, but to functionally subordinate
Himself in receptivity to God.
Some have argued that Jesus could not be
"tempted as we are" because He did not share the fallen
nature of fallen humanity. He was never a "natural man" (I
Cor. 2:14), "by nature a child of wrath" (Eph. 2:3),
spiritually constituted as a "sinner" (Rom. 5:19), as all
the rest of humanity has been constituted by the Fall.
Granted, Jesus did not partake of fallen humanity in the
sense of being spiritually "dead in trespasses and sins"
(Eph. 2:1,5), but He did come "in the likeness of sinful
flesh" (Rom. 8:2) in the sense of being vulnerable to
temptation and liable to mortality. The argument is
specious, though, because the solicitation to sinful choices
and actions does not require a fallen spiritual nature. Adam
is the case in point, for he was tempted to sin prior to the
Fall. Jesus, the "second man" (I Cor. 15:47) and the "last
Adam" (I Cor. 15:45), in whom Satan had no foothold (Jn.
14:30), could be tempted to sin by the external
solicitations of the Tempter, as was the first Adam. Others
have argued that Jesus' temptations are not the same as
those Christians confront because He did not share in the
patterned propensities to selfishness and sinfulness in the
desires of His soul what Paul seems to identify as the
"flesh" in a behavioral sense (cf. Rom. 7:188:13; Gal.
5:13-21). Granted, Jesus had no such patterning of
sinfulness, but, again, the argument is not valid because
Adam did not have such either when he was tempted to sin
originally.
Jesus was fully human and fully
vulnerable to the temptations to sin that "are common to
man" (I Cor. 10:13). Functioning as a man, He chose not to
succumb to such temptation, relying instead on God the
Father in Him to manifest righteousness. Therefore, no one,
and in particular, no Christian, can claim that "Jesus could
live like He did, because He was God; but I am incapable of
such avoidance of sin, because I am just human." This is an
illegitimate cop-out. Jesus lived every moment in time for
thirty-three years "without sin," not because He was God
(though He was), but because He was a man who chose not to
submit to Satan's solicitations to sin, but rather to submit
Himself to God the Father (James 4:7) and the expression of
divine character in the human behavior of the Son. These
chosen actions, Paul argues, allowed Him to serve as the
supreme High Priest of God for all mankind.
That Jesus was "without sin" does not
mean, therefore, that Jesus was "without temptation to sin,"
or "without a sin-nature," or "without the patterning of sin
in the 'flesh'," but refers to Jesus having been fully
tempted to sin without succumbing to the solicitations of
sin, and without manifesting sinful character and behavior.
Later in the epistle Paul will note that Jesus was a "high
priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners"
(7:26), and thus capable of "offering Himself without
blemish" (9:14). To the Corinthians, Paul explained that
Jesus "knew no sin" (II Cor. 5:21). The Apostle John wrote
that "in Him there is no sin" (I John 3:5), and the Apostle
Peter, quoting from Isaiah 53:9, indicated that Christ
"committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth" (I
Peter 2:22). The sinlessness of Jesus was not merely passive
avoidance of sin, but was the perfect expression of the
divine character of perfection in the behavior of the man,
Christ Jesus, as He was receptive to allow the Father to
work in Him (John 14:10). Jesus could thus legitimately
declare, "I always do those things which are pleasing to
Him" (John 8:29).
4:16 - Continuing his appeal to
the Jerusalem Christians, Paul writes, "Let us
therefore" (because we have such a sinless High
Priest who can sympathize with our weaknesses) "draw
near with confidence to the throne of grace,..." The
redemptive and restorative work of Jesus Christ allows
Christians to have free, unrestricted access to the presence
of God. In the old covenant the Jewish high priest had
access to the "mercy-seat" in the Holy of Holies of the
tabernacle and temple just once a year on the Day of
Atonement. In the new covenant arrangement, Jesus is the
High Priest who by the sacrifice of Himself has opened the
way for all Christians to be priests (I Pet. 2:9; Rev. 1:6),
the "priesthood of all believers," with immediate, always
available, unending personal access to God's presence and
provision. Throughout this epistle Paul implores the
Christians in Jerusalem to "draw near to God" (7:19) "with a
sincere heart in full assurance of faith" (10:22), for they
"have confidence to enter the Holy Place" (10:19) of God's
presence based on Christ's High Priesthood. Paul seeks to
discourage these brethren from seeking to reinstall the
Aaronic-Zadokian high priesthood of the Jewish temple with
its annual mediated access to the mercy-seat. Instead, he
desires that the Christians of Judea should prayerfully and
worshipfully approach the "throne of grace," "the throne of
the Majesty in the heavens" (8:1), the very presence of God,
directly with a bold, freedom of speech in personal
communion.
The God of the Christian is not a remote,
impersonal god seated on a judgment-seat to be approached in
cowering fear. Rather, He is a loving and personal God with
whom Christians are relationally united through Christ, and
to whom we can freely approach His "throne of grace,"
confident that He will "freely give us all things" (Rom.
8:32) in the free-flow of His sufficiency, "that we
may receive mercy and may find grace to help in time of
need." Jesus, "the merciful and faithful high
priest" (2:17) "is able to come to the aid of those who are
tempted" (2:18), and the Christian will continually discover
the provision and empowering of God's grace-activity as
he/she is receptive to such in faith. We are not left
defenseless and helpless as orphans (John 14:18). "The Lord
is our Helper" (13:6), providing everything necessary "in
time of need." The Jerusalem Christians were certainly
confronted with a "time of need" as the battle cries of
revolution were sounding, and they were being pressured to
declare their loyalties. They needed to "draw near with
confidence to the throne of grace, in order to receive mercy
and discover God's grace in their time of need."
5:1 - As Paul did in his
discussion of the superiority of Jesus Christ over Moses
(3:1-6), he again notes first the similarities and then the
dissimilarities with the old covenant prototype. Comparing
the similarities of Christ's high priesthood to the Judaic
high priesthood in verses 1-5a, Paul then contrasts the
uniqueness and superiority of Christ's high priesthood,
noting the dissimilarities in verses 5b-10. The contrasted
dissimilarities will be further developed in chapters 7-10
of the epistle.
"For every high priest taken from
among men is appointed on behalf of men in things pertaining
to God,..." Every high priest was a human
representative of mankind before God. Jesus was no exception
to this rule. Jesus was fully human, a man "among men,"
fully identified with, sympathizing with, and representative
of all mankind. Every human high priest was appointed,
authorized and installed "on behalf of men in things
pertaining to God." Despite the historical aberrations when
Jewish high priests were appointed by Antiochus Epiphanes
and the Roman kings, the intended appointment of high
priests was to be divinely authorized selection and
deployment. These high priests were representatives on
behalf of their fellow men to "minister as priests to God"
(cf. Exod. 28:1,3; 29:1).
The responsibility and duty of the high
priests was "to offer both gifts and sacrifices for
sins" before God. This sacrificial function of the
high priests of Judaism was particularly employed on the Day
of Atonement on behalf of the transgressions, impurities and
sins of the Jewish peoples (cf. Lev. 16:16). Though some
have emphasized the difference between "gifts" and
"sacrifices," regarding them as cereal offerings versus
animal sacrifices, or distinguishing between unbloody and
bloody offerings, the differentiation of these words should
not be unduly pressed, as they can be used synonymously. All
of the "gifts and sacrifices" offered by the high priests of
the old covenant were but pictorial prototypes of the
singular offerings and sacrifice of Jesus Christ (cf. Heb.
9:11-28; 10:12) within His function as the ultimate high
priest in the new covenant. God wearied and was not pleased
with the offerings and sacrifices of the old covenant
priests (cf. Isa. 1:11,13; Jere. 6:20; Heb. 10:5-10), for He
was fully aware that Christ's giving of Himself (cf. Matt.
20:28; Gal. 1:4; 2:20) and sacrifice of Himself (cf. I Cor.
5:7; Heb. 9:26) was the only offering that could effectively
deal with man's sin.
Paul wanted the Jerusalem Christians to
recognize that the High Priesthood of Jesus Christ had
effected God's redemptive intents. There was no reason for
them to place any expectation or hope in the reestablishment
of the Jewish high priesthood and their sacrificial
functions.
5:2 - The similarity of the Jewish
high priests and the high priesthood of Jesus is further
explained as Paul writes, "he ("every high
priest" 5:1) can deal gently with the ignorant and
misguided, since he himself also is beset with weakness;..."
All high priests (Jesus included), because they were
human and thus encompassed by their own human weakness,
susceptibility, vulnerability and fallibility can exercise a
forbearing and moderated passion toward the ignorant and
misguided masses of humanity in their sin. The Jewish high
priests were surrounded (cf. 12:1) by their own weakness
(Greek asthenos, meaning "lack of strength") and
volitional vulnerability (cf. 7:28), which led inevitably to
their own sinful actions (cf. 5:3). Jesus could "sympathize
with such weakness" and volitional vulnerability of mankind,
being "tempted in all ways as we are" as a man (4:15), but
His temptation did not lead to sin, allowing Him to be "a
Son, made perfect forever" (7:28). In both cases, however,
the high priests of Judaism and Jesus the supreme High
Priest of God, because they were identified with humanity in
such volitional weakness, could fairly and gently respond to
the masses of mankind who did not know the way or had
wandered from the way of God, being ignorant and deceived.
High priests, being human, ought to be able to recognize the
limitations of human volition and its inability to
self-generate either sinful or righteous character and
behavior.
5:3 - "...and because of it
(his solidarity with the volitional weakness of
humanity) he ("every high priest" 5:1)
is obligated to offer ("gifts and sacrifices"
5:1) for sins, as for the people, so also (in
the case of the Jewish high priests) for himself."
Since the high priest is always human, "taken from among
men" (5:1), and personally aware of the volitional
vulnerabilities of human choices of receptivity, it is
incumbent upon the high priest to offer sacrifices before
God for the sins of the people whom he represents. In the
case of the Jewish high priest, he also had to offer
sacrifice for his own personal sins as well as those of the
people (cf. Lev. 4:3; 9:8; 16:6,11; Heb. 7:27; 9:7). In the
case of Jesus, who was "without sin" (4:15), a "high
priestseparated from sinners" (7:26), He Himself could
become the singularly sufficient sinless sacrifice that
would suffice as the death consequences for the sins of all
mankind forever. The dissimilarity of Jesus and the Jewish
high priests is already evident in these initial verses
(1-5a) which focus on the similarity of the Judaic and
Christic high priesthoods.
5:4 - "And not one
(of the high priests) takes the honor (of the
high priesthood) unto himself, but is called under
God, even as Aaron (was)." High priesthood is not a
self-assumed, self-appointed position. Such self-assumption
of such a position of honor and glory would evidence
arrogant ambition and pride of position or power which would
disallow compassionate identification with the people being
served. Biblical examples of those who self-assumed a
priestly position for themselves (ex. Korah Numb. 16:1-40;
Saul I Sam. 13:8-14; Uzziah II Chron. 26:16-23)
evidences the extreme displeasure and consequences of God
for such self-assumption. The high priesthood is not a
self-conferred and self-elected human institution, but was
designed by God to be a divine vocation authorized by divine
appointment, even as Aaron was originally appointed,
anointed and ordained by God to serve as high priest (cf.
Numb. 3:3,10; 18:7,8; Ps. 105:26). To be thus "called under
God" as high priest involves submitting oneself in
dependency and humility to be the vessel that God uses to
represent His people to Himself.
5:5 - "So also the Christ
did not glorify Himself so as to become high priest,..."
The Christ, the Messiah, the Anointed One, by the very
designation of His name, was elected, appointed and anointed
by God to be the eternal High Priest of God for mankind.
There was no self-elevation, but only a self-emptying (cf.
Phil. 2:7) of independent divine prerogatives of function in
order to serve as the ultimate divine-human high priest.
Jesus did not seek His own glory (cf. Jn. 5:41; 8:50,54),
but as the "Elect One" of God (cf. Lk. 23:35), He was
"called under God" (5:4) to minister in the dependency and
receptivity to God's activity, "doing nothing of His own
initiative" (Jn. 5:19,30; 8:28; 12:49; 14:10).
Ministering thus as the available high
priest representative of mankind, Jesus "did not glorify
Himself ...but He (God the Father) who
said to Him, 'THOU ART MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN
THEE;'..." Jesus glorified the Father by
accomplishing the word He was given to do (cf. Jn. 17:4),
and in glorifying God the Father, He was Himself glorified
in Him (Jn. 13:31,32). The subsequent glorification of the
Son came in the resurrection victory and Pentecostal
outpouring of the Spirit of Christ (cf. Jn. 7:39; 12:16;
13:31). This ties in, then, with the Father's declaration as
quoted from Psalm 2:7, "Thou art My Son; Today I have
begotten Thee." Paul previously employed this same quotation
in arguing the superiority of Jesus over angels (1:5), but
now he uses the statement to explain the superiority of
Christ's high priesthood over the Judaic high priesthood.
This is not a statement about the commencement of the
parentage of God the Father in begetting God the Son.
Rather, as Paul noted in his message at Antioch of Pisidia
(Acts 13:33) when he quoted this same verse, this is a
declaration of the glorification of Jesus Christ when God
raised Him from the dead (cf. Acts 2:24; Rom. 4:24; 6:4;
Eph. 1:20; Col. 2:12) and brought Him out of death into life
by resurrection. Jesus "was declared the Son of God with
power by the resurrection from the dead" (Rom. 1:4), a
declaration of the Son's empowerment to serve as the eternal
divine-human high priest for all mankind. The uniting of the
"Son" and "high priest" (cf. 4:14, as well as the quotation
from both Psalm 2 in this verse and Psalm 110 in the
following verse) reveals the ontological and operation
features of Christological essence and function.
5:6 - Continuing to document the
superiority of the high priesthood of Jesus, Paul writes,
"...just as He (God the Father) says in
another (place or passage), 'THOU ART A PRIEST
FOREVER ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK.'"
This quotation from Psalm 110:4 will be a primary and
recurring assertion of the superiority of Christ's high
priesthood throughout this epistle, mentioned again in 5:10
and 6:20, and quoted again in 7:17 and 21. The Biblical
narrative of Melchizedek's priesthood is located in Genesis
14:18-20:
"And Melchizedek, King of Salem,
brought out bread and wine. Now he was a priest of God
Most High. And he (Melchizedek) blessed him (Abram) and
said, 'Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Possessor of
heaven and earth. And blessed be God Most High, Who has
delivered your enemies into your hand.' And he (Abram)
gave him (Melchizedek) a tenth of all."
The Melchizedekan priesthood was a
non-Jewish and universal priesthood which was archetypical
of all priesthood; its priority of time and type making it
superior to the Jewish Aaronic and Levitical priesthood. The
Jewish high priesthood was provisional and temporary for a
specific interim purpose preliminary to the coming of the
Messiah in the provincial context of the Hebrew peoples.
Soon, within approximately 5 years from the writing of this
epistle, it would be historically terminated when the temple
in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. The Melchizedekan
priesthood, on the other hand, is not based on generational
succession, but is of a divine "order" wherein the divine
Messiah assumes the divine priesthood forever, "unto the
ages," never to be succeeded and having no successors. The
anointed Messianic priesthood of Jesus in the high priestly
"order of Melchizedek" is indisputably superior to all other
priesthoods, Paul argues. The previous words of Psalm 110:4
are, "The Lord has sworn and will not change His mind." Paul
wanted the Christians in Jerusalem to understand the unique
superiority of Christ's priesthood as they faced the
pressure to join the cause to fight for the reestablishment
of an uncorrupted generational Jewish high priest in the
Jerusalem temple.
5:7 - To explain the development
of Jesus' sympathizing (4:15) sensitivities with mankind,
Paul indicated that "In the days of His flesh, He
offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying
and tears to the One able to save Him from death,..."
In His incarnate, earthly form, in the physicality of bodily
human existence, Jesus participated in emotional
identification with the anguish and agony of human
experience. Contextual examples of such heart-felt emotional
entreaties to God the Father might include the experiences
in the garden of Gethsemane (cf. Matt. 26:36-46; Mk.
14:32-42; Lk. 22:39-46; Jn. 12:27), as well as the anguish
of Golgotha (cf. Matt. 27:33-50; Mk. 15:16-37; Lk. 23:33-46;
Jn. 19:17-30), though not to be limited to such.
Did Jesus pray that He might be delivered
from death by crucifixion? He did pray, "My Father, if it is
possible, let this cup (of suffering or death) pass from Me"
(Matt. 26:39; Mk. 14:35.36). John records Jesus' words, "Now
My soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, 'Father,
save Me from this hour?' But for this purpose I came to this
hour" (John 12:27). Jesus knew that He "came to give His
life a ransom for many" (Matt. 20:28; cf. I Tim. 2:6). Were
Jesus' supplicatory prayers requests to be kept from
physical death? Or were they requests to be preserved in the
midst of "being made sin" (II Cor. 5:21), becoming the
cursed (Gal. 3:13) recipient of the judgment of God against
all sin, and experiencing the separation that caused Him to
cry, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" (Matt.
27:46; Ps. 2:1)? Or was Jesus praying, not only for Himself
but in priestly concern for others, that He would be "made
safe" by being raised out of death by resurrection in order
to effect such for all men? Peter proclaimed that "God
raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death,
since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power"
(Acts 2:24).
Paul goes on to record that "He
(Jesus) was heard because of His piety."
As the word "piety" has so many negative connotations in the
English language, perhaps a better translation would be
"reverence" (cf. Heb. 12:28) or "devotion" (cf. Acts 8:2).
Does this mean that God the Father responded to Jesus'
prayers because He was sinless (cf. 4:15) and could not be
held in death's power (cf. Acts 2:24)? As the context refers
to Jesus' human agony and anguish in the midst of death, is
the reference to Jesus' "reverence" or "devotion" better
understood to be His volitional dependence upon God which
allowed Him to say, "Not My will, but Thine be done" (Matt.
26:39,42; Mk. 14:36), whereby He submitted to death by
crucifixion and thereby in His priestly role made the
sufficient and acceptable sacrifice for the sins of all
mankind, and was raised out of death by resurrection to
restore God's life to receptive humanity? We need not make
this an either-or determination.
5:8 - "Although He was a
Son," ontologically one with God the Father in the
Triune Godhead, and inherently and intrinsically divine, he
functioned as a man having emptied Himself of the
independent function of divine prerogatives of operational
action (cf. Phil. 2:7), and "He learned obedience from
the things which He suffered." Divine function,
operating as it does in the omniscience of knowing all
things, has nothing to "learn." Neither does the absolute
sovereignty of divine function "listen under" (Greek word
hupakouo) another in "obedience." But having chosen to
function as a man in identification with all mankind, Jesus
the Son "kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor
with God and man" (Lk. 2:52) as a young man, and continued
to "learn obedience" in all the experiences of earthly,
human existence. In the context of the most intense
pressures of temptation unto disobedience and sin (4:15),
Jesus responded in the "obedience of faith" (cf. Rom. 1:5;
16:26), "obedient to the point of death, even death on a
cross" (Phil. 2:8), allowing "the obedience of the One"
(Rom. 5:19) to be the basis of righteousness for all men.
For 33 years in time "the man, Christ Jesus" (I Tim. 2:5)
"listened under" God in obedience and was receptive to all
that God the Father wanted to do in Him by faith. The
particularly difficult context for "learning obedience" was
in the pathos of suffering that led to His crucifixion (cf.
2:9,10; 9:26; 13:12 for connection of suffering and death).
The "suffering of death" (2:9) could only be experienced by
One who had identified fully with humanity in mortality.
Paul wanted his readers in the church at
Jerusalem to understand the full identification of Jesus
with their sufferings. They were a suffering community
continuing to "learn obedience from the things which they
suffered," and continuing to need to apprehend that Christ's
suffering unto death had effected a sinless sacrifice as
part of His high priestly function, which effected "eternal
salvation" (5:9). The divine logic of life out of death,
exaltation out of humiliation, and glorification out of
suffering (cf. comments on 2:9), could be realized in their
own lives, though not with the same redemptive effects as in
the life and work of the Savior.
5:9 - The Son "learned obedience
from the things which He suffered, and having been
made perfect, He became to all those obeying Him the
source of eternal salvation." Was Jesus not already perfect
(cf. comments on 2:10)? Yes, He was "perfect in Being" as
the God-man in whom the Spirit of God dwelt from His
supernatural conception. He was also "perfect in behavior"
as He exercised the "obedience of faith" in receptivity to
God's activity in the man for every moment in time for 33
years, "without sin" (4:15). But it was by the "suffering of
death" (2:9), when He was "obedient unto death, even death
on a cross" (Phil. 2:8), that Jesus was made "perfect in
benefit" by serving as the sinless sacrifice sufficient for
the sins of mankind. By thus making the high priestly
sacrifice for all human sin, the "Son, made perfect forever"
(7:28) accomplished the perfect end objective of God for
man, and cried out victoriously, "It is finished?" (Jn.
19:30).
By His death wherein He took the death
consequences of man's sin, Jesus set in motion the
restoration of divine life to man by resurrection, and
"He became to all those obeying Him the source of eternal
salvation." As the Redeemer-Savior, Jesus is "the
source of eternal salvation," for such salvation is derived
only from Him. To indicate that Jesus is the "source" of
salvation is not to imply that He is an objectified
"dispenser" of a commodity called "salvation." No, He is the
author (cf. 2:10) and originator of a dynamic salvation, the
essence of which is integrally united with His ongoing
functional presence and action as Savior. Salvation is not a
static package of an entity called "eternal life," the
benefits of which are alleged to be enjoyed in the future.
Rather, salvation is the dynamic activity of the risen and
living Lord Jesus as He "makes safe" the Christian from
misused humanity in order that the Christian might function
as God intends, by allowing the "eternal life" of Christ
(cf. Jn. 1:4; 5:26; 11:25; 14:6), the "saving life of
Christ" (cf. Rom. 5:10) the Savior, to be operative in the
Christian individual. This is "eternal" salvation because
the eternality of God's character, both qualitative as well
as quantitative, is dynamically operative in the Christian.
The conditional element of this living
salvation is noted in the phrase, "...to all those obeying
Him...". The dynamic saving activity of the Savior cannot be
statically assented to or received. Nor is it universally
applied apart from the freedom of human receptivity. The
Christian must continue to "listen under" (Greek word
hupakouo) the Lord Jesus in the dependence of submission
in order to continue to be receptive to the dynamic activity
of the Savior in faith. But let it be noted that Christ's
obedience (5:8) allows for, and becomes the basis of, the
Christian's obedience. The living, saving "Obedient One,"
Jesus Christ, lives in the Christian individual, providing
everything necessary for the Christian to "listen under" and
respond in the "obedience of faith" in order to allow the
indwelling Christ to live out His life in sanctification
(cf. 10:7-18).
The Christians in Palestine who received
this letter from Paul were suffering in a physical situation
that was not very "safe." Paul was assuring them that they
were "made safe" in Jesus Christ, not only for a future
deliverance and life beyond this life, but "made safe" to
function by "listening under" the direction of the living
Savior, in order to be faithfully receptive to the eternal
character of God expressed in their obedient behavior, even
in the midst of unsettling circumstances of ostracism and
imminent war.
5:10 - Paul returns to his them of
Jesus as divine-human high priest, indicating that by His
life and death Jesus "has been designated under God as
a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek."
This is an obvious reference to his previous citation of
Psalm 110:4 (cf. 5:6) which he attributed to God the Father
in reference to God the Son. The Melchizedekan high
priesthood theme will be picked up again in 6:20, and more
fully developed in 7:1-28. As noted in the comments of 5:6,
the "order of Melchizedek" is a kind or arrangement of
priesthood that is of a divine "order." The only known
participants in that "order" of priesthood were Melchizedek
and Jesus Christ. It is, therefore, not a group designation,
as when one refers to the "Franciscan order," for example.
The statement of Jesus "being designated
under God" as a high priest in the divine order of
Melchizedek has precipitated much discussion of the timing
of God the Father's designation or declaration,
authorization or appointment, installation or investiture of
Jesus as high priest representing mankind under God. Was
Jesus functioning as high priest through His life on earth
(cf. 5:7-9), or was He designated a high priest at His death
(cf. 10:11,12), at His resurrection, or when He ascended
into heaven (cf. 6:19,20; 8:1-4)? Or was Jesus "a priest
forever" (5:6), "holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from
sinners, and exalted above the heavens" (7:26)? Undue
specification of the space/time context of Christ's high
priesthood should be avoided, as it only produces man-made
theological and eschatological limitations on the work of
Christ.
Concluding Remarks:
The Jerusalem Christians who first
received this letter were greatly tempted to revert back to
their Judaic practices in accepting the false hopes of the
Zealot revolutionaries. Paul, writing from Rome, understood
their temptation, and wanted them to realize that Jesus had
identified with mankind by becoming susceptible to the
volitional vulnerabilities of temptation. The living Lord
Jesus functioning as high priest in His intercessory work
could sympathize with their weaknesses (4:15) and "lack of
strength," having been "tempted in all things" as they were
in their human temptations. Paul wanted to encourage those
first century Christians that Jesus "deals gently" (5:2)
with their weakness, which should make them comfortable to
"draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, in order
to find mercy and grace to help in their time of need"
(4:16). Only by God's grace activity could they expect to
"keep on obeying" (5:9) by "listening under" God as they
were "led by the Spirit" (Rom. 8:14) and responding in the
receptivity of faithful obedience. Thus they would find the
living Lord Jesus to be the "source of their eternal
salvation" (5:9), as they were "made safe" by the eternality
of Christ's character operative in their behavior, despite
the external circumstances.
As Christians today, we continue to be
tempted in the midst of our circumstances tempted to react
with violence, anxiety or desertion (fight, fright or
flight). We must understand that it is not wrong to be
tempted, for that is just part of the human experience, just
as Jesus was tempted, "yet without sin" (4:15). We should
not deny or decry our weakness of volitional vulnerability
or that we have "times of need" (4:16), for if we cannot
recognize our "times of need" we will not likely recognize
God's grace sufficiency in the midst of such. Christ, as our
living high priest, sympathizes with our weaknesses (4:15),
"suffering together with us" therein. He "deals gently" with
us in a "moderated passion" that does not ignore us with a
"silent treatment" or attack us with a "sledgehammer
approach," but compassionately loves us with a gentle
concern for our highest well-being. Such gracious provision
should make us comfortable to "hold fast our confession"
(4:14), and to "draw near with confidence to the throne of
grace" (4:16), availing ourselves of the illimitable
resources of God's grace as Christ continues to function
intercessorily for us in His high priestly work. As we "keep
on obeying" (5:9) by relying on the Obedient One, Jesus
Christ, we enjoy the "eternal salvation" that functions
dynamically as the Eternal Savior lives in and through us.
FOOTNOTES
1
Kittel, Gerhard (editor), Theological Dictionary of
the New Testament. Article on "archiereus"
by Gottlob Schrenk. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub.
Co., 1972. pg. 268.
2
Thomas, W. Ian, The Mystery of Godliness. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House. 1972.
pgs. 48,49.
JESUS: THE
BETTER HOPE OF
INHERITING THE PROMISES OF GOD
The recipients of this letter were "the
descendants of Abraham" (2:16). They were Jewish Christians
residing in the Jewish capital of Jerusalem (or the nearby
environs) in the middle of the seventh decade of the first
century (approximately 65 A.D. as best we can reconstruct
the setting of this letter from the external and internal
evidence available). Their Jewish ethnic heritage
constituted them as "descendants of Abraham" by physical
heritage, and by becoming Christians they had become
"descendants of Abraham" by participating in the "faith of
Abraham" (Rom. 4:16), for the Christian "children of the
promise are regarded as descendants" (Rom. 9:6-8) of
Abraham. As Paul explained in his earliest correspondence
with the Galatians, "If you belong to Christ, then you are
Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise" (Gal.
3:29).
It was not easy to be a Jewish Christian
in the heartland of the Judaic religion in the middle of the
first century. Because they had confessed Jesus as the
promised Messiah, these Jewish Christians had "endured a
great conflict of sufferings," had "been made a public
spectacle through reproaches and tribulations," and had
"accepted joyfully the seizure of their property, knowing
that they had a better possession, and an abiding one"
(10:32-34). These ostracisms, reproaches, tribulations and
sufferings were inflicted upon them at the hand of their own
Jewish peoples who regarded them as traitors for confessing
Jesus as the promised Messiah and becoming Christians.
The external circumstances surrounding
these Jewish Christians did not seem to point to a "better
possession" (10:39) or a "great reward" (10:35) in
"receiving what was promised" (10:36) by God to Abraham.
Having endured these sufferings without seeing any visible
benefits of their Christian faith, they were in danger of
losing their confidence (10:35), of "shrinking back"
(10:38,39), and repudiating their Christian faith in order
to join the prevailing socio-political movement of Jewish
insurrection against Rome.
The rumblings of revolt were
reverberating across the region of Judea. Zealot
revolutionaries were promising that as a result of their
planned rout of the Roman oppressors the Jewish peoples
would obtain and inherit what was rightfully theirs what
God had promised to them through Abraham. The liberationists
apparently claimed that God was on their side that divine
providence and angelic assistance would assure their
victory. The Davidic kingdom would be restored and the
Jewish people would rule themselves as they enjoyed "rest"
in the promised land. The Aaronic high priesthood would be
restored in the temple. These were their "divine rights"
that must be fought for by ousting the Romans.
Throughout this epistle to the Jewish
Christians, Paul has been countering the false premises and
promises of the Jewish insurrectionists. "Promises,
promises, promises!" Political promises are cheap, easy to
make, and of little value, but people's hopes are often
pinned on such promises in the myopic focus of the
contemporary socio-political situation. The Jewish
Christians of Judea were being pressured and seduced to
place their hopes on the physical and material fulfillment
of the promises of God to Abraham (cf. Gen. 12, 15, 17,19).
Paul seeks to remind them that Jesus Christ was the
spiritual fulfillment of all the promises of God to Abraham,
and that "through faith and patience they inherit the
promises" (6:13). Whereas the Jewish peoples always sought a
physical fulfillment to the promises of God to Abraham for a
land, a nation, a posterity and a blessing, Paul's repeated
explanation is that God has spiritually blessed His
people in Jesus Christ (cf. Eph. 1:3; Gal. 3:8,9,14),
brought them to a place in the presence of God (cf.
Gal. 4:16; Jn. 14:2,3; Heb. 4:1,9,13; 11:10-16; 12:22: II
Pet. 3:13), and made them a holy nation (cf. I Pet.
2:9) with a plenitude of posterity (cf. Rom. 4:16;
9:8; Gal. 3:7,16,19,28). "Our hope," Paul seems to be saying
to the Jewish Christians of Judea, "is not in political
revolution and military war strategies. Our hope is in Jesus
Christ (cf. I Tim. 1:1)." All of the promises of God to
Abraham are fulfilled in Jesus Christ (cf. II Cor. 1:20;
Rom. 15:8; Lk. 22:44-47). Christians are already inheriting
those promises, even though in the enigma of the interim
until the consummation of Christ's triumph becomes visible,
it may not appear that the promises are fulfilled, but the
continuity and perpetuity of the inheritance will be enjoyed
through eternity.
Paul was aware that the Judean Christians
were becoming "sluggish" (5:11; 6:12) in their resolve to
live in the fullness of what they had in Jesus Christ. They
were losing confidence (3:6; 4:16; 10:35) and "shrinking
back" (10:38,39) to a Jewish perspective that focused on
tangible and physical fulfillments. They were flirting with
the option of jettisoning their Christian perspective of
hope in Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of all God's
promises. Paul is desirous that they "press on to maturity"
(6:1), to the end-objective of all God has for Christians in
Jesus Christ.
This historical context allows us to
explain the textual context, for the content of this section
(5:116:20), when wrested from its historical and textual
context, has often led to extracted and abstracted
interpretations and applications that do not legitimately
represent Paul's original intent. A text without its proper
context often becomes a pretext for any fanciful formulation
of thought. These verses are not just a parenthetical
interlude or insertion of a non sequitur diversion or
digression of thought, as some have charged. In the greater
textual context of Paul's explanation of Christ's assumption
of the high priestly function in the "order of Melchizedek"
(4:14 10:39), Paul makes a direct and logical connection
with Abraham who offered gifts to Melchizedek (cf. Gen.
14:18-20). That the Melchizedekan high priesthood is the
context of Paul's reference to Abraham in this text (cf.
6:13) is obvious from the references to Melchizedek that
bracket this section (cf. 5:10; 6:20).
Paul's perspective of the Melchizedekan
high priesthood assumed by Jesus Christ was that it
explained the entirety of the "finished work" (cf. Jn.
19:30) of Jesus Christ. This is evident in the statement
which directly precedes this section: "Having been made
perfect, He became to all those obeying Him the source of
eternal salvation, being designated by God as a high priest
according to the order of Melchizedek" (5:9,10). Christ's
priestly sacrifice of Himself once and for all (cf. 7:27;
9:12,28; 10:10,12) was sufficient to satisfy the just
consequences of sin. The "eternal salvation" (5:9) of the
"saving life" (cf. Rom. 5:10) of the risen Lord Jesus
continues to be sufficient to allow, and to cause, the
Christian to be and do all that God wants to be and do in
and through him. This "finished work" of God's grace by the
dynamic of the "Spirit of Christ" (cf. Rom. 8:9) affords
Christians the confidence that "He who began a good work in
them will perfect it" (Phil. 1:6).
The Christians in Jerusalem needed to
recognize the broader expanded priesthood of Melchizedek
that had been assumed by Jesus Christ and the implications
thereof. The Aaronic and Levitical priesthoods were regional
and provincial, relating to the Jewish peoples in a
particular geographical location, as well as provisional and
preliminary to the ultimate intentions of God in the
fulfillment of Jesus Christ. The Melchizedekan priesthood,
on the other hand, was universal for all people, and was an
eternal (cf. Heb. 6:20; 7:17,21), permanent (cf. Heb. 7:24)
priesthood that represented man before God. The restoration
of the physical priesthood in the temple at Jerusalem and
the restoration of an ethnic nation in the land parcel of
Palestine were not God's objective, for God had already
restored humanity spiritually through the universal
priesthood and blessing of Jesus Christ, and had established
a "holy nation" of people dwelling in God's presence. For
the Christians in Jerusalem to consider jumping on the
bandwagon of the Zealot liberationists was to engage in a
retrogression to prior Jewish perspectives, a reversion back
to expecting the promises of God to Abraham to be fulfilled
by physical and material criteria rather than the spiritual
fulfillment of all God's promises to Abraham in Jesus
Christ.
When Paul refers to his readers as being
"dull" (5:11) and "sluggish" (6:1), and needing to "press on
to maturity" (6:1), it has often been assumed by
commentators that the recipients were immature in their
understanding of the Christian faith, having failed to grow
and progress as they should have in their knowledge of
Christian doctrine and behavior. It must be questioned,
however, whether this was a pedagogical and didactic issue
that Paul alludes to, or whether is was a practical and
experiential issue. Was it an epistemological problem or an
ontological negligence? Was this a theorem
information deficiency, or was this a practicum faith
deficiency? Many interpreters have indicated that Paul was
referring to a learning problem that the readers were slow
learners, stagnated as ignorant "spiritual babies" who had
not learned their ABCs and needed to go back to the
elementary school of Christian learning. Several
observations dictate against such an interpretation,
however. All that Paul has written in this epistle, both
prior to this section and subsequent to this section,
presupposes and indicates an advanced understanding of the
Christian faith on the part of the readers. The recipients
appear to be regarded as well-taught and knowledgeable
Christians. Paul does not seem to think that the readers
needed to return to or review the initial and foundational
tenets of Christian instruction (6:1,2), but in commonality
with them writes, "let us press on to maturity." Maturation
is not so much a matter of information as it is a matter of
sanctification. Christianity is not essentially an
epistemological belief-system, but is the ontological Being
of Christ lived out in such a way that the end-objective
(Greek word telos) of God is accomplished, and God is
glorified as Christ's life and character are lived out
despite how much information and knowledge one has, and
despite the external circumstances. Those who are
spiritually "mature" (Greek word teleios 5:14; 6:1)
are those who are spiritually discerning and are "listening
under" God in obedience (cf. 5:8,9).
This kind of maturity was the need of the
Jerusalem Christians. They were being pressured and "put in
a bind" by the false hopes and expectations of the Zealot
movement. There was an erosion in their boldness and
confidence and hope in Jesus Christ. They were becoming
"sluggish" (5:11; 6:12) and timid, and in danger of
neglecting their salvation in Christ (2:3) and regressing to
their prior Jewish perspectives of God's promises.
Throughout this epistle Paul attempts to encourage these
Christians in Judea to make the difficult decisions that are
called for in their present situation to "pay close
attention to what they have heard" (2:1); to "hold fast
their confidence" (3:6), and "confession" (4:14), and
"assurance" (3:14), in order to "endure" (10:36; 12:1) and
"persevere" (10:39). In this specific section (5:11 6:20)
Paul exhorts them to "build on the foundation" (6:1) they
have in Christ, to engage in the "things that accompany
salvation" (6:9), "to be diligent to realize the full
assurance of hope until the end" (6:11), to have "faith and
patience to inherit the promises" (6:12), and this by
"pressing on to maturity" (6:1), the end-objective of God in
their lives.
Though the openings verses (5:11-14) of
this section may appear to be a rebuke or reprimand of his
readers, they are best understood as a corrective chiding or
cajoling designed to stimulate and motivate the Jerusalem
Christians to make the difficult decisions of Christian
maturity. Rather than seeking to scold or shame the brethren
in Jerusalem, Paul employs the sarcasm and irony of
referring to them as needy pupils requiring elementary
instruction or infants dependent on predigested milk if they
are not able and willing to make the mature decision to
persevere under pressure. Paul appeals to them to recognize
that "Jesus is the better hope of inheriting the promises of
God."
5:11 In direct connection with
the preceding verses, Paul writes, "Concerning this we
have much to say, and it is difficult to
explain," The pronoun can be translated as a
masculine, "him", or as a neuter, "this." If translated as a
masculine pronoun, "him" can refer either to Melchizedek as
the type of Christ, or to Christ as the antitype of
Melchizedek, since both are mentioned in the preceding
sentence. Translated as a neuter pronoun, "this" can refer
to "this subject matter of Christ being high priest in the
order of Melchizedek," which encompasses both of the
interpretations of the masculine pronoun. Paul's use of the
plural "we have much to say," has led some to speculate
about plural authorship, but is best understood as an
editorial "we" including himself with his ministerial
colleagues and his readers. That there is indeed "much to
say" about this subject is evidenced by the lengthy
treatment of the theme in 7:110:18.
The subject of Christ's Melchizedekan
high priesthood is without a doubt "difficult to explain,"
because it comprehends the entirety of Christ's "finished
work." This is not an easy subject and requires careful
spiritual understanding. The difficulty of the subject
material, however, is often dependent on the maturity of the
audience to understand and appreciate what is being
presented. In this case, the difficult subject matter was
compounded by the apparent indolent and indifferent attitude
of the readers in Jerusalem. It is doubly "difficult to
explain "since you have become sluggish to the
hearing," Paul writes. Theirs was not a limitation
or inability to intellectually or spiritually grasp the
subject matter. Neither was it a communication problem of
finding adequate words. The problem with the Christians in
Jerusalem was an unresponsive unwillingness to "listen
under" God in obedience in the midst of their difficult
socio-political situation. In the preceding sentence Paul
had noted that "He (Jesus Christ) became to all those
obeying ("listening under" Greek hupakouo) the
source of eternal salvation" (5:9). The Jerusalem Christians
were "sluggish in their listening" (Greek word akouo).
It is not that they were mentally dense or had a diminished
capacity to understand. Rather, they were not being diligent
(cf. 4:11; 6:11) to persevere (cf. 10:39) in a vital and
legitimate (cf. 12:8 Greek root word for "sluggish")
expression of "the obedience of faith" (cf. Rom. 1:5;
16:26). There seems to have been a spiritual inertia
precipitated by "listening" to the voices of the
revolutionary instigators, rather than to the voice of God
to ascertain how He wanted to live out His character in
them.
5:12 "For through this
time you ought to be teachers," Paul implores. A
teacher is not just an information processor who instructs
others. A teacher is one who is responsible and takes the
lead to speak out boldly, sharing out of what that teacher
knows (cf. 8:11; I Cor. 2:12). A Christian teacher is one
who has been taught by God (cf. I Thess. 4:9), "listening
under" the Divine instruction of the Spirit (cf. Jn. 14:26;
I Jn. 2:27), and is willing to take the lead in obedience.
"Through this time" of difficult turmoil in Palestine, the
Jerusalem Christians were not leading boldly in faith, and
Paul chides them saying, "you have need again for
someone to teach you the initial elements of the words of
God." These Christians had apparently retrogressed
into a pupil phase of spiritual progress. In their hesitancy
to act in the obedience of faith, they were like students
who were dependent on an instructor to receive second-hand
knowledge concerning the basic rudiments of divine logic.
The "initial elements of the words of God" are not just
elementary Biblical information, but the foundational (cf.
6:1) understanding of God's fulfilling all His promises in
Jesus Christ (cf. II Cor. 1:20).
Changing the analogy, but continuing the
irony, Paul adds, "and you have come to need milk and
not solid food." Mature Christians should be able to
accommodate both "the pure milk of the word that causes one
to grow in respect to salvation" (I Peter 2:2), as well as
the "solid food" of spiritual discernment and digestion that
understands the sufficiency of the "finished work" of
Christ. Paul intimates that if the Judean Christians are not
willing to persevere under pressure, they are like infants
that can only tolerate the second-hand nourishment of
predigested food.
5:13 The nourishment analogy is
further explained: "For every one partaking of milk
alone is not experienced in the word of righteousness,
for he is an infant." Those unwilling to be
spiritually discerning by partaking of the solid food of
"listening under" God in obedience are being childish in
their desire only for predigested milk provided by another.
Paul's caricature of the Jerusalem Christians suggests that
they might be immature in the discerning process of
spiritual growth that partakes of the "word of
righteousness" in order to yield "the fruit of
righteousness" (12:11). The living Lord Jesus is the divine
"Word of Righteousness," apart from Whom there can be no
righteous behavior.
5:14 "But solid food,"
Paul goes on to explain, "is for the mature, those who
through habituated experience have their perceptions
exercised to discern both good and evil." Mature
Christians, those recognizing the end-objective that God
intends for their lives in the functional expression of the
Christ-life lived out to the glory of God, can appreciate
and accommodate the "solid food" of understanding and
applying the reality of Christ's intercessory high
priesthood in their lives. Christian maturity is the
habituated experience or the practiced exercise of
perceiving, appreciating and discerning (the English word
"aesthetics" is derived from the same root as the word here
translated "perceptions") the source and expression of the
character of good and evil. This is not the same as an
intellectual determination of true and false, nor an ethical
discrimination of right and wrong, but is a spiritual
discernment of the "good" character that is derived only
from God (cf. III John 11) by the sufficiency of His grace,
as distinguished from the "evil" character derived from the
Evil One (cf. Matt. 12:35). In the case of the Christians in
Jerusalem, they did not seem to have an appetite for the
"good" character that "accompanied salvation" (cf. 6:9) and
allowed them to minister to others in maturity (cf. 6:10) as
they continued to be receptive to the "Word of
Righteousness" (5:13), despite the difficulty of the then
present circumstances. The "evil" character that they were
tempted to partake of was the failure to appreciate the full
significance of the risen Lord Jesus and the tendency to
function in a manner that was not consistent with God's
intent and character by desiring a physical and material
fulfillment of God's promises rather than the spiritual
fulfillment God had provided in Jesus Christ. Paul had such
a deep-seated concern for his kinsmen, both physical and
spiritual, that they should not lapse into the immaturity of
seeking the second-best of the second-hand promises of the
Jewish liberationists, but that the maturity of their
sanctification would be manifested in the "diligence that
would realize the full assurance of hope until the end"
(6:11) as they remained receptive to God's "good" character
effected only by the high priestly intercessory work of the
living Lord Jesus.
6:1 "Therefore,"
Paul continues, "since you are not in need of the
preliminary and primary reasonings and study of Christ, and
since you are not to be undiscerning and dependent on
others, let us proceed and advance beyond the elementary
principles and build upon the foundation that has been laid.
You are not bottle-babies! You are not kindergarten pupils
needing to learn your ABCs despite the preceding sarcasm
of hypothesized concern." This interpretation avoids any
contradiction between 5:11-14 and 6:1-3. "Having left
the initial word of Christ, let us be brought upon
maturity," The "initial word of Christ," whether it
is "the word from Christ" (subjective genitive) or "the word
about Christ" (objective genitive), will necessarily include
the six (6) foundational elements of Christian teaching that
are delineated below (6:1,2). Including himself with his
readers, Paul desires that they should be carried forward
and enabled in the maturation process by the grace of God.
Instead of the initial, starting elements of Christian
instruction, they need to be brought unto the end-objective
of Christian maturity, allowing the "finished work" of the
living Lord to be operative in their lives.
Foundations are important, as is made
clear by Jesus' parable of building on rock instead of sand
(Matt. 7:24-27; Lk. 6:48,49), but foundations are not an end
in themselves for they are designed for a structure to be
build upon them. By referring to "having left the initial
word of Christ," Paul is not advocating that the
foundational factors should be abandoned, destroyed or
denied, but is encouraging them to go on and build maturity
on the foundation that has been laid, "not laying
again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of
faith upon God." Though some have interpreted these
foundational elements to be the Jewish teachings that these
Jewish Christians had built their Christian faith upon, the
context of "the initial word of Christ" seems to dictate
that they refer to initial Christian teaching. Initial
Christian instruction involves an admonition to "repentance
from dead works" (cf. Acts 2:38; 3:19; Heb. 9:14), a change
of mind about one's sinful expressions that do not express
the living character of God and are worthy of punitive death
consequences. Initial Christian instruction also includes a
call to "faith upon God" (cf. Acts 16:31), receptivity to
the redemptive activity of God in His Son, Jesus Christ.
6:2 The list of foundational
Christian teachings continues. "Teaching about
baptisms" was part of the initial teaching of the
Church (cf. Acts 2:38; 8:12). The use of the plural
"baptisms" may refer to teaching that differentiated between
Jewish proselyte baptism, the baptism of John the Baptist
(cf. Acts 18:25; 19:3), and Christian baptism (cf. Acts
2:38; 19:5). Such teaching could also distinguish between
baptism in the Spirit (cf. I Cor. 12:13) and the initial
Christian rite of water baptism.
The "laying on of hands"
was sometimes employed in healing (cf. Mk. 5:23; 6:5; 16:18;
Acts 9:12,17), or in recognizing God's ordination to
ministry (cf. Acts 6:6; 13:3; I Tim. 4:14; 5:22; II Tim.
1:6), but the more likely reference here is to the early
Christian practice of "laying on of hands" as an outward
sign to indicate receipt of the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 8:17;
19:6). This accords well with the previous reference to
"baptism" and the subsequent reference to the Holy Spirit in
6:4.
Teaching about "the resurrection of
the dead ones" has always been a distinctive part of
initial Christian instruction. Though Paul's teaching of
"the resurrection of the dead ones" who died in Christ was
not always well received (Acts 17:32) as it countered the
popular Greek concept of the inherent immortality of the
soul, he placed much emphasis on the Christian's
resurrection from physical death, based on the resurrection
of Jesus Christ from the dead (cf. I Cor. 15:1-58).
The foundational teaching of "the
judgment of the ages" is closely associated with the
eschatological teaching of "the resurrection of the dead
ones." Such "judgment" is not invested with any negative or
positive connotations for the determinative judgment is
based on an individual's spiritual union with either the
Spirit of God or the "spirit of this world" (cf. I Cor.
2:12), and is but the consequence of one's freely chosen
continuity and perpetuity of that spiritual union. Such talk
of "the judgment to come" made Felix very uncomfortable
(Acts 24:25), but Paul will reiterate later in this epistle
that "it is appointed unto men to die once and after this
comes judgment" (Heb. 9:27). The Christian who abides in
Christ has no cause for fear of divine judgment (cf. 10:27),
for Christ has taken the divine judgment upon sin (cf. Jn.
3:17-19) and the Christian "does not come into punitive
judgment, but has passed out of death into life" (Jn. 5:24).
6:3 Having mentioned six (6)
elements of initial and foundational Christian instruction
(6:1,2), Paul returns to his primary emphasis of wanting his
readers to "be brought to maturity" (6:1) by the grace of
God. "This we shall do, if God permits." Paul
tells his readers, "We shall proceed to discuss the
difficult subject of the Melchizedekan high priest of Jesus
Christ (cf. 7:1-10:39) in order to understand how the
"finished work" of Christ's intercessory high priesthood
brings us into the maturity of living in faithful
receptivity (cf. 4:2; 6:12; 10:22,39; 11:1-39; 12:2) to
God's activity in our lives." We shall do so, "if God
permits" (cf. I Cor. 16:7), Paul states. This is not an
impious phrase of resignation like, "God willing and the
creek don't rise." Paul subordinated everything to the will
of God, and he was fully cognizant that such maturity in his
own life and in those of the Jerusalem Christians was
exactly what God wanted to effect, for "He who began a good
work in you will perfect (same Greek root word as "mature")
it until the day of Christ Jesus" (Phil. 1:6). The grace of
God was sufficient to effect such maturity, if they remained
diligent (cf. 6:11) in their faith (cf. 6:12) to inherit the
promises of God to Abraham (cf. 6:12,13). This delicate
dialectic of grace and faith, of God's sovereign activity
and the human responsibility of receptivity, provides the
necessary setting for the interpretation of the next five
(5) verses (6:4-8).
6:4 The chiding of the
Christians in Jerusalem in 5:11-14, that their reticence to
make the difficult choices to live in Christ could be
construed as immaturity, is now expressed in the
hypothetical possibility that they might choose to repudiate
their Christian faith and apostasize (6:4-8). Paul does not
believe that they will do so (6:9), but he pens these words
to postulate the real possibility of apostasy, as he does
throughout this epistle (cf. 2:1; 3:12; 4:1,11; 10:26-31;
12:15-17), and to warn the readers of the very real
consequences to be incurred by such apostasy. As Paul
returns to the hypothetical possibility of the Jerusalem
Christians abandoning Christ, he changes from the inclusive
first person plurals of "us" (6:1) and "we" (6:3), and
employs the third person plurals of "those" (6:4), "them"
(6:6) and "they" (6:6), to signify an anonymous speculation,
and his unwillingness to identify himself with such.
"For," since Christian
maturity is effected by God's grace activity responded to
constantly by the faith receptivity of the believer (6:3),
it is important to recognize the realities that a Christian
has received in Christ, and the consequences of rejecting
such. In the Greek text the word "impossible" (6:6) is
placed prior to Paul's listing of the regenerative realities
the Christian has received. This serves to evidence Paul's
confidence in the preserving grace of God as well as the
persevering faith of the Jerusalem Christians, rather than
any pessimistic foretaste of a failure of faith. Without a
doubt Paul wanted to encourage the Jerusalem Christians by
listing these five (5) spiritual realities that had "once,"
without repetition, become theirs in spiritual regeneration.
These are not a sequence of successive events in a
theological ordo salutis, but are realities that
every Christian receives in regeneration.
Paul first refers to Christians as
"those having been once enlightened." This is not a
psychological "enlightenment" whereby someone has "seen the
light" by rationalistic understanding. Literally translated,
Paul wrote of "those having been brought to the light," the
passive voice indicating God's grace action, and the aorist
tense indicating a definitive act. This spiritual
"enlightenment" occurs at regeneration when an individual
becomes a Christian by receiving the life of Jesus Christ.
Jesus said, "I am the light of the world; he who follows
Meshall have the light of life" (John 8:12). John recorded
that "In Him (Jesus) was life, and the life was the light of
men" (John 1:4). Jesus is the "true light which came into
the world, and enlightens every man" (John 1:9) who receives
Him as their life. The "enlightenment" that Paul reminds the
Jerusalem Christians of is the receipt of Christ's life.
"The spirit of man is the lamp of the Lord" (Prov. 20:27),
and when Christ life is received within one's spirit a
person is 'turned from darkness to light, and from the
dominion of Satan to God, in order that they may receive
forgiveness of sins" (Acts 26:18), for "by reason of His
resurrection from the dead, Christ proclaimed light both to
the Jewish people and to the Gentiles" (Acts 26:23). When he
wrote to the Corinthians, Paul explains that "God who said,
'Light shall shine out of darkness' (Gen. 1:3), is the One
who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the
knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ; we have
this treasure in earthen vessels" (II Cor. 4:6,7).
Second, Paul writes of "those
having once tasted of the heavenly gift." This, too,
refers to the deliberate act of receiving God's gift into
oneself at regeneration. The "tasting" is not a partial
experience of "tasting with the tip of the lip" (cf.
Calvin), but involves "taking into oneself for the full
experience of" For example, when Jesus "tasted death for
everyone" (2:9), He experienced the full reality of death,
not just a partial experience. How is the "heavenly gift" to
be identified? Some have called attention to "the gift of
grace" (cf. Heb. 3:7; 4:7; Rom. 5:15,17; II Cor. 9:15),
others to "the gift of redemption and salvation" (cf. Eph.
2:8,9; Rom. 6:23), and others to "the gift of the Holy
Spirit" (cf. Acts 2:38; 10:45), but the "summing up of all
things is in Christ" (Eph. 1:10), so the "heavenly gift" can
be summed up in the person of Jesus Christ. "God so loved
the world that He gave His only begotten Son" (John 3:16),
who is "the gift of God" (John 4:10). "God has blessed us
with every spiritual blessing in heavenly places in Christ
Jesus" (Eph. 1:3). As the Psalmist said, "Taste and see that
the Lord is good" (Ps. 34:8).
"Those having been once made
partakers of the Holy Spirit" can only refer to
those who have become partakers of the Spirit of Christ
(Rom. 8:9) at regeneration. This spiritual reality cannot be
separated from the foregoing mention of the "heavenly gift"
of Christ, for otherwise one has a deficient Trinitarian
understanding that fails to recognize the Holy Spirit as the
Spirit of Christ. At regeneration the Christian becomes a
"partaker of Christ" (3:14), a "partakers of the Holy
Spirit" (6:4) and "a partaker of the divine nature" (II Pet.
1:4). "God sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts"
(Gal. 4:6). "The Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the
dead dwells in you; His spirit indwells you" (Rom. 8:11),
Paul writes. "He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has
given us" (I John 3:24), John adds. To be a "partaker of the
Holy Spirit" necessarily involves partaking of the
expressions of the Spirit in the charismata and
pneumatikon of Romans 12 and I Corinthians 12, but the
reference here is not to be limited to such, divorcing the
spiritual manifestations from their source in the Holy
Spirit.
6:5 Continuing his list of
regenerative and salvific realities enjoyed by every
Christian, Paul refers to "those having once tasted
the good word of God." Again, as noted in 6:4, to
"taste" is to take into oneself so completely that the
experience of what one has taken in becomes part of the
person receiving such. Paul's mention of the "word" of God
here is a translation of the Greek word rhema (cf.
1:3; 11:3), rather than the Greek word logos (cf.
4:12; 5:13; 13:7), also translated "word." Some have made a
sharp distinction between these words, explaining that
logos means an objectively manifested revelation of God
as in the historical incarnation of Christ (John 1:1,14),
while rhema means a more subjectively experienced
personal revelation of Christ. Jesus Christ is both the
objective and subjective self-revelation of God, and can be
referred to as logos, angellos or rhema.
We must avoid, however, applying "the good word of God" only
to the tangible book of the Bible or to an abstracted
construct of the "gospel message," for the "good news" of
the message of the gospel is Jesus Christ, and the purpose
of the Scriptures are to reveal the personified Word of God,
Jesus Christ (cf. John 5:39,40).
Christians are also "those having
once tasted the powers of the coming age." The
"coming age" is the Christian age, during which time
Christians experience the dynamics of divine power as never
before. God "made the ages" (1:2) with the intent that "in
the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His
grace toward us in Christ Jesus" (Eph. 2:7). He has
accomplished such, for "once at the consummation of the
ages, He (Christ) has been manifested to put away sins by
the sacrifice of Himself" (Heb. 9:26). This is "the mystery
that has been hidden from the past ages and generations, but
has now been manifested to His saints, which is Christ in
you, the hope of glory" (Col. 1:26,27). The "coming age" is
not just a future age, for Christians have already tasted
and experienced the Christian age in "these last days" (Heb.
1:2; Acts 2:17; I Pet. 1:20) of the inaugurated and realized
eschatos age, empowered as it is by "the Eschatos
Man" Jesus Christ (I Cor. 15:45) which is not to deny a
completed consummation of that "age" and those "last days"
in the future.
6:6 Despite the fact that the
defection of the Jerusalem Christians was hypothetical and
unexpected (6:9), Paul posits the real possibility of a
Christian having experienced the regenerative spiritual
realities he has listed, "and then
having fallen away." This phrase follows the
previous phrases with a single conjunction, "and", but the
obvious contrast of the action of this phrase with the
previous phrases often causes translators to add a
contractual word, such as "and yet" (JBP), or a word
of contrasted sequence such as "and then" (NASB,
NAB). The invalid translation is to add the word "if" (KJV,
RSV, NIV) to indicate that such action and its consequences
are but speculative and conjectural, rather than a real
possibility. The aorist tense of this participial verb, like
the four (4) previous participles, indicates a definite and
deliberate willful action. The "once" that applied to the
previous actions (6:4) can also apply to this phrase, "and
then having once fallen away," indicating the singularity
and non-repetition of the action.
To "fall away" does not mean simply to
fall into an act of misrepresentative sin. The context
demands that we understand that Paul is indicating the
possibility of falling away from a relationship with Jesus
Christ falling away from the enlightenment of Christ's
life; falling away from the heavenly gift of Christ; falling
away from being partakers of the Holy Spirit in Christ;
falling away from having received the word of God in Christ;
and falling away from having experienced the power of the
age to come in Christ. To "fall away" is to renounce and
repudiate all that one has received in Christ. The Jerusalem
Christians were in danger of doing just that neglecting
the saving life of Christ (2:1); falling away from the
living God (3:12); falling into disobedience (4:11);
trampling under foot the Son of God (10:29); and being
defiled by a root of bitterness (12:15). They were being
pressured by the Palestinian liberation movement to return
to the Jewish hopes for the material fulfillment of the
promises of God to Abraham, and thus to abandon the hope
they had in Jesus Christ as the spiritual fulfillment of
God's promises. Such a definite decision to reject Christ
and revert to the Judaic religion; to "drift away" (2:1); to
develop an evil, unbelieving heart (3:12); to disobey
(4:11); and to "shrink back" (10:38,39) would constitute a
deliberate and willful apostasy of "standing against" Jesus
Christ (cf. 3:12). It would have been a calculated
capitulation to the coercive campaign of the Jewish
religionist, a deliberate denial of Christ and all of the
spiritual realities inherent in Him in other words, a
"reverse conversion." Such a decision would be to blaspheme,
to speak bad words of contempt and reviling of God in
Christ, and such blasphemous rejection of God is
consistently stated throughout the Scriptures to have
irreversible consequences of being "cut off" (Numb.
15:30,31), of receiving judgmental wrath (Ezek. 20:27-36),
and being unforgivable (cf. Matt. 12:32; Mk. 3:29; Lk.
12:10).
Paul connects the possibility of "falling
away" with the impossibility of returning to Jesus Christ.
"It is impossible to renew them again unto
repentance." Paul is not saying "it is very
difficult" or "humanly impossible" to restore a Christian
who has rejected and denied Jesus Christ, but rather that it
is divinely impossible since it would be incongruous with
the character of God (cf. 6:18). Although "all things are
possible with God" (Mk. 10:27) and "nothing will be
impossible" (Lk. 1:37), it is impossible for God to act
contrary to Who He is, for He only acts out of His Being,
and cannot act contrary to His character without ceasing to
be God. Acting out of His self-giving character, God has
"given His only begotten Son" (Jn. 3:16). The singular
sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross "once and for all"
(7:27; 9:12; 10:10) cannot be reenacted. There is no other
"sacrifice for sins" (10:26). If the salvation of Christ has
been once (6:4) experienced (6:4,5) and rejected (6:6), then
God has nothing more to give. The totality of His grace and
self-revelation are expressed in Jesus Christ. There can be
no more foundation of repentance (6:1), no second basis of
eternal life. As Peter stated, "Lord, to whom shall we go?
You alone have the words of eternal life" (Jn. 6:68). Later
Peter declared, "There is salvation in no one else; for
there is no other name under heaven by which we must be
saved" (Acts 4:12).
The impossibility (Greek word adunaton,
meaning "no dynamic") of an individual receiving Christ,
rejecting Christ, and then returning to be renewed or
restored to Christ must be explained theologically as a
divine impossibility. Paul Ellingworth writes that "the
impossibility of a second repentance is not psychological;
it is in the strict sense theological, related to God's
saving action in Christ."1
The impossibility of a second conversion is not based on the
psychological impossibility of a psychological hardness of
heart whereby an individual has developed a fixed attitude
of rejecting Jesus, calling good "evil" and evil "good", and
having no concern for the things of God in Jesus Christ. It
is not even a "judicial hardening" of the psychological
function of mind, emotion and will. It is the theological
impossibility of reenacting the necessary foundation of
repentance and salvation in the death and resurrection of
Jesus Christ. All of God's grace, love, and dynamic of
restored life to mankind are extended in Jesus Christ. If
the dynamic of Christ's life is experienced, and then
rejected, then there is no theological foundation of
repentance and salvation for that person. This is not just
the logical impossibility of God going back on His word,
having made a static declaration of "once apostasized,
always apostasized," or "once revoked, always revoked." No,
this is the theological impossibility of God's sending His
Son again and reenacting redemption. William L. Lane notes
that "to repudiate Christ is to embrace the impossible."2
If the totality of divine dynamic is in Christ, and Christ
has been rejected, then there is "no dynamic" to effect
salvation again. It is a divine impossibility. Later in the
epistle Paul will write, "without faith (the receptivity of
God's dynamic activity) it is impossible (there is no divine
dynamic) to please God" (11:6).
Paul explains the rejection of Christ and
the resultant impossibility of restoration to repentance by
using a metaphorical figure: "since they recrucify
again to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open
shame." Obviously, since it is not possible to
crucify the Son of God again in an historical sense, Paul is
employing a figure of speech. Those Christians who would
reject Jesus recrucify Him again in the sense that they seek
to eliminate and terminate their relationship with Jesus.
They want to "put to death" and execute their identification
with Christ, by "hanging Him up" in rejection. In so doing,
they publicly disgrace the Lord Jesus Christ, exposing Him
to public humiliation by inferring that the life of Jesus is
of no value and does not work. To thus "despise and forsake"
(cf. Isa. 53:3) Him, and "insult the Spirit of grace"
(10:29), is to exhibit Him as contemptible before others,
telling a shameful lie (cf. Jn. 8:44) about the Lord, and
making Him a mockery before men.
6:7 Paul utilizes an
agricultural illustration, as was often employed by the
prophets in the Old Testament (cf. Isa. 5:2-7) and by Jesus
(cf. Matt. 3:10; 7:16-20; Mk. 4:1-20; Lk. 13:6-9; Jn.
15:1-8) to relate to the agrarian societies of their day.
Paul does so to present a picture of what he has referred to
in verses 4-6. "For earth that drinks the rain that
often comes, and brings forth vegetation useful for those
for whom it is cultivated, receives blessing from God."
The interpretation of theses verses (7,8) must determine to
what extent the agricultural analogy is to be understood as
an allegory wherein the various details of the story are to
be identified.
The "earth" or the "ground" seems to
represent the readers, the Jerusalem Christians, with a
similarity to the soils of men's hearts in Jesus' parable of
the soils (cf. Matt. 13:3-23; Mk. 4:3-20; Lk. 8:5-15). Like
the rain that repeatedly comes, the grace of God is
continuously available. The Christians in Jerusalem "had
drank" of the grace of God by their receptivity of faith,
having "tasted" (4,5) and been made partakers (5:13; 6:4) of
God's grace by receiving Him into themselves. By God's grace
vegetation or spiritual "fruit" (cf. Matt. 7:20; Jn. 15:4,5;
Gal. 5:22,23; Heb. 13:15) had been brought forth in the
behavior of the Judean Christians. Such fruit is "useful" as
it brings glory to God (cf. I Cor. 10:31; II Cor. 3:18; Heb.
13:21) and serves to cause the Christian community, the Body
of Christ, to function as intended in unity and unto God's
glory. As God's grace continues to be received by faith,
Christians continue to receive the "blessing" of God's
dynamic function of grace, and the "good word" (the Greek
word for "blessing" is eulogias, meaning "good word")
of God's approval, culminating in the words, "Well done,
good and faithful servant" (cf. Matt. 25:21).
6:8 In contrast to the
foregoing scenario which represented the Jerusalem
Christians as Paul knew them, he makes the hypothetical
contrast of what he perceived the readers to be in danger of
doing, and the real consequences of such action. "But
bringing forth thorns and thistles, it (the "ground"
or "earth") is not approved (of God) and
near a curse; the end of which is unto
burning." Should the Christians in Jerusalem reject
Christ and not continue to manifest the fruitful
productivity of God's grace in their lives, but instead
bring forth "thorns and thistles," the fruit of disobedience
(cf. Gen. 3:17,18; Hosea 10:8; Matt. 7:16-20), they would
not be approved of God, but disqualified and rejected (cf. I
Cor. 9:27; II Cor. 13:5) for not serving God's functional
purpose of bringing glory to Himself. As a consequence of
such a choice there existed the real possibility that the
Jerusalem Christians were subject to and "near" a "curse" of
God rather than the "blessing" referred to previously (6:7).
"Blessing" and "cursing" have always been consequences of
man's responsibility of obedience and disobedience (cf.
Deut. 11:26-28). "The end", the terminal result, of such
rejection of God's grace and the bring forth of the fruit of
disobedience is "burning."
In the agricultural situation the farmer
sets the undesired vegetation on fire to destroy it, so the
field, ground or earth, can be used for the constructive
purpose of growing productive crops again. The "burning" is
a procedure employed to purify the land for new sowing of
crops. It is here that the metaphor becomes murky. Is it
just the "thorns and thistles" of the fruit of disobedience
that are to be burned, or is the ground (representing the
people to whom this epistle is written) that is to be
burned? Is the "burning" indicative of a destructive
eschatological judgment, or is it a burning of purification?
It seems preferable to understand that Paul is portraying
some kind of judgment of God upon disobedient people, rather
than the works of man being burned up like "wood, hay and
stubble" (I Cor. 3:12-15). Jesus referred to "every tree
(person) that does not bear good fruit is cut down and
thrown into the fire" (Matt. 7:19, and to people being cast
into the "furnace of fire" (Matt. 13:42,50). Likewise, in
the analogy of the vine and the branch, Jesus said, "If
anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch,
and dries up, and they gather them, and cast them into the
fire and they are burned" (Jn 15:6). In the passage that is
parallel to this passage (6:4-8) in 10:27-39, it is obvious
that Paul is referring to a judgment of God upon apostate
Christians, for he writes of God "judging His people"
(10:30) in a destructive (10:39) punishment (10:29) that
involves the "terrifying expectation of judgment, the fury
of a fire that consumes" (10:27). Let is be noted that "God
is a consuming fire" (12:29) with the prerogative of divine
judgment. It is not man's prerogative or the church's
prerogative to burn Christians as recalcitrants or heretics
in pogroms or inquisitions, as unfortunate incidents of
church history record.
Paul was warning the Jerusalem Christians
that the rejection of Jesus in apostasy would lead to divine
judgment, and at the same time appealing to them to refrain
from such action by building upon the foundation (6:1) they
had in their personal experience of receiving Christ
(6:4,5). He was confident, however, that they would not deny
Christ and depart from the faith, but would bring forth the
"fruit" that accompanies salvation (6:9).
6:9 "But," in
contrast to the foregoing allusions to immaturity (5:11-14)
and apostasy (6:4-8), "beloved, we have been persuaded
of better things concerning you,". Despite the
chiding (5:11-14) and the warning (6:1:4-8), there is no
animosity or antagonism between Paul and the readers; only a
pastoral concern of Christian love wherein he refers to them
as "beloved" (cf. Rom. 12:19; II Cor. 7:1). The possibility
of apostasy is not, and should not be, used as a club of
incentive to chastise, to create fear and doubts, or to
manipulate and motivate by guilt. Paul is convinced by the
evidence he has observed or heard that the Jerusalem
Christians are in a better condition of Christian progress
than that of immaturity (5:11-14) and apostasy (6:4-8). Of
the two illustrative options previously mentioned (6:7,8),
the Christians of Jerusalem are still operating in the
better scenario of verse 7, manifesting the "better thingsthat
pertain to and accompany salvation." These
Christians were being "made safe" from misused humanity in
order to function as God intended (that is "salvation"),
allowing the "fruit of the Spirit" (Gal. 5:22,23), the
character of God, to be expressed in their behavior by God's
grace. Paul was convinced of such better progress
"even if we so speak" of sluggishness (5:11) and the
danger of "falling away" (6:6). Notice that he has returned
to the editorial "we" of personally inclusive plural
pronouns, rather than the hypothetical distancing of
"those," "them," and "they" (6:4-6).
6:10 Emphasizing the positive
progression of which he is persuaded, Paul writes,
"For God is not unjust to have forgotten your work".
The statement, "God is not unjust," is a double negative
that states the positive reality that "God is just." God is
righteous (cf. Ps. 11:7; 119:137; I Jn. 2:29; 3:77), and
does not forget or fail to recognize the grace outworking in
the lives of the Christians in Jerusalem. These were "good
works which God prepared beforehand that they should walk in
them" (Eph. 2:10), and He "equipped them in every good
thing" (Heb. 13:21) in order to "work in them for His good
pleasure" (Phil. 2:13). This "work" is explained later as
"sharing with those who were mistreated, showing sympathy
for the prisoners, and accepting joyfully the seizure of
their property" (10:33,34).
As "love and good works" go together
(10:24), Paul continues to explain that God will not forget
or overlook "the love which you have shown unto His
name, having ministered and continuing to minister to the
saints." Divine love "has been poured out in our
hearts by the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 5:5) and is always the
"fruit of the Spirit" (Gal. 5:22). The Judean Christians had
been receptive to God's expressing His character of love
unto the glory of His own name. Their "love of the brethren"
(13:1) was evidenced in "ministry to the saints," which is
always the overflow of Christ life of love and service for
others through the Christian. These were, no doubt, the
grace-expressions of the charismata (Rom. 12; I Cor.
12). Jesus said, "To the extent that you did it to one of
these brothers of Mine, you did it unto Me" (Matt. 25:40),
and "whoever gives to one of these even a cup of water to
drink, shall not lose his reward" (Matt. 10:42). God does
not neglect to see, nor does He forget when Christians are
available to His active expression of His character.
6:11 Changing from positive
reinforcement to challenge, Paul writes, "But we
desire each one of you to show the same diligence towards
the full assurance of hope until the end." Paul's
desire (cf. Rom. 10:1) for the Jerusalem Christians is that
they individually, and thus collectively, understand their
responsibility to exhibit an eager and zealous diligence of
faith in the midst of their present difficult situation.
This is the "same diligence" as they have previously
manifested in their ministry of love and good deeds (10), as
well as the "same diligence" evidenced in "those, like
Abraham, who through faith inherit the promises" (12), thus
relating to both the prior and subsequent context. Earlier
in the epistle Paul had encouraged them to "be diligent to
enter God's rest" (4:11). Now he advocates a diligence that
is directed toward a "full assurance" and confidence of
understanding (cf. Col. 2:2), faith (cf. 10:22), and
expectant hope in inheriting the promises of God. Later Paul
will make a corollary challenge: "You have need of
endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you
may receive what was promised" (10:36). This is similar to
Peter's admonition to "apply all diligence" (II Peter 1:5)
"to make certain about His calling and choosing you" (II
Peter 1:10). Paul is concerned that the Christians in
Palestine should fully bear the present difficulties and
"hold fast their confidence" (3:6) that God would be
faithful to His promises (10:23) "until the end," whether
that be the "end" of the Judaic religion in 70 A.D., the
"end" of their lives, the "end" of time, or the
"end-objective" of rest (4:9-11) and maturity (6:1).
6:12 The opposite of
"diligence" is "sluggishness," so Paul expresses his desire
negatively, "that you should not be sluggish,".
He had already intimated that they seem to be "sluggish in
hearing" (5:11), hesitant and reticent to boldly move
forward in the instructional maturity of faith. Paul did not
want the readers to be "dragging their feet" in unreceptive
indolence, "but imitators of those who through faith
and patience are inheriting the promises." Though
the word "imitators" translates a word, the root of which is
mimos, the etymological basis of the English word
"mimic," the linguistic meaning of the word is not mere
mimicking of external actions, such as "parroting," aping,"
or "monkey see, monkey do." The word refers to patterning
oneself after an exemplary model, and following by
functioning in like manner as the behavioral pattern of
another. Paul commended the Thessalonian Christians saying,
"You became imitators of us and of the Lord" (I Thess. 1:6),
as he had "offered himself as a model for them, to follow
his example" (II Thess. 3:9). Later in this epistle to the
Hebrew Christians in Jerusalem, Paul will encourage them to
"imitate the faith" of those who led them and taught them
(13:7). A pattern of functional faith-receptivity of God's
activity is worthy of following after in like manner. The
Christian life, however, is not merely imitation of
another's external actions (even those of Jesus), but the
manifestation (cf. II Cor. 4:10,11) of the character and
activity of the living Lord Jesus by faithful receptivity
thereof.
Who is it that Paul is encouraging the
Jerusalem Christians to pattern their faith after? "Those
who through faith and patience are inheriting the promises"
could be taken to refer to other Christians, whether in
Jerusalem or elsewhere, who were evidencing exemplary faith
and patience. The present tense of the verb "inheriting"
lends itself to such an interpretation. But the following
context (13-15) indicates that Paul was probably thinking of
"those, like Abraham, who through faith and patience are
inheriting the promises." It is a distinctive Pauline theme
to set forth the "faith of Abraham" as a model for Christian
faith (cf. Rom. 4:1-22; Gal. 3:6-29), and he seems to be
elevating Abraham as a pattern for faith and patience
(12,15) here again, but with an even stronger emphasis on
the faithfulness of God (13-18).
All Christians, along with Abraham, "are
inheriting the promises" of God the promises of God to
Abraham (Gen. 12-17) and all of the divine historical
promises that are confirmed and fulfilled in Jesus Christ
(II Cor. 1:20). "The promise which God has made is eternal
life" (I Jn. 2:25), and this divine life of the Son (Jn.
14:6; I Jn. 5:12) is presently realized by all Christians.
Christians are "heirs of the promise" (6:17; Gal. 3:29),
presenting "inheriting" all that God has promised in His
Son, Jesus Christ. The inheriting of God's promises must not
be projected just to the future (as in Jewish eschatology),
but must be recognized as being presently inaugurated and
realized, even though there is a "not yet" completion and
consummation of such hoped for and expected in the future.
In the meantime, Paul is encouraging the
Jerusalem Christians to have similar "faith and patience" as
Abraham exhibited. Such receptivity to God's activity
requires patient long-suffering when such divine activity is
deferred or is being masked by adversity and testing, as was
the case for both Abraham and the Christians of Judea.
6:13 "For," to
explain the patterning of Abraham in inheriting the
promises, "God, having promised to Abraham, since He
had no one greater by which to swear, He swore by Himself,".
Abraham is certainly on Paul's mind throughout this epistle
(cf. 3:16; 6:13-15; 7:4,5; 11:8-19). Paul, like every Jewish
person, made much of the promises of God to Abraham (cf.
Gen. 12:1-7; 13:14-17; 15:1-7,13-18; 17:1-8,19). Paul's
reference here, though, goes beyond the initial promises of
God to Abraham, to refer to the confirmation of God's
promises to Abraham after Abraham had faithfully been
willing to sacrifice his promised son, Isaac, on the
mountain in the land of Moriah (Gen. 22:1-14). God spoke to
Abraham, "By Myself I have sworn, declares the Lord, because
you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son,
your only son, indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will
greatly multiply your seed And in your seed all the nations
of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My
voice" (Gen. 22:16-18). In like manner as men (16) swear an
oath to validate a promise, God confirms His previous
promises to Abraham by a sworn oath to guarantee His word.
Whereas men always swear by something or someone greater
than themselves (16), such as the temple, the book, heaven,
or God Himself, God could swear by no one greater than
Himself (cf. Isa. 45:23; Jere. 22:5; 49:13). God does what
He does because He is who He is. His act expresses His
Being, and His Being is always expressed in consistent act.
This integral oneness of character and conduct is
consistently expressed by any and every word He speaks.
In traditional Jewish interpretation of
Genesis it was understood that God had confirmed His promise
to Abraham with an oath. Philo, a Jewish commentator and
philosopher, who lived from approximately 20 B.C. to 50
A.D., and was thus a contemporary of Paul, comments on
Genesis 22:16-18:
"God confirmed His promises solemnly
by an oath, and by an oath, too, such as could alone
become God. For you see that God does not swear by any
other being than Himself, for there is nothing more
powerful that He is; but He swears by Himself because He
is the greatest of all things."
3
Commenting on Abraham, Philo wrote,
"God, admired this man for his faith
in Him, giving him a pledge in return, namely, a
confirmation by an oath which He had promised him; no
longer conversing with him as God might with a man, but
as one friend with another."
4
These quotations serve to document the
traditional Jewish interpretation of the two-fold promise
and oath of God to Abraham, which Paul refers to in these
verses.
6:14 Citing Genesis 22:17, Paul
quotes God as "saying, BLESSING I WILL BLESS YOU, AND
MULTIPLYING I WILL MULTIPLY YOU." The Hebrew
infinite absolutes emphasize by repetition, as in Genesis
2:17, when God declares, "DYING, YOU SHALL DIE." Though the
Hebrew text has God declaring that He will "multiply your
seed," Paul shortens this to "you", for his emphasis is on
God's faithfulness and Abraham's response of faith, rather
than on the universality of the promises for all nations.
6:15 "And so," to
explain God's sworn oath to Abraham in Genesis 22:17,
"having patiently waited, he (Abraham)
obtained the promise." With patient long-suffering
(12) Abraham held fast in faith and hope expecting God to
fulfill His promises. Despite the delay in the birth of the
promised son, and despite the test to sacrifice Isaac
(11:17,18), Abraham faithfully endured and "inherited" (12)
or "obtained" (15) the promise of God. Since the event being
cited (Gen. 22:16-18) was subsequent to the birth of Isaac,
the "obtaining of the promise" does not refer to Isaac's
birth, but to the blessing of multiplied posterity
thereafter. Abraham obtained the results of the sworn
promise of God in the fulfillment and blessing of multiplied
physical progeny, and the Hebrew peoples received all that
God had promised (Joshua 23:14), but Paul will explain later
that there was another sense in which he, and they, "did not
receive what was promised" (10:13,39). The direct spiritual
fulfillment of the promises to Abraham would occur later in
history in Jesus Christ, though Abraham "saw by faith" (Jn.
8:56) that the Messiah would fulfill the promises (Gal.
3:16), and all the nations of mankind would be blessed
spiritually because of him (Gal. 3:8). So, by anticipated
prospect Abraham inherited (12) and obtained (15) the
promises of God in the "blessing" of Christ (cf. Eph. 1:3)
and the universality of gospel availability to the
multiplied peoples of all nations of the world (cf. Jn.
3:16; Matt. 28:19; Rom. 16:26).
It was important that the Jewish
Christians in Jerusalem understand that the "blessing" and
the "multiplied posterity" were fulfilled in Christ, and
that all Christians were spiritual "heirs of the promise"
(17). Why? Because the Jewish revolutionaries were promising
that they were going to effect the fulfillment of God's
promises to Abraham in a physical, material, racial,
national and geographical way when they liberated Palestine
from the occupying Romans. Paul did not want the Christians
in Jerusalem to jettison the greater spiritual fulfillment
of the Abrahamic promises for a lesser and inferior false
promise of physical nationalism and religion.
6:16 Paul goes back to explain
the confirmatory oath that was often employed in human
interactions and transactions. "For indeed men swear
according to the greater, and all the oath is to them is a
confirmation for the end of a dispute." To create
binding agreements men often made fiduciary oaths to
guarantee their trustworthiness. Such oaths were often taken
by appealing to one greater than themselves who might ensure
or vouch for their fidelity. The Israelites were encouraged
"to swear by the name of God" (cf. Deut. 6:13; 10:10), and
Abraham, himself, did so on several occasions (cf. Gen.
14:22-24; 21:22-24; 24:2-4). These human oaths served as a
form of binding validation of fidelity, and the violation of
the terms of the agreement would constitute perjury. The
oath was intended to avoid and resolve any dispute of
contradictory claims concerning the agreement, under the
threat of dishonesty and a loss of integrity. To "swear
falsely by God's name" (cf. Lev. 19:12; Numb. 30:2; Deut.
23:21; Zech. 5:4) was to incur grave consequences in Hebrew
society. But by the first century, Jesus was quite critical
of the chicanery of unreliable oaths, full of loopholes and
tricky verbiage, made with no intent to keep them (Matt.
7:33-37). He cautioned against making such farcical oaths
and admonished that one should speak honestly and
straight-forwardly with a simple "Yes" or "No."
6:17 "In this way,"
employing the acceptable ways of men at that time, and
"resolving even more to demonstrate to the heirs of the
promise the unchangeableness of His purpose, God interposed
with an oath." An oath was no required from God. God
does not need to vouch for or guarantee His faithfulness to
His promises. Integrity, the integral oneness between what
one says and what one does, is inherent in the character of
God. He can only act out of His absolute Being and character
of faithfulness and truth. Though men try to confirm their
words of promise with an oath, enforced by the threat of
perjury, God cannot and will not perjure Himself. He cannot
lie (18) or speak falsely or fail to keep His word and
promise. Therefore, God's utilization of an oath (Gen.
22:17) was but a determined desire to demonstrate (cf. Acts
8:28) more abundantly beyond any human agreement that His
immutable purpose and will was expressed in His promise.
What God promises to be His purpose is unalterable,
irrevocable, and cannot be annulled. He "will not change His
mind" (Ps. 110:4) in a fickle withdrawal and cancellation of
His stated purpose. The Jewish writer, Philo, understood
this:
"God is not able to speak falsely, as
if He were a man, nor does He change His purpose like
the son of man. When He has spoken, does He not abide by
His word? For He will say nothing at all which shall not
be completely brought to pass, since His word is also
His deed."
5
"The counsel of the Lord stands forever"
(Ps. 33:11; Prov. 19:21; Isa. 40:8). On another occasion of
self-swearing, God said, "I have sworn by Myself; the word
has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness and will not
turn back" (Isa. 45:23).
God's ratifying of His promise with an
oath, swearing by the absoluteness of His own character, was
"even more" a desire to affirm and prove that His immutable
and irrevocable purpose could and would be achieved only in
His Son, Jesus Christ. The "heirs of the promise" are
Christians. "If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's
offspring (descendants, seed), heirs according to promise"
(Gal. 3:29); "children of promise" (Gal. 4:28). "Those who
are of faith are sons of Abraham" (Gal. 3:7) and "blessed
with Abraham" (Gal. 3:9) with the "blessing of Christ" (Eph.
1:3). The "heirs of the promise" are not just the patriarchs
of the past in the old covenant, nor are they just the
projected participants of the future. The "heirs of the
promise" are those Christians who by faith in Jesus Christ
are part of the multiplied posterity of the "descendants of
Abraham" (Rom. 4:16; Gal. 3:29), having received the
"blessing" of Christ (Eph. 1:3), and looking forward to the
completed and unhindered blessing of Christ's life in the
heavenly realm.
Paul was desirous that the Christians in
Jerusalem understand that "even more" than a sworn guarantee
of His promise of blessing and multiplied posterity to
Abraham and his physical descendants, this was an oath to
prove His unchangeable purpose to spiritually bless men
abundantly and universally in all the nations of the world
through Jesus Christ. In the midst of their trials, the
Jerusalem Christians needed to recognize that God was not
going to let them down. "The plans of His heart stand from
generation to generation" (Ps. 33:11), and God's unalterable
purpose in Jesus Christ will not fail. So the oath to
confirm the promise was for the purpose of encouraging (18)
Christians, like those in Jerusalem, that their faith and
hope in Jesus Christ is as sure as the Being and character
of God.
6:18 God confirmed His promise
with an oath (Gen. 22:17) "in order that by two
unchangeable things," His promise and His oath, both
expressions of His unchangeable character and purpose (17),
He might demonstrate "in this way that it is
impossible for God to lie." To provide a double
certainty of His unchangeable and reliable character, God
made promises to Abraham (Gen. 12-17) and confirmed such
with an oath (Gen. 22:16-18). This is not an example of the
"two-fold witness" (Deut. 17:16; 19:15; Matt. 18:16; II Cor.
13:1), as some have suggested, but just a double assertion,
with the oath validating the promise, that the divine
character of truth can be trusted. The connection of an
"oath" made to Abraham with the greater context of the
priesthood of Melchizedek is obvious from Psalm 110:4: "The
Lord has sworn and will not change His mind; Thou art a
priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." This
verse was quoted in 5:6, alluded to in 5:10, and will be
again mentioned in 6:20, but the concept of an "oath" will
be specifically emphasized in 7:20-28.
The double attestation serves to verify
"it is impossible for God to lie." As in 6:6 the
"impossibility" is based on the absolute character of God.
The dynamic activity of God can only be expressive of His
Being. God does what He does because He is who He is. "It is
impossible," i.e. there is "no dynamic", to express that
which is contrary to His character of absolute Truth. God
can only act consistent with His character. The Hebrew
forefathers understood this: "God is not a man, that He
should lie Has he said, and will He not do it? Or has He
spoken, and will He not make it good?" (Numb. 23:19). "The
glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind, for He is
not a man that He should change His mind" (I Sam. 15:29).
Man may be fickle, but God is not! "He does not retract His
words" (Isa. 31:2). God, Himself, says, "I have spoken and
truly I will bring it to pass" (Isa. 46:11), for His action
always expresses His Being. Jesus declared such in His
prayer, saying, "Thy word is truth" (John 17:17). "He who
promised" through Abraham and many prophets, that "the hope
of eternal life, which God who cannot lie, promised long
ages ago" (Titus 1:2) was to be fulfilled in Jesus Christ
"He who promised is faithful" (10:23).
The purpose of the double promise and
oath of God to Abraham was that "we should have strong
encouragement, those having fled to lay hold of the hope set
before us." Paul explains to the Jerusalem
Christians that God's duplicated verification of the promise
of divine blessing and multiplied posterity (Gen. 12:2,3,7;
13:15,16; 17:7,8; 18:18; 22:17; Heb. 6:14) should provide
Christians with a strong encouragement and assurance that He
is faithful to fulfill such in Jesus Christ despite the
discouragement of the present circumstances. Paul does not
indicate what the Christians have "fled" from, but
only what they have "fled" to. Those who have
received Jesus Christ to become Christians may be said to
have "fled" from the slavery of Satan and the
spiritual misuse of humanity, from the consequences
of sin, from the frustration of meaninglessness and
finding no hope in anything or anyone else, from
religion, from persecution, etc. In a sense,
Christians are, therefore, refugees who have sought asylum
from God. They are "citizens of heaven" (Phil. 3:20); "in
the world, but not of the world" (John 17:11,14,16,18). It
is questionable, however, whether Paul had the "cities of
refuge" (Numb. 35:6-8; Deut. 19:1-13) in mind as he wrote,
or whether there was to be an underlying and indirect
reference in these words that the Christians to whom he was
writing should flee Jerusalem (cf. Acts 14:6). Paul's
emphasis is that the Christians have "fled" to "lay
hold" and "hold fast" to "the hope set before them." The
"hope set before" the Christian is only in Jesus Christ.
"Christ Jesus is our hope" (I Tim. 1:1); our "living hope"
(I Peter 1:3). Christians have "fled" to Christ.
Jesus is the objective content of our hope, "set
before us" as the historical self-revelation of God and the
theological explanation of God's redemptive and restorative
action for man. In spiritual union with Him, Jesus is also
the subjective basis for the confident expectation of
Christians, "set before us" as the encouraging assurance of
hopefulness for the ultimate realization of all that He
provides in Himself. This is why "hope" is not "wishful
thinking", but the objective and subjective foundation of
stability and security in Christ.
6:19 "We have this hope
as an anchor of the soul, both secure and firm,".
Jesus is the hope of the Christian, for He is the realized
promise of God. Paul employs the metaphor of Jesus as "the
anchor of the soul." Such a nautical figure was familiar to
those surrounding the Mediterranean Sea, and may have been
on Paul's mind due to his recent shipwreck (Acts
27:29,30,40) on his voyage to Rome. An anchor (the English
word "anchor" is etymologically derived from the Greek word
angkura used here) provides a firm (cf. 3:6,14)
security (cf. Acts 16:23,24) by holding the ship secure in a
position as the anchor is firmly lodged in the seabed. Paul
wanted the Christians in Jerusalem to know that God's
promises would not fail (cf. Rom. 4:16), for His character
precludes falsehood and perjury. Christian security and
assurance is based on the unchangeable character of God, who
is faithful to His promises. Christian security is not based
on proof-texts of "eternal security" or on logical
circumlocutions of "once saved, always saved." Jesus Christ,
as the very Being of God and the living expression of the
character of God, is the dynamic basis of Christian
security. As the "anchor of our soul," Jesus anchors the
Christian to the immutable character of the God who keeps
His promises in Jesus Christ, allowing us to have the
confident expectation that we can endure and persevere in
the midst of any turmoil as we anticipate the completed
fulfillment of our heavenly gift (6:4) in Jesus. This was
the verse that prompted Priscilla J. Owens to write the
chorus of the hymn:
"We have an anchor that keeps the
soul,
Steadfast and sure while the billows roll,
Fastened to the Rock which cannot move,
Grounded firm and deep in the Saviour's love."
6
It is also interesting that Clement of
Alexandria (c. 200 A.D. cf. Introduction) was apparently
the first to use the representation of the anchor as a
Christian symbol of Christ.
Mixing his metaphors of Christ as an
anchor and Christ as the curtain-opener, perhaps because the
Jewish peoples were far more temple-oriented than
maritime-oriented, Paul morphs the security of Christ in the
image of an anchor to the security that the Christian has
because Christ is the "one entering into the inside of
the veil". Paul is obviously referring to the veil
or curtain in the tabernacle and temple that concealed the
Holy of Holies (cf. Exod. 26:31-35), also called the "Holy
Place", where the presence and Shekinah glory of God dwelt
in the Judaic covenant arrangement. Whereas the Aaronic high
priest entered into the Holy of Holies once a year on the
Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:2-22), Jesus, as High Priest, "has
entered into the Holy Place once and for all" (9:12), and
the veil was torn in two (Matt. 27:51; Mk. 15:38) to
represent that Jesus had opened access to the presence of
God for all God's people who were spiritually united to Him.
This "hope through which we draw near to God" (7:19) allows
the Christian to have direct communion with God in the
intimacy of personal relationship.
6:20 It is "within the veil" in
the Holy of Holies of God's presence "where Jesus has
entered as a forerunner on our behalf". Jesus
promised His disciples, "I go to prepare a place for you,
that where I am you may be also" (Jn. 14:2,3). Where was
that "place"? It was the place of God's presence "where",
because Jesus "has entered once and for all" (9:12) by His
death, resurrection and ascension (cf. 4:14), Christians now
have direct access to "draw near to God" (4:16; 7:19,25;
10:22) in intimate relationship. Jesus went through death to
prepare a place for us "near to the heart of God", as
Cleland McAfee's hymn states.
7
The Aaronic high priests of the old
covenant entered the Holy of Holies of the physical temple
once a year as a representative of the Hebrew people of God,
but the people could not follow them into that chamber of
God's presence and glory. Jesus, however, "having
become a high priest forever according to the order of
Melchizedek," entered into God's heavenly presence
as a "forerunner," the point-man and precursor, that
facilitates all those "in Him" to enter into continuous
communion with God. When Jesus "entered once and for all"
(9:12) into the Holy of Holies of God's presence, it was a
fait accompli, setting in motion the "finished work"
(cf. Jn. 19:30) of Christ whereby He continues to function
as "a high priest forever according to the universal and
eternal order of Melchizedek." He opened the curtain for
every Christian to be a priest unto God (cf. Exod. 19:6; I
Peter 2:9; Rev. 1:6), to have direct access to God's
presence and intimate communion with Him, and to live by the
continuing intercessory work of Christ, functioning as High
Priest.
Concluding Remarks:
Though written in a particular historical
context to the Judean Christians of the first century, these
words continue to address needs of Christians in every age.
They remain "profitable" (II Tim. 3:16) for our instruction
and application.
There may be times when every Christian
is "sluggish" (5:11; 6:12) and less than "diligent" (6:11)
in their willingness to "listen under" God in obedience.
When chided about such immaturity, even when it is suggested
that we may be like elementary pupils or suckling infants in
our spiritual progress (5:11-14), we must not take offense,
particularly when one like Paul is goading us to maturity,
seeking our highest good, and believing that we have
everything necessary in Jesus Christ.
There may be times when Christians need
to be warned of the real possibility of apostasy, and the
dire consequences of repudiating and "standing against"
Jesus Christ (6:4-8). Such warning should not, however, be
used as a threat to create fear and doubts of one's standing
with Christ, or to manipulate others into increased
performance of "works."
Paul's desire was that Christians should
"be brought unto maturity" (6:1) by the grace of God.
Spiritual growth unto maturity is always for the
end-objective of glorifying God, as "the things that
accompany salvation" (6:9) are manifested in the "fruit of
the Spirit" (Gal. 5:22,23).
There is always a tension in the
Christian life between God's grace-action and what "we shall
do" (6:3). Christians have a personal responsibility to
exercise a "diligence" (6:11) of faith "until the end." This
can be facilitated by observing the pattern of faithful
responses made by others (6:12), not in the sense of
simulated imitation, but in the emulation of how others have
been receptive in faith to allow for the manifestation of
Christ's life and character.
We must always trust that God is
absolutely faithful and trustworthy (6:13-18). God's actions
are always consistent with His character. Every promise of
God will be fulfilled in accordance with His word in Jesus
Christ (II Cor. 1:20).
In the midst of competing voices and the
pressures of difficult circumstances, Christians can have
the confident expectation of hope (6:11,12,18,19) that God
will bring to pass (cf. I Thess 5:24) what He has promised
in Jesus Christ. This may require patient long-suffering
(6:12,15) in the midst of trials, but this, too, is
empowered by the Spirit of Christ (Gal. 5:23). Even in the
discouragements of apparent delays and defeats, Christians
are to remain receptive to God's activity in faith (6:12).
As "the anchor of our soul" (6:19),
Christ provides stability and security in our lives. In a
world of insecurity, Christians have the divine dynamic of
security in Christ.
Because of Christ's function as High
Priest, Christians have direct access into the intimacy of
God's presence (6:19,20). We can "draw near" (4:16; 7:25) to
the calm security of God's presence and power, participating
in the "finished work" of the continuing intercessory
function of Christ's high priesthood according to the order
of Melchizedek (5:10; 6:20).
FOOTNOTES
1
Ellingworth, Paul, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A
Commentary on the Greek Text. Series: The
New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. 1993. pg. 323.
2
Lane, William L., Hebrews 1-8. Series: Word
Biblical Commentary. Vol. 47A. Dallas: Word Books,
Publishers. 1991. pg. 142
3
Philo, The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged.
"Allegorical Interpretations, III, 203."
Hendrickson Publishers. 1997. pg. 73
4
Philo, The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged.
"On Abraham, 273". Hendrickson Publishers. 1997. pg.
434.
5
Philo, The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged.
"On the Life of Moses, I, 283.) Hendrickson
Publishers. 1997. pgs. 485,486.
6
Owens, Priscilla J., "We Have an Anchor." As published in
Favorite Hymns of Praise. Chicago: Tabernacle
Publishing Co., 1970. Hymn 287.
7
McAfee, Cleland B., "Near to the Heart of God." As
published in Favorite Hymns of Praise. Chicago:
Tabernacle Publishing Co., 1970. Hymn 464.
JESUS: THE
BETTER PERMANENT
AND PERPETUAL PRIEST OF GOD
Whenever a movement of social activism
wants to fire up the populace to support its cause, it seeks
a "hot-button issue" to ignite the flames of popular passion
into a fervor that will promote the objective. The Jewish
revolutionaries who were seeking the liberation of Palestine
from Roman occupation in the seventh decade of the first
century had apparently selected the restoration of the
legitimate Aaronic high priesthood and the propriety of the
Levitical priesthood in the temple as issues of sufficient
concern to compel the Jewish populace to support their cause
of insurrection and revolt against Rome.
Paul, under house arrest in Rome (Acts
28:30), was advised of this ploy and felt compelled to
advise the Christians of Judea that they should avoid
getting involved in this politically inspired power-play,
that was playing on their religious sentiment. His argument
was that the old covenant priesthood was already obsolete.
He wanted his kinsmen after the flesh and "brethren" in the
spirit to recognize that Jesus, their Messiah and Savior,
was the high priest according to the order of Melchizedek,
and the priesthood of Jesus had superseded the entire
Aaronic and Levitical priesthoods, which had now been
invalidated by the annulment of the entire old covenant with
its Mosaic Law. Paul's thesis is that the living Lord Jesus
is the "better permanent and perpetual priest of God" in the
context of a "better covenant" (7:22), providing a "better
hope" (7:19) of relational intimacy with God. There was no
reason for the Jerusalem Christians to revert back to the
cultic Judaic premises and practices of priesthood, and no
reason to support the promotion of such in revolt against
Rome.
The little Pharisaic Jewish lawyer was
meticulous in crafting his case. This entire section of the
epistle to the Hebrew Christians in Jerusalem (chapters
6-10) reads like a "legal brief" wherein Paul carefully
documents his argument that the royal priesthood of Jesus
Christ is superior to the entire Judaic priesthood. Trained
in the rabbinic legal and scriptural interpretive techniques
of his time, Paul employs them masterfully, even though
contemporary hermeneutic scholars might question Paul's
exegetical rationale. Paul, for example, uses "the argument
of silence" (cf. 7:3,8), arguing from the absence of any
stated lineage of Melchizedek to establish the permanent and
perpetual priesthood of Jesus. Paul also argues that
priority in time establishes superiority, claiming that
Melchizedek's priority to Levi serves as a precedent (cf.
7:9,10) to establish the superiority of Christ's priesthood
over the Levitical priesthood. Though we might have
reservations about Paul's legal and logical reasoning, it
was consistent with the arguments of the accepted rabbinic
hermeneutics of his day. This does not make it easy for the
modern reader to follow Paul's argument, however. "Legal
briefs" are never easy reading for the general public, and
we can appreciate that Paul had forewarned his readers that
he had "much to say" about Melchizedek and his relation to
Jesus Christ, and that it was "hard to explain" (5:11).
7:1 Getting to the point that
he has been aiming at, Paul writes, "For this
Melchizedek", previously mentioned in the foregoing
verse (6:20) and earlier in the epistle in 5:6,10, and first
mentioned Biblically in the historical narrative of Genesis
14:17-20, was the "king of Salem, priest of the Most
High God". Paul wanted to emphasize the king-priest
combination of Melchizedek in order to apply such as a
prefiguring of Jesus Christ as both King and Priest. Other
than the information from Genesis 14, we have little or no
information about Melchizedek. His identification as "king
of Salem" probably indicates that he was the king of one of
the city-states of Canaan, and particularly the one where
Mt. Zion was located. The city-state of Salem eventually
became the location of Jerusalem. Psalm 76:2 seems to equate
the location of Salem and Zion, when Asaph writes that God's
"tabernacle is in Salem, His dwelling place also is in
Zion."
The very first mention of priesthood in
the Bible, Genesis 14:18, identified Melchizedek as "priest
of the Most High God." The designation of "the Most High
God" is a translation of the Hebrew El Elyon, meaning
not just the highest god in a pantheon of polytheism, but
the singular, ultimate and absolute God above all, the
transcendent deity who is Creator of heaven and earth,
Jehovah God (cf. Gen. 14:22), the universal God who is
unlimited and cannot be claimed as a proprietary deity by
any group of people. This was the point that Paul wanted to
make to the Jerusalem Christians who were being pressured to
espouse the cause of Jewish nationalism and religionism that
claimed Jehovah God as the proprietary God of the Jews,
instead of recognizing Jesus Christ as the priest of the
universal and absolute God of the universe. When Stephen
made his defense, he explained that "the Most High does not
dwell in houses made by human hands" (Acts 7:48), and by
implication indicated that the priesthood of God's action
could not be contained in tangible tabernacles and temples,
as were the hallmark of Judaic religion.
Continuing the recitation of the brief
appearance of Melchizedek on the horizon of Biblical
history, Paul notes that Melchizedek "met Abraham as
he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed
him,". Four kings and their armies from the north
had invaded, attacked and defeated five kings and their
armies from the city-state kingdoms of Canaan. Abraham's
nephew, Lot, and his family lived in Sodom (Gen. 13:12)
which was one of the cities defeated, and he and his family
were taken captive. Abraham and his people pursued these
intruders and defeated them "north of Damascus" (Gen.
14:15), and Abraham was bringing back Lot, his family and
possessions, and the spoils of war when he met Melchizedek.
Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God, "blessed" Abraham
with "good words" of encouragement and assurance that he was
indeed acting in accord with God's design, desire, and
activity. Later (vss. 6,7), Paul will use this occasion of
"blessing" as an argument for the lesser (Abraham) being
"blessed" by the greater (Melchizedek).
7:2 Accurately relating the
details of Genesis 14, Paul notes that it was Melchizedek,
"to whom also Abraham divided a tenth part of all"
the spoils of war. Paul will parlay this fact into an
argument that the one-tenth tithe collected by the Levitical
priests is superseded by the one-tenth presentation of the
spoils of war to Melchizedek by Abraham (cf. vss. 4-10).
Paul explains that Melchizedek "was
first of all, by interpretation" of his name,
"king of righteousness,". Noting the etymology of
the name Melchizedek, which is derived from the Hebrew words
melek, meaning "king", and sedeq, meaning
"righteousness", Paul is indirectly intimating that
Melchizedek prefigured Jesus Christ as the "King of
Righteousness." Previously in this epistle, Paul had applied
Psalm 45:6 to Jesus and His possession of "the righteous
scepter of His kingdom" (Heb. 1:8). Stephen (Acts 7:52) and
Paul (Acts 22:14) had both announced Jesus as the promised
"Righteous One" in fulfillment of the prophetic declarations
of a Messianic "King of Righteousness" (cf. Ps. 22:31; 72:7;
Isa. 32:17; 51:5,8; Jere. 23:6; 33:15,16).
Paul adds that Melchizedek was
"also king of Salem, which is king of peace." The
place name, "Salem," is derived from the Hebrew word
shalom, which means "peace." Paul is already thinking of
how Melchizedek prefigured Jesus as the "King of Peace," the
"king who speaks peace to the nations" (Zech. 9:9,10), the
One in whom "the work of righteousness will be peace" (Isa.
32:17) for "righteousness and peace will kiss each other"
(Ps. 85:10) in the work of the Messiah. Jesus was the
Messianic "Prince of Peace" who would have "no end to His
kingdom" (Isa. 9:6,7). Indeed, "Jesus, Himself, is our
peace" (Eph. 2:14), as well as our righteousness (I Cor.
1:30).
7:3 Employing the "argument of
silence", Paul argues that since there is no record of his
genealogy with date of birth and death in Genesis 14,
Melchizedek is "without father, without mother,
without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end
of life". Obviously, this is not literally true, for
as an historical character Melchizedek did have birth and
death, paternity and maternity, and genealogical family
connections. But the absence of a record of these allows
Paul to figuratively apply these details to similitude with
the priesthood of Jesus Christ, and perhaps to the apparent
ambiguity of His birth and death. It is the contrast with
Judaic priesthood that Paul is primarily emphasizing by this
"argument of silence", however. In the Aaronic and Levitical
priesthoods the lineage of descendancy was extremely
important. The credentials of genealogy were essential for
the succession of the Jewish priesthoods, and this point was
being emphasized by the Zealots who were mobilizing the
Palestinians against Rome. Paul, on the other hand, was
arguing that Melchizedek was "made like the Son of
God," i.e. that the Melchizedekan priesthood, like
the priesthood of Christ, was established by God without
temporal and physiological restrictions. The absence of the
external limitations and requirements of physical succession
allows the Melchizedekan/Christic priesthood to be one that
is eternal and forever (Ps. 110:4). Melchizedek, as a
forerunner/type of Christ, "remains a priest unto
perpetuity," in a priesthood that is not limited by
time or physical succession, but carries through in
continuity and perpetuity. It is this ongoing and eternal
character of Christ's priesthood that Paul is attempting to
contrast with the physical succession characteristic of the
Judaic priesthoods.
7:4 Verses 4-10 constitute a
corollary argument in Paul's reasoning to emphasize the
superiority of the Melchizedekan priesthood (and thus the
priesthood of Christ) over the Levitical priesthood, based
on Abraham's payment of one-tenth of the spoils of war to
Melchizedek. Paul does not seem to be concerned about the
difference in Abraham's giving a tenth of the spoils of war
and the God-ordained practice of the peoples of Israel
giving a tithe of one-tenth for the Levitical priesthood,
because the Greek word dekate means both "tenth" and
"tithe". Instead, he focuses on the one-tenth similarity to
argue for the superiority of the priesthood of Melchizedek
and Christ.
"Now observe how great this man
was," Paul appeals to His Christian readers in
Jerusalem. His objective is to establish the greatness of
Melchizedek in order to demonstrate the greatness of Jesus
Christ. Despite later attempts by commentators to cast
Melchizedek as an apparitional theophany or a pre-incarnate
Christophany, Paul seems to regard Melchizedek as an
historical human king and priest "to whom Abraham, the
patriarch, gave a tenth of the spoils of war."
Abraham was regarded by the Jewish people as "the
patriarch," the ancestral founder, the "father" (cf. Jn.
8:33-40), the progenitor of the Hebrew people and the nation
of Israel. Paul's argument is that "the patriarch", Abraham,
who represented the entire genealogy and ethnicity of the
Hebrew people-group, felt obliged to give "a tenth of the
spoils of war" to Melchizedek, the priest, thus establishing
the superiority of Melchizedek over Abraham. Melchizedek's
priesthood was not based on ethnic ancestry, for he was a
Gentile unrelated to the Hebraic bloodline, but his
priesthood was established by "the Most High God" to be a
timeless and universal priesthood culminating in Jesus
Christ.
7:5 Paul begins his comparison
of the Melchizedekan priesthood and the Levitical
priesthood, basing his argument on the authority of the two
orders of priesthood to collect a tenth from their
constituents, and arguing that the lesser always pays the
greater, while the greater "blesses" the lesser.
"And, indeed, those of the sons of
Levi receiving the priesthood have a commandment to collect
a tithe from the people according to the Law, that is, from
their brethren, although these are descended from Abraham."
The use of present tense verbs in this statement
likely indicates that the Levitical priesthood and the
collection of tithes were still functioning at the time when
this epistle was written, prior to 70 A.D. Paul was noting
that the Mosaic Law of the old covenant did indeed establish
the commandment that the Hebrew people pay a tenth of their
income to the priestly tribe of Levi (Numbers 18:21-24), and
a tenth of that tithe was then to be distributed to the high
priest (Numbers 18:26-28), and was to be used in the
maintenance of the temple (Neh. 10:37). By the time this
epistle was written in the first century A.D., the
collection of tithes was severely corrupted, and the Jewish
historian, Josephus, records that the high priests were
extorting the tithes directly from the people to such an
extent that some of the Levitical priests were starving to
death.1
It is not difficult to see why the reform of the priesthood
was being used as a rallying point for the revolutionaries,
and why Paul was attempting to counter such among the Judean
Christians by appealing to the priesthood of Christ.
7:6 Returning to Melchizedek,
Paul writes, "But the one not tracing his genealogy
from them received a tenth from Abraham..."
Melchizedek, the priest, whose genealogy is not recorded
(cf. vs. 3), was not related by ethnic descendancy from
Abraham nor from the priestly tribe of Levi. He was
apparently a Gentile whose priesthood was established by the
Most High God, and Abraham spontaneously recognized the
rightful claim of Melchizedek to receive one tenth of the
spoils of war. This payment of one tenth was not mandated by
the legal necessity of a commandment of law, but by the
patriarch's spiritual discernment and awareness of one who
was a priestly representative of God. The functional basis
of Melchizedek's priesthood was not that of legal mandate,
ethnic succession, or authoritative position, but the
function of God in the person of the priest.
Melchizedek, in turn, "blessed the
one having the promises." This does not indicate
that Melchizedek conferred a "blessing" of particular
privilege upon Abraham, but refers simply to Melchizedek's
expressing God's "good words" of assurance and encouragement
that Abraham was indeed being used of God. Abraham, the one
being "blessed," was the one who had received the promises
of God (cf. Genesis 12,13) concerning God's intent in Jesus
Christ (cf. II Cor. 1:20).
7:7 Paul's conclusion is that
"without any contradiction the lesser is blessed by
the greater." Unquestionably and without dispute,
Paul argues, it is an axiomatically accepted certainty that
the greater or superior (in this case, Melchizedek) blesses
the lesser or inferior (in this case, Abraham). Paul does
not entertain the fact that a lesser might encourage or
assure a superior, and seems to consider the action of
"blessing" as a certain criteria of superiority.
7:8 Now contrasting the
duration of the two priesthoods, Paul writes that in the
case of the Levitical priesthood, "here, dying men
receive tithes," The priests of the tribe of Levi
were mortal; they were subject to death, whereupon they
would be succeeded by others, who would in turn serve God
for a few years and die also. But in the case of the
Melchizedekan priesthood, the priest received tithes, and
"there it is witnessed that he lives." Is Paul
basing the validity of this "witness" on the "argument of
silence" and the absence of any record of the death of
Melchizedek in Genesis 14 (cf. vs. 3)? Or is Paul arguing
that the "witness" of the perpetuity of the priesthood of
Melchizedek is based on Psalm 110:4 and the divine oath that
the Messiah would be "a priest forever according to the
order of Melchizedek (an argument that will be amplified in
21-28)? Or is Paul arguing backwards from Christ's
assumption of the Melchizedekan priesthood, that he and his
readers, as Christians, have "witnessed" that the living
Lord Jesus lives in the immortality of an eternal and
perpetual function of the Melchizedekan priesthood? Perhaps,
"all of the above."
7:9,10 Drawing the conclusion
for his argument of the superiority of the Melchizedekan
priesthood over the Levitical priesthood, Paul employs the
Hebrew logic of solidarity through representative
descendancy, explaining that "it might be said that
through Abraham even Levi, having received tithes, paid
tithes, for he was still in the loins of the father when
Melchizedek met him." This concept of solidarity was
an important theme in Hebrew thought. Levi was "in Abraham"
seminally and genetically, and therefore Abraham's actions
were representative of Levi's actions. So when Abraham
offered a tenth of the spoils of war to Melchizedek, Levi,
who was "in Abraham", in essence paid tithes to Melchizedek.
Since the one who pays the tithe is inferior to the one who
receives the tithe, therefore, Levi (and the priesthood he
represents) is inferior to Melchizedek (and the priesthood
he represents, which includes that of Jesus Christ). This is
the gist of Paul's argument.
Abraham was actually the
great-grandfather of Levi, but previous generations were
regarded as "fathers" or "forefathers", and thus Levi can be
said to be "in the loins of his father," Abraham.
Technically, if this were but an argument of physical
solidarity, it could be noted that Jesus was genealogically
a descendant of Abraham (cf. Matt. 1:1-17), and Jesus, being
"in Abraham" by physical representation, paid a tithe to
Melchizedek. Since it was not pertinent to his argument,
Paul does not address this fact, for it was his intent to
establish the solidarity of Levi and Abraham in order to
assert the superiority of Melchizedek and his priesthood,
and thus of Christ's priesthood. A similar concept of
spiritual solidarity and representation is to be found when
Paul refers to mankind as either being "in Adam" (cf. Rom.
5:12; I Cor. 15:22) or "in Christ" (cf. Rom. 8:1; II Cor.
5:17), implying that Adam's actions represented all those
spiritually identified with him, and the actions of Christ
were representative of all those spiritually identified with
Him.
7:11 Whereas the argument in
7:1-10 was based on Genesis 14:17-20 and was concerned with
the superiority of the Melchizedekan priesthood over the
Levitical priesthood, the emphasis changes in 7:11-28 to the
superiority of Jesus Christ and His priesthood "according to
the order of Melchizedek" over the Aaronic and Levitical
priesthoods in accord with the prophetic text of Psalm 110:4
(quoted in verses 17 and 21).
Paul begins by denying that the Aaronic
and Levitical priesthoods, integrally connected, as they
were, with the old covenant Mosaic Law, could achieve God's
ultimate and eternal intent to mankind to be redeemed and
restored to function as intended. "If indeed
perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for the
people has been given it on the basis of Law), why was there
yet a need for another priest to arise according to the
order of Melchizedek, and not designated according to the
order of Aaron?" Paul is not questioning whether the
system of the Levitical priesthood was a perfect system, or
whether it achieved the purpose that God intended for it.
Instead, Paul is noting that "if (as is not the case) the
perfection of humanity could have been achieved so that
mankind could have been restored to their created
end-objective via the Levitical priesthood and the old
covenant Mosaic Law to which it was integrally connected,
there would have been no need for the eschatological
expectation (in accord with Psalm 110:4) of an effectual and
eternal priest 'according to the order of Melchizedek'." The
Judaic priesthood and the old covenant Mosaic Law (cf. 19)
could not make mankind function in the perfection of the
end-objective that God intended. They were but an imperfect,
preliminary and provisional measure a stop-gap system that
foreshadowed the "Son, made perfect forever" (cf. 28), the
perfect sacrifice and the perfect dynamic by which mankind
can be restored to their perfect purpose. The Levitical
priesthood and the Mosaic Law are integrally connected and
mutually dependent. The old covenant priesthood was
established by the Law, and the Law governed the regulations
of the Levitical priesthood. On the other hand, it can be
stated that the inevitable violation of the Law necessitated
the Levitical priesthood for temporary expiation and
reconciliation, and the Law was established to expose the
need of the priesthood of Jesus Christ which was to operate
through divine grace rather than through legal performance.
The Mosaic Law and the Judaic priesthood are inseparable.
The failure of one to achieve God's purpose implies the
failure of the other (cf. 12). When one is invalidated and
cancelled (cf. 18), the other is likewise nullified and
abrogated.
The Mosaic Law and the Judaic priesthood
were insufficient and inadequate to achieve God's objective
of the restoration of human function to the glory of God,
for such required the sacrifice of the God-man in order to
allow for the grace-provision of deity within humanity. If
the Law and priesthood had been adequate there would have
been no reason for the eschatological expectation of a
Messianic priest "according to the order of Melchizedek"
(cf. Ps. 110:4), rather than in the existent traditional and
legal order of Aaron.
7:12 The integral oneness and
inseparability of priesthood and Law are explained in the
statement, "For the priesthood being changed, out of
necessity becomes a change of Law also." The
priesthood and the Law each necessitate the other, and are
dependent on the other. Since the priesthood is being
altered and exchanged from the Aaronic and Levitical
priesthood to the Melchizedekan priesthood of Jesus Christ,
Paul argues that the entire Judaic and Mosaic Law is also
exchanged from a system of legal performance to the
grace-dynamic of God's Law "written on the hearts and minds"
of Christian people (cf. 8:10; 10:16).
7:13 To explain the exchange
of priesthood that Paul was referring to, he writes,
"For the One concerning whom these things are expressed has
partaken of another tribe from which no one has served at
the altar." "The One concerning whom these things
are expressed," both in Psalm 110:4 and in Paul's argument
here in the epistle to the Hebrew Christians in Jerusalem,
is obviously Jesus Christ. In His incarnation Jesus partook
(cf. 2:14) genetically and genealogically from the tribe of
Judah, from which tribe the Messiah was expected as a king
in the line of David, and no one from the tribe of Judah had
officiated as a priest in the Jewish tabernacle or temple,
for that was reserved for the priestly tribe of Levi (cf.
Deut. 21:5).
7:14 "For it is clear
that our Lord has arisen out of Judah, a tribe unto which
Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood." Paul
drives home his argument. It is logically, theologically and
genealogically (cf. Matt. 1:2,3; 2:6) evident and obvious
that our Lord Jesus Christ descended from the tribe of
Judah, a tribe that Moses never connected with priesthood.
The reference to Jesus as "Lord" conveys a definite
connotation of Jesus' essential deity, as in 2:3 and 13:20
(cf. I Tim. 1:14; II Tim. 1:8), implying that Jesus was
essentially one with Yahweh, the "Lord God" of
Israel. The Messiah was expected to be a king from the same
tribe of Judah, as was King David (cf. Rom. 1:3; II Tim.
2:8; Rev. 5:5). In order to be a combined King-Priest,
Jesus' priesthood would have to be of a different order than
the Levitical priesthood which was dependent on the
legalities of physical descent from Levi.
7:15 "And this"
change of law and priesthood "is more abundantly
clear, if another priest arises according to the likeness of
Melchizedek," The clarification of how Jesus could
be both king and priest simultaneously is obviated by the
fact that the priesthood of Christ is in accord with the
prior and superior priesthood of Melchizedek. As the
eschatological fulfillment of the prefiguring of David, as
king, and Melchizedek, as priest, Jesus became the
King-Priest sufficient to perfect mankind to the purpose God
intended, and to establish the "royal priesthood" of "a
people for God's own possession" (I Peter 2:9).
7:16 As the fulfillment of the
Melchizedekan priesthood, Jesus "has become such, not
according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according
to the power of an indestructible life." Jesus'
priesthood is not based on the legal requirement of physical
heredity from the tribe of Levi or the family of Aaron. The
priesthood of Jesus is based on "the power of an
indestructible life." That "indestructible life" emerged out
of the grave in the resurrection. In the resurrection the
divine life of Jesus Christ was raised indestructible,
incorruptible, and imperishable (cf. I Cor. 15:42-45). The
permanent, eternal and immortal life of God in Christ was
displayed by Jesus' resurrection from a vicarious death that
could not and did not dissolve the eternality of His divine
life. In the first sermon of the church, Peter explained
that "God had sworn to David to send one of his descendants
upon his throne, and He looked ahead and spoke of the
resurrection of the Christ Therefore, let all the house of
Israel know for certain that God has made Him (Jesus) both
Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:30-36). Paul begins his epistle to
the Romans by indicating that the "Son was born a descendant
of David according to the flesh, and was declared the Son of
God with power by the resurrection from the dead" (Rom.
1:3,4). The dynamic power of the resurrection-life of the
risen Lord Jesus is the "power of an indestructible life"
that confirms the priesthood of Jesus and the kingship of
Jesus, as well as the unconquerable eternal and immortal
life of Jesus available to restore all mankind to God's
perfect purpose. The Christians in Jerusalem needed only to
rely on the "indestructible life" of the risen Lord Jesus,
rather than on joining a social and political campaign to
destroy Rome in order to establish a physical kingdom with a
religious priesthood.
7:17 Paul connects the
"indestructible life" of Jesus back to the prophetic words
of the Psalmist in Psalm 110:4. "For it is witnessed
that 'THOU ART A PRIEST FOREVER ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF
MELCHIZEDEK'." A priesthood that is "forever" must,
of necessity, be indestructible, indissoluble, and
unconquerable; i.e. permanent, immortal and eternal. It is
an intercessory life that is not quantifiable, but only
qualitatively defined as the very life of God.
7:18 Returning to the idea of
the integral unity of priesthood and Law (cf. 12), and the
fact that a change in one involves a change in the other,
Paul explains that "a putting away of the former
commandment is effected, because of its weakness and
uselessness" The "former commandment" could
conceivably refer specifically to the commandment in the Law
concerning the Aaronic and Levitical priesthoods, but more
likely it is to be inclusively identified as the entirety of
the old covenant Mosaic Law, for the clarification in the
following parenthesis (vs. 19) refers inclusively to "the
Law." "Commandment" and "Law" are sometimes used
synonymously in the Scriptures (cf. Exod. 16:28; Rom.
7:8-13). This "former commandment" of the Law was not only
prior in terms of time, but preliminary and provisional in
terms of preparation, to the grace-dynamic of Christ's
"indestructible life" in the new covenant with its effectual
power to restore man to God's perfect functional intent. The
Law was impotent to do so. It provided no strength, power,
or vitality to the people of God in order to implement God's
objectives. Its commands for conformity by external
performance without any divine dynamic to effect the
demands, made it "useless," unhelpful, and ineffectual of
no profit, benefit or advantage. The Law did not need to be
adjusted, altered or "tweaked". The only solution was that
it be "put away" (cf. 9:26), set aside, nullified, annulled,
invalidated, cancelled, abrogated, and rejected.
7:19 Parenthetically Paul
explains, "(for the Law perfected nothing)".
As he had stated earlier (vs. 11), the Jewish priesthood
could not bring perfection, so now Paul explains that the
Law could make nothing perfect (cf. 10:1). This is not to
say that the Law did not serve its God-ordained preliminary
and provisional purpose preparatory to Jesus Christ, but the
Law could not bring mankind to the perfect functional
end-objective of God for humanity. The Law made man aware of
his frustrating inability to perform in accord with God's
expectations and character, but only the "Son, made perfect
forever" (vs. 28) could provide the eschatological
fulfillment of the grace-dynamic of His own divine
resurrection-life in order to perfect receptive mankind unto
the functional end that God intends by His Being in action
in and through man.
Only in Jesus Christ is there "a
bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to
God." The "indestructible life" of the risen Lord
Jesus, acting in His perpetual intercessory priesthood, and
serving as the dynamic of all divine demands by "the law
written in our hearts" (8:16; 16:10) brings into and upon
Christian people the internal provision of God's efficacious
and effectual grace. Whereas the only hope of the Judaic Law
and priesthood was in the future hope of a Messianic
deliverer, Jesus now personally serves as the "better hope,"
the eschatological fulfillment of the Jewish expectations,
and the dynamic living hope for all Christians. "Christ
Jesus is our hope" (I Tim. 1:1), Paul explained to Timothy.
And to the Christians in Colossae, Paul wrote that "Christ
in you is the hope of glory" (Col. 1:27).
The revolutionary insurrectionists of
Palestine were offering the Judean Christians a false hope
in a promised restoration of Jewish nationalism and
religion. Paul assures them that the "better hope" that all
Christians have in Jesus Christ is the confident expectation
of being restored to God's perfect objective for man by the
indwelling dynamic of Christ's resurrection-life. That is
not just a future expectation in heaven, but is the present
expectation of functioning as fulfilled humanity as Christ
lives in and through us to the glory of God. It is the
present confident expectation "through which we draw near to
God" in relational intimacy, based on a spiritual oneness
with the Spirit of Christ (cf. I Cor. 6:17). Our "drawing
near to God" (cf. 4:16; 7:25; 10:1,22; James 4:8) will
include the communion of prayer, but should not be limited
only to the Christian's prayer life, for the phrase is
inclusive of the entirety of the intercommunion of God and
man in Christ.
7:20 Continuing to document
the exchange (cf. 12) of priesthoods from the Aaronic and
Levitical to the Melchizedekan priesthood of Christ, Paul
returns to the phrases of Psalm 110:4, addressing the topic
of the "divine oath" in verses 20-22, and the idea of the
"eternal priesthood" in verses 23-25.
Earlier in the epistle Paul had
emphasized that God's promise to Abraham concerning Jesus
Christ and the new covenant community of Christians was
confirmed by an oath in Genesis 22:17 (cf. 6:12-18). Paul
now takes the theme of the "divine oath" from Psalm 110:4,
which he quotes in the next verse (21), and uses it as
verification for the superior priesthood of Jesus Christ.
"Inasmuch as" the priesthood of Christ was
"not without oath-swearing," Jesus has become the
surety of a better arrangement between God and man (cf. 22).
The priesthood of Christ has been established and validated
by a divine oath-taking. God's word is based on His
unchangeable character so His sworn oath assures absolute
veracity and the reliability to achieve by His own dynamic
what has been sworn.
7:21 Again, apparently
parenthetically, Paul inserts that "(for they indeed
are those having become priests without oath-swearing"
The Levitical priests were successively installed and
invested as priests in accord with the legal order of the
Mosaic Law. They followed the requirements of the legal
system and took their turn in the progression of priests.
There was no divine oath assuring that their actions were
expressive of the Being and character of God.
"But" in contrast to the
Levitical priests, "He," Jesus, was declared a
priest "with oath-swearing, through the One"
(God the Father) "saying before Him" (Jesus),
'THE LORD HAS SWORN AND WILL NOT CHANGE HIS MIND, THOU
ART A PRIEST FOREVER');" By the binding oath of God,
who must always act consistent with his faithful and
inviolable character, and whose word is dependable and
expressive of His Being, Jesus was sworn in as a priest by
God Himself, and vested as the Son-priest with the very
Being of God in action. God the Father declared, beforehand
in time, and before the Son personally, "Thou art a priest
forever."
7:22 "According to such
a great" declaration of God's sworn placement as
priest, "Jesus has become the guarantor of a better
covenant." Jesus is not just the legal guarantee and
surety of a better and more effectual arrangement between
God and man, but He is the personal "guarantor" of a new
order wherein He will personally bring into being the
perfect objective that God has for man. Jesus is not just
the "security deposit" of a new contract with mankind, but
He is the personal substance and reality of the "better
covenant" that God has unilaterally put in place by His
grace. The covenant of Law that established the Levitical
priesthood has been annulled and invalidated (cf. 18) as
obsolete (cf. 8:13). The covenant of grace has been
established by God's sworn decree whereby Jesus is "a priest
forever" the permanent and eternal priest of God. The
efficacy of this intercessory priesthood of Jesus Christ is
assured by the essential activity of the divine Being. "He
who promised is faithful" (Heb. 10:23). "He will bring it to
pass" (I Thess. 5:24). The "eternal security" of one's
personal relationship with God in this new "eternal
covenant" (13:20) is not based on man's actions or
performance, nor even necessarily on a legally sworn
statement, but on the reality of Christ's personal function
as the "guarantor" that "He who began a good work in you
will perfect it" (Phil. 1:6).
7:23 Employing the same
contrast of "they indeed...but He" as he did in verse 21,
Paul now contrasts the permanency and perpetuity of the
Judaic priesthoods and the priesthood of Christ. "And
they indeed are many, having become priests because they
were prevented by death from continuing." The
Levitical priests were plenteous and multiple. This
multiplicity was necessitated by the temporality and
mortality of the priests. They died, and were succeeded by
others. The legal system of Levitical priesthood continued,
but the priests kept dying. The continuity of the Levitical
priesthood was constantly interrupted and disrupted. The
inevitability of death in the mortal priests of the Jewish
priesthoods necessitated the legal regulations of priestly
succession. The continuity and perpetuation of the old
covenant priesthoods came only by repetitive succession,
which implies a segmented and temporal effectiveness. Though
the Aaronic priesthood was referred to as a "perpetual
priesthood" (cf. Exod. 29:9; 40:15; Numb. 25:13), the
perpetuation was only by sequenced succession of sons from
generation to generation.
7:24 "But He,"
Jesus Christ, "through His abiding forever, has the
priesthood that is not passed on." Whereas the
Jewish priesthoods involved the multiplicity of the "many"
(23), the priesthood of Jesus Christ is singular. "There is
one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus" (I
Tim. 2:5). Whereas the old covenant priesthoods were
discontinuous because of the death of the priests, Jesus
abides forever, "a priest forever" (Ps. 110:4), by "the
power of an indestructible life" (16) displayed in
resurrection. Whereas the priesthoods of Judaism were
perpetuated by legal and familial succession, the priesthood
of Jesus is perpetuated by the eternality of His own divine
Being. The priesthood of Christ is "not passed on" to any
successor, even though some ecclesiastical institutions in
Christendom practice "priestly succession." Jesus is the
better, supreme priest of God, whose priesthood is permanent
and perpetual by reason of His own divine Being.
7:25 By logical deduction we
may infer that "From this, indeed, He is able to save
to the very end those drawing near to God through Him."
Jesus is able, by the dynamic inherent in His own Being, to
save those who through Him, as Christians, are drawing near
in personal and spiritual intimacy to God. The need of
fallen humanity is not for a religious pacifier or a
reformation of behavioral performances. The need of mankind
is, rather, to be "made safe" from the misuse and abuse of
dysfunctional humanity, and to be restored to functional
humanity by the indwelling presence of God in Christ. To "be
saved" is, therefore, not just a personal event or a
transactional experience of conversion, nor anticipated
benefits in the future. To "be saved" is the dynamic process
whereby God's perfect (cf. 11,19) objective is enacted in
the restoration of a functional humanity in those receptive
to God's presence and activity in Jesus Christ. Jesus
Christ, functioning as priest, is able to do that, without
any additional supplementation, to the very end of time and
to the fullest extent of salvation. The "finished work" (cf.
Jn. 19:30) of Christ, functioning by His own "saving life"
(Rom. 5:10), is able to "save" us completely, all the way
through, unto God's ultimate end. "He who began a good work
in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus" (Phil.
1:6). This happens as we are "drawing near" (cf. 4:16; 7:19;
10:1,22) by receptivity and availability to an ever-deeper
relational intimacy with God. And this is only "through
Him", Jesus Christ, for "no man comes to the Father, but
through Him" (John 14:6).
This continuous relational intimacy of
salvation is effected in Christians by Jesus, the eternal
priest, who is "living always to intercede on our
behalf." "Christ Jesus is He who died, who was
raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes
for us" (Rom. 8:34). The "power of an indestructible life"
(16), which was victoriously displayed in the power of His
resurrection from the dead (cf. Rom. 1:4), is dynamically
expressed as the One who is a "priest forever" (Ps. 110:4)
lives always to intercede, to intervene, and to attain God's
perfect (cf. 11,19) end in our lives. The priestly function
of the risen and living Lord Jesus makes Him far more than
just a figure of history or a premise of theology, for He
"lives always" as our intercessor and advocate (I John 2:1).
He lives always to encourage, sustain, protect, minister,
and to make Himself real to us and through us.
7:26 Paul begins to summarize
his argument (26-28) of the superiority of the priesthood of
Christ over the Judaic priesthoods. "For this was
fitting for us," The priesthood of Jesus is just
what we needed! It corresponds with the necessity, meets the
demands, and fits the circumstances required to remedy man's
fallen sinful condition, and to restore man to functional
humanity. It is perfectly appropriate that God should
provide such "a high priest, holy, blameless,
undefiled, having become separated from sinners and exalted
above the heavens."
Paul returns in verses 26-28 to referring
to Jesus as "high priest." Since Paul is contrasting the old
covenant Judaic priesthoods, both Aaronic and Levitical, to
the priesthood of Jesus, there is no essential difference in
the argument whether he speaks of Levitical priests or a
high priest. As priest, Jesus is "holy", devout and
consecrated (the Greek word is hosios rather than
hagios). He is "blameless", being pure and having no
evil. Such purity of character allows Him to be "undefiled"
and uncontaminated by sin or anything contrary to the
character of God. The phrase that Paul uses to describe
Jesus' "having become separated from sinners" has been
interpreted in various ways. Does Paul mean that by His
sinlessness, despite being tempted (cf. 4:15), Jesus is
distinct from all other men? Does Paul mean that Jesus as
priest is distinguished from all other priests who are all
sinners (cf. 27)? Or is the phrase to be integrally
connected with the following phrase to indicate that Jesus
was separated from all priests and other sinners by the
historic occurrence of His ascension, whereby He, on the
basis of His purity and perfection (sinlessness), could
enter into the divine presence of the Father, and be exalted
above the heavens in the triumph of transcendent glory, thus
to intercede for mankind as priest with unhindered access to
God? The latter interpretation seems best to correspond with
Paul's earlier reference to our having "a great high priest
who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God"
(4:14).
7:27 Jesus, as high priest,
"does not have any need to day by day offer up
sacrifices, as do the (Jewish) high priests,
first for their own sins, then for those of the people,"
Paul's merging of the function of priests and high priests
has caused consternation for some commentators. The primary
responsibility of the high priest was to make the yearly
sin-offering on the Day of Atonement (cf. Lev. 16:6-10; Heb.
9:7,25; 10:1,3), whereas the Levitical priests conducted the
daily Jewish sacrifices at the temple. Yet, Paul seems to be
referring to high priests offering daily sacrifices. His
combining of the old covenant Jewish priesthoods was for the
purpose of emphasizing the contrast between the plurality of
the Jewish priests and the singularity of Christ; the
sinfulness of the Judaic priests and the perfection of
Christ; and the repetitiveness of the priestly sacrifices in
the temple (whether annual or daily) as contrasted with the
singularity and finality of Christ's sacrifice. Paul had
previously mentioned the need of the Jewish priests to first
offer sacrifices for their own sins prior to doing so for
others in 5:3 (cf. 9:7; Lev. 4:3; 9:8; 16:6,11). Here his
emphasis is on the final, all-sufficient completeness of
Christ's sacrifice, "because this He did once and for
all, having offered up Himself." While Melchizedek
only offered "bread and wine" to Abraham, perhaps symbolic
of the communion meal of the Lord's Supper, there is no
record of his offering sacrifices relating to sin. Paul uses
the Judaic priests as the prototype of priestly sacrifices
for sin. The complexity of the argument is also amplified by
the fact that Jesus Christ serves both as the sacrificing
priest as well as the sacrifice (cf. 9:11-14, 23-28;
10:5-14, 19,20). As priest "He offered up Himself" as the
singularly sufficient sacrifice for the sins of mankind,
taking upon Himself the death consequences for all sin. He
chose volitionally to thus "offer up Himself" as the
vicarious sacrifice which alone would be sufficient to
substitutionally take death for all men. But such death did
not interrupt His priesthood (cf. 23), for death could not
hold Him in its power (cf. Acts 2:24), and He was "raised
from the dead, never to die again" (Rom. 6:9), but to
function eternally as intercessory priest for all those "in
Him." The death sacrifice of Christ in "offering up Himself
once and for all" was the singularly sufficient sacrifice
which finally and completely put an end to the old covenant
system of sacrifices in the Jewish priesthoods.
7:28 Paul summarizes his
foregoing argument, "For the Law appoints men as high
priests who are weak," The Mosaic Law of the old
covenant regulated the appointments of many men unto the
position of high priesthood. The Jewish priests were "beset
by weakness" (5:2), being volitionally vulnerable to
temptation, and succumbing to sinfulness as obviated by the
need to make sacrifices for their own sins (5:3; 7:27).
Their functional priesthood was also "weak," as the Jewish
priesthood and its integral corollary, the Mosaic Law, had
"no strength" to perfect (11,19) and restore humanity to the
functional end-objective of God.
"But," in contrast,
"the word of oath-swearing, (which came) after
the Law, (appoints) a Son having been
perfected forever." "The word of oath-swearing" is
God's declaration in Psalm 110:4, "Thou art a priest forever
according to the order of Melchizedek," declaring and
appointing the Son of God to be the eternal priest.
Chronologically, the declaration of Psalm 110:4 came almost
1000 years after the establishment of the Mosaic Law as
recorded in Exodus. Paul's argument is this case is that the
divine declaration of priesthood in Psalm 110:4 is
subsequent to and superior to the Law-based priesthoods
which preceded, though previously he had argued that
antecedence was the basis for superiority (cf. 9,10). The
point Paul is making, however, is that the singularity of
the Son of God is superior to the multiplicity of mere men
as priests in Judaism, and this Christic superiority is
because the Son was "made perfect forever." In contrast to
the personal and functional "weakness" of the Judaic
priests, Jesus was essentially perfect in Being,
functionally perfect in behavior (sinless), and was "made
perfect" (cf. 2:10; 5:8,9) in benefit for all mankind by His
sinless substitutional sacrifice on their behalf. By the
resurrection display of "the power of an indestructible
life" (16), Jesus could function in a priesthood whereby His
intercessory "finished work" can perfect (cf. 10:14; 11:40;
12:23) receptive humanity to God's functional end-objective,
to bring glory to Himself by exhibiting His all-glorious
character in created mankind. This perfect priesthood of
Jesus is permanent and perpetual. He had been "made perfect
forever," and is "a priest forever" (Ps. 110:4). The Greek
text for "forever" is "unto the age." Jesus' finished work
as priest in sacrificing Himself and in interceding for His
own is operative in the eschatological age of these "last
days" in which we now participate, and extends in perpetuity
unto eternity.
Concluding Remarks:
When the Palestinian Christians, the
original recipients of this letter, read Paul's arguments
for the superiority of the priesthood of Jesus Christ, they
were being pressured by their ethnic countrymen to "jump on
the bandwagon" of revolt against Roman. The false promises
of the Zealot insurrectionists was that the Jewish
priesthoods would be restored to their original forms when
the Jewish people controlled their own nation, religion, and
destiny.
Paul wanted to forestall any
participation by the Jerusalem Christians in the Jewish
cause and its false premises. In order to do so he argues
for the superiority of the priesthood of Jesus, "according
to the order of Melchizedek", over all Judaic priesthoods,
both Aaronic and Levitical. In Paul's mind, the priesthoods
of Judaism were designed with planned obsolescence. They
were only intended to be a pictorial prefiguring of the
sacrificial nature of Christ's priesthood and
Self-sacrifice. The incarnation of Jesus and His redemptive
and restorative work fulfills the eschatological
expectations pictured in the legal order of the Jewish
priesthoods. The Aaronic and Levitical priesthoods, and the
Mosaic Law which was foundation to such in the old covenant,
have all been annulled, abrogated, and completely set aside
(cf. 11,12,18,19). There was no reason for the Judean
Christians to expect or desire the restoration of the Jewish
priesthood that was impotent and had been rendered obsolete.
Paul wanted to draw the Palestinian
Christians away from proprietary views of priesthood that
gave exclusive right to the Jewish peoples. He wanted to
broaden their horizons from a provincial priesthood that
functioned geographically in Palestine, and more
specifically at the location of the temple in Jerusalem, to
the universal priesthood of Christ for all men in every
place. Whereas the Jewish priesthood was a priesthood pro
tempore, for the temporary time that God intended to use
it to illustrate what He was going to do in Jesus Christ,
Paul wanted to emphasize that the priesthood of Jesus is
eternal, final, permanent and perpetual.
The priesthood of Jesus Christ involved
the sacrifice of Himself on the cross of Calvary to effect
redemption from sin for all men, but His priesthood
continues perpetually in His continuing intercessory work,
as the "saving life" (Rom. 5:10) of Christ facilitates
Christians "drawing near" to God in ever-deeper relational
union and intimacy. The Jerusalem Christians, in the midst
of their persecution and ostracism, may have been wondering
whether the risen Lord Jesus was indeed interceding on their
behalf. On the verge of impending war against the Romans,
they needed to be assured that Jesus, "the priest forever,"
was continuing His priestly work to perfect them in His
eternal life, despite what external circumstances might
transpire.
Paul's meticulous arguments for the
superiority of the priesthood of Jesus can often appear to
the modern reader to be arduous and even redundant. But we
trust that this "legal brief" was sufficiently
understandable to the Christians in Palestine to cause them
to trust in Jesus as their only hope, recognizing Jesus as
"the better permanent and perpetual priest of God."
FOOTNOTE
1
Josephus, Flavius, The Works of Josephus: Complete and
Unabridged. "The Antiquities of the Jews." Book 20,
Sect. 181,206,207. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. 1996.
pgs. 536,538.
JESUS: THE
BETTER MINISTER
OF THE NEW COVENANT
The radical change from the Judaic
religion to the vital dynamic of Jesus' life required a
change of priesthood (7:12), and change of law (7:12), and a
change of covenant (7:22). In this section of the epistle
(chapter 8) the perpetual priestly ministry of Jesus, the
"priest forever" (7:21,24), is emphasized (cf. 8:1,2,6), and
this is the context of a "better covenant" (8:6), a "new
covenant" (8:8,13), wherein the law of God is no longer
externally codified, but is internally personified in Jesus
Christ.
As the concept of "covenant" is so
prominent in this chapter, it will be instructive to
consider some background for this subject.
The Hebrew word for "covenant" is
berith, and it is used 285 times in the Old Testament.
It is used of bilateral agreements between persons, such as
Jacob and Laban (Gen. 31:44-55) and David and Jonathon (I
Sam. 20:5-23). Marriage between husband and wife is also
regarded as a covenant relationship (Malachi 2:14). Often in
both the Hebrew culture and other ancient cultures, such
bilateral covenants included terms of agreement, an oath by
both parties to keep the agreement, and the slaying of an
animal to seal the agreement. This latter feature of the
ancient "blood covenant"1
was the basis for the common references to "cutting a
covenant."
The primary usage of the Hebrew word
berith in the Old Testament is in reference to the
unilateral covenants that God established with man. God
established a covenant with Noah (Gen. 9:8-17), promising
with the sign of a rainbow never to send another flood to
destroy all flesh on the earth. God also made a covenant of
promise with Abraham (Gen. 17:1-14) to multiply his
descendants and make Abraham the father of a multitude of
nations. A covenant arrangement was also made with the
people of Israel when Moses went before God on Mt. Sinai (Exod.
24:4-8). These unilateral covenants, where God was the
superior and authoritative party, could still require a
responsibility of the lesser party to respond and
participate. The Abrahamic covenant of promise and the
Mosaic covenant of law together formed the basis on which
the Israelite people considered themselves "the covenant
people of God."
The Israelites could not fulfill their
commitment (Exod. 19:8; 24:3,7) to keep the requirements of
the Mosaic Law. The prophets foretold that God would
establish a "new covenant" (Jere. 31:31), an everlasting
covenant of peace (cf. Isa. 55:3; Ezek. 37:26-28), that
would be a personified "covenant to the people" (Isa. 42:6).
The expectation of the Messianic deliverer and the "new
covenant" arrangement were merged in Judaic eschatological
anticipation.
The Jewish Christians of Judea, to whom
this epistle was written, were thoroughly steeped in the
Hebrew tradition of God's covenants and the identification
of the Jewish peoples as "the covenant people of God." At
the same time, the Greek language had become the language of
the land of Palestine and the Roman Empire. The concepts of
"covenant" in the Greek culture, as expressed in the Greek
language, were not the same as the Hebraic concepts. Prior
to, and continuing into, the first century A.D. there was an
integrative merge of attempting to express Hebraic concepts
of God's covenants with man in the Greek language.
The Greek language had two words for
"covenant." Bilateral covenant agreements between human
parties were referred to with the Greek word suntheke,
meaning "to place or put together with" another. Conditions
were mutually determined by the parties involved in the
arrangement, and a covenant compact or contract (verbal or
written) was agreed to by both parties, whether in the
context of business, politics, marriage, etc. But this word,
suntheke, is never used in the Greek New Testament.
Instead, all New Testament references to "covenant" employ
the Greek word diatheke, meaning "to put or place
through" by a party that holds an authoritative and superior
decisive position, whereupon the other parties can either
accept or reject any stated conditions or stipulations. All
references to such a unilateral diatheke covenant in
the Greek culture were in reference to "the last will and
testament" of an individual, the conditions of which were to
be enforced upon the occasion of the person's death.
Given the Hebraic emphasis on the
unilateral covenants that God established with man, it is
not difficult to see why the Greek word diatheke was
chosen to translate the Hebrew berith throughout the
Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Hebrew
Old Testament. The Greek word diatheke was being
invested with a Hebraic meaning that it had never previously
conveyed in the Greek language and culture. On only one
occasion in the Greek New Testament (Heb. 9:15-22; possibly
alluded to in Gal. 3:15) is the Greek concept of diatheke
as a "last will and testament" applied to the necessary
death of the testator, referring to the death of Jesus
Christ.
Within the Greek New Testament the
covenant of God with Abraham (cf. Lk. 1:72; Acts 3:25) is
regarded as a covenant of promise (cf. Gal. 3:16-19), having
permanence and continuity through its fulfillment of the
promises in Jesus Christ (II Cor. 1:20). On the other hand,
the covenant of God with Israel enacted through Moses at Mt.
Sinai is regarded as a temporary covenant of law that was
divinely designed with planned obsolescence. It is this
Sinaitic covenant that is identified as the "first" or "old
covenant" (cf. II Cor. 3:6-14; Gal. 4:24; Heb. 8:7,9,13;
9:15), intended only as a provisional or preliminary
agreement to prepare God's people for what God was going to
do through His Son, Jesus Christ. The legal context of the
Law covenant, with its external codification of performance
requirements (cf. II Cor. 3:6), is contrasted with the "new
covenant" (cf. II Cor. 3:6; Heb. 9:15; 12:24) of grace in
Jesus Christ. There is a radical discontinuity between the
old Mosaic covenant of law and the "better covenant" (Heb.
7:22; 8:6) personified in Jesus Christ, who by the Spirit
brings life and righteousness (II Cor. 3:6) and an internal
provision of the divine character that Law required (Heb.
8:10; 10:16).
The Christians of Palestine in the first
century were caught in this integrative transition of Greek
and Hebrew concepts of "covenant". The Pharisaic forms of
Judaism, prevalent at the time, had corrupted the Hebraic
concepts of "covenant" by casting them in reciprocal
contractual categories. The unilateral covenant of promises
to Abraham was regarded as conferring unconditional physical
rights and privileges to the Jewish peoples, allowing them
to leverage God for their fulfillment. The Mosaic covenant
of Law was regarded as a contract of bilateral reciprocal
conditionalism. "If we do this, God is obliged to do this
for us. If God does this, we will worship Him." The
legalistic rules and regulations of human performance were
regarded as human contingencies of God's activity.
In this context the Palestinian
liberationists of the seventh decade of the first century
A.D. were attempting to garner support for their revolt
against Roman rule, and they wanted the Jewish Christians to
join their cause. They might have been saying: "This land is
our land. We have exclusive rights, as God's special
covenant people, to rule ourselves in our own land, and to
reestablish the Jewish religion, as it ought to be. Then, we
will do what is right before God, and God will continue to
bless us as He promised." These insurrectionists wanted to
be assured of everyone's participation in this revolutionary
endeavor, and were probably pressuring all the ethnic
population of Palestine, including the Jewish Christians, to
make a commitment to "sign on" to their "social contract" of
liberation that would assuredly result in the renewal of the
privileges of God's covenant with the Hebrew people.
Such an historical context allows us to
understand why Paul was explaining to the Judean Christians
that there was no reason for them to revert back to the
Judaic religion, or to engage in the political aspirations
of the Zealot revolutionaries to restore Judaic rights and
regulations. Paul emphasized to his Christian brethren that
as Christians, united with the Spirit of the living Lord
Jesus, they were already participating in the "new covenant
of God's unilateral action of grace. As Christians, they had
an entirely new orientation to God's law, for the law was
now a personified provision indwelling them as the Spirit of
Christ was available to manifest God's character in their
behavior. The Judaic priesthood in the temple in Jerusalem
had been superseded by the continuing and eternal priesthood
of Christ's heavenly intercession for Christians, whereby He
provides and enables everything necessary for the Christian
life and Christian worship. Paul wanted the Christians of
Palestine to recognize that Jesus is "the better minister of
the new covenant."
8:1 The little Jewish lawyer
knew how to emphasize his point by using legal and
rhetorical methods to bring people's attention back to the
central issue. "Now the main point concerning the
things being stated" in the foregoing arguments of
chapter 7 concerning the permanent and perpetual priesthood
of Jesus is that the intercessory priesthood of Jesus
continues as the vital dynamic of the Christian life. The
headline (the Greek word is derived from kephale,
meaning "head"), the primary issue, the principal thing, the
"main point" to be emphasized is the ongoing priesthood of
the living Lord Jesus. Paul is not summarizing. He is
emphasizing.
"We have such a high priest, who
has sat down at the right of the throne of the Majesty in
the heavens," Previously Paul had written, "For it
was fitting for us that we should have such a high
priestexalted above the heavens" (7:26). "Such a high
priest" was just what we needed, and since we have "such a
high priest" we do not need another. There was no need to
attempt to restore the high priesthood of Judaism, as the
revolutionaries were promoting. There was no need to seek a
high priest in speculation about the reinstitution of the
priesthood in the future. We presently "have such a high
priest" in the person of the risen Lord Jesus who is
sufficiently encouraging, sympathizing, sustaining,
protecting and empowering the Christians in whom He lives.
He is serving, ministering and working as high priest to
perform all that God wants to do in Christian lives.
Jesus "has sat down at the right hand" of
God. Paul referred to this fact in the introduction of this
epistle (1:3), and will do so again on two more occasions
(10:12; 12:2) in this letter. These all seem to draw from
the imagery of Psalm 110:1 where "the Lord says to my Lord,
'Sit at My right hand'." This is the very context of the
text that Paul has been emphasizing from Psalm 110:4
concerning the priesthood of Jesus (cf. 5:6,10; 6:20;
7:11-28). The Judaic priests of the Aaronic and Levitical
priesthoods never "sat down." There was no place to sit in
the Holy Place or the Holy of Holies of the Jerusalem
temple. The "mercy-seat" (Exod. 25:17-22; Heb. 9:5) was not
a place for the high priest to be seated. The old covenant
priests were always standing. Their work was never done, as
they engaged in their repetitive priestly performances. The
figurative language of Jesus "taking His seat at the right
hand of God" indicates that He had completed His sacrificial
work as priest, and could be seated to continue to function
within His "finished work" (cf. Jn. 19:30), continuing His
priestly ministry as intercessory advocate (cf. I Jn. 2:1)
and empowering agent (cf. Matt. 26:64). That He is seated at
God's 'right hand" indicates an operational empowering, for
the one who was the "right hand man" of an authority figure
had the power to implement His dictates. "All authority is
given to Me on heaven and on earth" (Matt. 28:18), Jesus
declared prior to His ascension. The triumphant Christus
Victor2
had received His crowning affirmation to assume His royal
priesthood. "We have a great high priest who has passed
through the heavens," Paul wrote earlier (4:14), and we can
"therefore draw near with confidence to the throne of grace"
(4:16), where Christ functions as priest in conjunction with
the great and eminent Majesty of God the Father.
This continuing transcendent priesthood
of Jesus "in the heavens" is the "main point" that Paul is
driving home to his readers. In the midst of their ostracism
and persecution at the hands of their Jewish kinsmen, they
were being tempted by the liberationists to seek an earthly
king to rule them in Palestine, and a rejuvenation of the
physical high priesthood for the repetitive sacrifices in
the temple. To forestall this reversionism, Paul reminds the
Palestinian Christians that "we presently have a high
priest, the living Lord Jesus, who has finished His
sacrificial work, and now functions as the divine
King-Priest in the heavens." There is a purposed contrast
between the earthly priests functioning in the physical and
tangible temple in Jerusalem and the transcendent priest,
Jesus Christ, functioning "in the heavens." Such a
quasi-spatial differentiation is not to be dismissed as an
antiquated concept of a "two-story universe," but is to be
understood as the comparative superiority of the divine,
eternal priesthood of Christ, beyond all space-time
cosmological, geographical, and historical limitations of
human priesthoods.
8:2 The risen and living Lord
Jesus who now serves as transcendent high priest in the
heavens is "a minister in the sanctuary," The
word for "minister" is not the same Greek word, diakoneo,
used in 1:14 of the angels as "ministering spirits" and in
6:10 of the Hebrew Christians "having ministered and still
ministering to the saints." Here Paul uses the Greek word
leitourgos, from which the English word "liturgy" is
derived. This word refers to the continuing functional
activity of Jesus Christ as a priestly ministrant or a
temple liturgist attending to His intercessory work. He is
doing so "in the sanctuary," in the "holy places" of God's
presence where He is "seated at the right hand of God." When
Ezekiel made his prophecy of a new, everlasting "covenant of
peace," God spoke through him, saying, "I will set My
sanctuary in their midst forever. My dwelling place will be
with them The nations will know that I am the God who
sanctifies Israel, when My sanctuary is in their midst
forever" (Ezek. 37:26-28). Jesus ministers as the priestly
liturgist in the "sanctuary" of God's presence, which is not
located in some far away cosmological location or in an
elevated place far above where we now live, but in the
heavenly place (cf. Jn. 14:2) and presence of God where all
Christians have access "to enter the holy place by the blood
of Jesus" (10:19).
In synonymous parallelism, Paul indicates
that Jesus serves as priest "in the sanctuary, and in
the true tabernacle, which the Lord erected, not man."
The physical tabernacle in the old covenant was a
temporary tent set-up or pitched in various locations as the
Israelites moved from place to place. It was a portable
worship place where the Aaronic and Levitical priests served
in representing the people before God. In contrast, Paul
explains that Jesus is the temple priest in the holy place
and Holy of Holies of "the true tabernacle." By referring to
the "true" or "real" tabernacle, Paul is not implying that
the tabernacle of the old covenant was a "false" tabernacle,
but only contrasting the superiority of Christ's priestly
work in the reality of God's eternal, spiritual, and
heavenly presence with the temporary, transient,
preliminary, and imperfect function of the priests in the
earthly tabernacle-tent. The heavenly and eternal tabernacle
is divinely set-up by the very presence of God, and not a
temporary tent erected by man, thinking that the God of the
universe could be enclosed in the parameters of a
partitioned place. "The Lord of heaven and earth does not
dwell in temples made with hands," Paul declared in Athens
(Acts 17:24). Later he will write in this epistle, "Christ
appeared as high priest" to function in "the greater and
more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, not of this
creation" (9:14). "For He did not enter a holy place made
with hands, but into heaven itself, to appear in the
presence of God for us" (9:24). Several commentators have
attempted to explain Christ's ministry in the tabernacle as
[1] the historical incarnational tabernacling of Jesus in a
physical body (cf. Jn. 1:14; II Pet. 1:13,14), or [2] the
Spirit of Christ dwelling spiritually within Christian
believers (cf. Rom. 8:9; Eph. 3:17; Col. 3:16; Rev. 21:3),
or [3] Christ's dwelling in the Body of Christ, the Church
(cf. I Cor. 3:16; II Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21,22), but all of
these interpretive options seem to import ideas not present
in this text or its context. The living Lord Jesus continues
to function as intercessory priest in the "sanctuary" and
"true tabernacle" of God's heavenly presence, which cannot
be circumscribed by any place or location. This will be
developed more fully in 9:11-28.
8:3 The contrast of Christ's
priesthood with the Judaic priesthoods is continued.
"For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and
sacrifices;" This is essentially the same statement
made in 5:1 (cf. comments), and the same idea will be
referred to in 9:9 and 10:11. The Jewish high priests (which
might be generically inclusive of all Judaic priests)
repetitively and continuously offered a plurality of gifts
and sacrifices (the differentiation of which should not be
unduly pressed).
Correlatively, "hence the necessity
to have something which this One (Christ as high
priest) should offer." Since priests are known
to make sacrifices for sins, there is a logical necessity
that Jesus, as priest, should have something to offer. This
"he did once and for all when He offered up Himself" (7:27;
cf. 9:14,25,26,28; 10:12). The multiple "gifts and
sacrifices" are replaced by a single sacrifice in the death
of Jesus Christ. The repetitive sacrifices of the Jewish
priests become a single, "once and for all" (cf. 7:27; 9:12,
27, 28) sacrifice in the crucifixion of Jesus that completed
and "finished" (cf. Jn. 19:30) all sacrificial necessity,
taking the death consequences for the sins of all men for
all time, and allowing Christ to function forever in His
priestly ministry of intercession for the restoration of
humanity.
8:4 Reiteratively (cf. 7:13),
Paul states, "For if He were on earth, He would not be
a priest, since those priests are offering the gifts
according to the Law." Obviously this does not mean
that Jesus was not "on earth," for He did come to earth
incarnated as a man (cf. Phil. 2:6-8). The statement means
that "if (as is not the case) Jesus was meant to function as
an earthly and physical Judaic priest, He would be
ineligible and disqualified, since those Judaic priests
offering gifts according to the Mosaic Law were required to
be from the family of Aaron or the tribe of Levi, and Jesus
was descended from Judah (7:14)."
8:5 The Jewish priests are
those "who serve as an example and a shadow of the
heavenly things." In their temple ministry the old
covenant priests served as examples (cf. 4:11) or copies
(cf. 9:23); the pictorial pre-figuring that provided a
sample and a sketch of what God had predetermined to do in
the redemptive and restorative work of His Son, Jesus
Christ. The Judaic priesthood and the Law (10:1) were but a
"shadow" that foreshadowed the reality that was to be
effected in Christ. Paul used the same word when writing to
the Colossians, explaining that the old covenant festivals
and Sabbath days were "a shadow of what was to come, but the
substance belongs to Christ" (Col. 2:17). The substance of
God's intent was the reality of Christ's eternal priestly
ministry of "heavenly things" while "seated at God's right
hand in the heavenlies" (cf. Eph. 1:20; 2:6). The imperfect
procedures of the old covenant priesthood served only as
"copies of the things in the heavens" (9:23). Again (cf.
8:2), it should be noted that these "heavenly things in the
heavens" do not necessarily refer to cosmological location
or placement, but rather to the effectual priestly work of
Christ in drawing all Christians into the presence of God
(cf. 3:1; 12:22).
The present tenses of the verbs
describing the Jewish priests "serving" and "offering" (vs.
4) in their priestly duties, seems to indicate that the
priesthood was still functioning in the temple at Jerusalem
when this epistle was written, prior to 70 A.D. Paul wanted
the Jerusalem Christians to know that the religious
procedures taking place within the temple walls were only a
preliminary sampling of the eternal and heavenly spiritual
realities of the priestly ministry of Christ in their lives.
There was no reason for them to even consider reverting back
to the shadow-pictures of Judaism as the socio-political
activists were encouraging them to do. They already had the
superior provision of eternal spiritual realities in Jesus
Christ.
To illustrate that the function of the
priests in the tabernacle and temple were but preliminary
prototype models, Paul refers to the occasion when
"Moses had been warned when he was about to erect the
tabernacle;" Although Bezalel (cf. Exod. 31:2;
35:30; 36:1,2; 38:22) was actually the construction
supervisor for the tabernacle, he constructed it under the
authority of Moses. God had warned Moses, "saying,
'SEE THAT YOU MAKE ALL THINGS ACCORDING TO THE PATTERN
HAVING BEEN SHOWN TO YOU ON THE MOUNTAIN'." This
quotation from Exodus 25:40 was utilized by Paul to document
that the old covenant priesthood in the tabernacle was but a
"pattern" or a "type" (the Greek word is tupos, from
which we derive the English word "type," which is the
translation in Romans 5:14) of the heavenly priesthood of
Jesus. Some have speculated that God showed Moses a model or
a "blueprint" of the prescribed tabernacle, either in
tangible form or as a mental image, while on Mt. Sinai. This
would add another prior "copy" to the sequence of
tabernacles. More likely, Paul is keying off of the words
"type" and "copy" (or "example") to emphasize the well-known
Jewish interpretation that the tangible tabernacle and
temple of Judaism were but representative of the heavenly
presence and dwelling of God. In the apocryphal Wisdom of
Solomon, Solomon says, "You commanded me to build a
temple on Your holy mountain, a copy of the sacred
tabernacle which You prepared from the very first" (9:8).
Philo, the Jewish commentator and philosopher from
Alexandria (c. 20 B.C. 50 A.D.), wrote, "We ought to look
upon the universal world as the highest and truest temple of
God, having for its most holy place that most sacred part of
the essence of all existing things, namely, the heaven"3
Still, Paul's documentary quotation seems somewhat
convoluted. In fact, Exodus 25:40 seems to refer to the
superiority of the Mosaic tabernacle, based on revealed
heavenly realities, whereas Paul seems to be using it to
refer to the inferiority of the Mosaic tabernacle,
based on revealed heavenly realities in Christ. But the
point Paul is making is quite evident: the tabernacle and
the temple of the Old Testament were used by God as a
preliminary pictorial pattern, a preparatory pre-figuring
paradigm, of the perfect, permanent and perpetual priesthood
of Jesus Christ in the heavenly presence of God. Why would
the Judean Christians want to revert back to pictures and
patterns of religious priesthood when the reality of
Christ's functional priesthood was operative in them by the
Spirit?
8:6 "But now,"
logically and chronologically, "He" (Jesus)
"has obtained a more excellent ministry," By the
sacrificial "offering of Himself" (7:27), setting in motion
His "finished work" (cf. Jn. 19:30), Jesus has obtained (cf.
11:25) a superior and eternally effectual priestly ministry
of expressing the grace of God intercessorily in Christian
lives. Everything that is legitimately called "Christian" is
made operative by the high priestly intercession of the
Spirit of Christ, whether it is prayer, worship, fellowship,
service, the expression of divine character in the behavior
of Christians, etc. The "more excellent" priestly ministry
of the risen Lord is the eternally effectual dynamic of
Christianity.
This is integrally related,
"inasmuch as He (Christ) is also mediator of a
better covenant," The eternal priesthood of Jesus
takes place in the context of a superior unilateral covenant
arrangement between God and man, "put through" by God's
grace initiative in His Son, Jesus Christ. A "mediator" is
one who "stands in the middle," in this case between God and
man, to negotiate or effect the terms of a covenant. Writing
to Timothy, Paul referred to "the one mediator between God
and man, the man Christ Jesus" (I Tim. 2:5). As the God-man
mediator, Jesus could represent both parties in order to
reconcile man with God. But "having been reconciled, we
shall be saved by His life" (Rom. 5:10). Jesus is not just
the historic redemptive mediator between God and man, but He
is presently the dynamic "mediator of the new covenant"
(9:15; 12:24). The eternal Christ continues to mediate the
new covenant in the sense of being the effecter, the
enactor, the energizer, the facilitator, the implementer,
the actuator, the guarantor (7:22) of this new and final
covenant between God and man, the integral reality and
activity of which is inherent in His own Being, and does not
function without Him. This is a "better covenant" because it
has superseded the old Mosaic covenant with its legally
mandated priesthoods, replacing it with a covenant
arrangement wherein God's grace is operative in the
redemptive and restorative activity of Jesus Christ.
This better covenant is one "which
has been enacted on better promises." The new
covenant has been rightfully and properly established in
accord with God's character. What, then, are the "better
promises" which underlie and are intrinsic within the new
covenant? If these are "better promises," what are they
better than? Are they "better promises" than those offered
in the Abrahamic covenant of promise? No, for Paul explained
that what we have in Christ is the fulfillment of the
promises of God to Abraham (cf. Rom. 4:1-25; Gal. 3:15-29).
Are these "better promises" than were available in the old
Mosaic covenant of Law (cf. Exod. 29:45,46; 34:6,7)? Yes, in
the sense that the spiritual provision for the fulfillment
of the promises made to Moses was not inherent in the
performance-oriented stipulations of the Law, and only the
dynamic provision of God's grace in Jesus Christ allows for
the fulfillment of God's promises to restore mankind. The
"better promises" are certainly to be interpretatively
aligned with those made through Jeremiah concerning
forgiveness, the internal reality of the law, and the
personal relationship with God in the new covenant (Jere.
31:31-34; quoted in the following verses of 8:8-12). And
within the historical context of this epistle, the "better
promises" of this final and ultimate "better covenant" in
Jesus Christ were certainly better than the false promises
of the Zealot nationalists who were promising the
restoration of the benefits of the old covenant Law and
priesthoods nothing but vacuous promises concerning a
covenant that could not produce what it promised. Since "all
the promises of God are fulfilled in Jesus Christ" (II Cor.
1:20), and the Judean Christians had, by receiving Christ in
faith, become "heirs according to promise" (Gal. 3:29), to
"receive the promise of the eternal inheritance" (Heb.
9:15), there was nothing "better" to receive that the
fulfillment of the promises of Christ's "more excellent
priestly ministry" in their lives.
8:7 Returning to the
inadequacy of the old Mosaic covenant compared to the
complete sufficiency of the new covenant, Paul argues,
"For if that first (covenant) was
faultless, no place for a second would have been sought."
This is essentially the same logic that Paul had expressed
concerning the imperfection of the priesthood in 7:11. Paul
is logically defending and documenting his assertion of a
"better covenant" (vs. 6) in Jesus Christ. "If (as was not
the case) that first covenant (cf. 9:15), that old Mosaic
covenant of Law (cf. Ps. 78:10), had not been faulty, flawed
and defective in its functional provision If the covenant of
Sinai had not been inadequate, ineffective and impotent to
provide what man required for restoration to God's intended
objective for mankind If the covenant of Law could have led
man to God's perfect end (which it could not; cf. 7:19),
then there would have been no need or occasion to look for
and seek a second or subsequent covenant." But the Mosaic
covenant was preliminary, provisional, and preparatory,
intended to be pro tempore (for a temporary period of
time) with planned obsolescence, because there was no
functional provision whereby man could perform behaviorally
in accord with God's character.
8:8 The inadequacy of the old
covenant to provide the functional ability to behave as God
intended is evident, "For finding fault, He
(God) says to them (the Hebrew people), 'BEHOLD,
DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, AND I WILL EFFECT A NEW
COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF
JUDAH;'" Did God "find fault" in the Hebrew people,
or in the basic nature of the old covenant itself that He
had unilaterally established? Primarily, the "fault" (same
Greek root word as in previous verse 7), the inadequacy, was
in the impotent inability of the Law to make men perfect
(7:19). Only secondarily was there responsible fault and
culpability in the Israelite people in repetitively acting
unfaithfully in their covenant relationship with God (vs. 9;
cf. 4:11; I Cor. 10:1-12).
Paul then proceeds to quote the prolonged
passage of Jeremiah 31:31-34 from the Septuagint (LXX).
This, by the way, is the longest quotation from the Old
Testament within the New Testament. It is also important to
consider the greater context of these words, for the
prophecy of Jeremiah is decidedly Messianic. The "coming
days" that God spoke of through the prophet Jeremiah had
already come when Paul wrote this letter. Paul began the
epistle by writing, "God, after He spoke in the prophets in
many portions and in many ways, in these last days has
spoken to us in His Son" (Heb. 1:1,2). These were also the
"last days" spoken of by the prophet Joel (cf. Joel 2:38;
Acts 2:16,17). The "coming days" had come in Christ! The
"new covenant" had been brought into being, accomplished in
the very Being of Jesus Christ, with the full provision of
grace to bring God's perfect end to mankind. The "new
covenant" is not the "old covenant" renewed, reconstituted,
refurbished, or reformed. There is a radical replacement of
the old covenant by the new covenant, a definite
discontinuity between law and grace. But the "new covenant"
brings all God's people, the divided houses of Israel and
Judah within Hebrew history, and the ethnic division of
mankind as Jew and Gentile (cf. Gal. 3:7-20; Eph. 2:11-22),
into a unified covenant family, operating by the sufficient
dynamic of the life and priestly ministry of Jesus Christ.
8:9 The "new covenant" that
God declares He will establish is "NOT LIKE THE
COVENANT I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK
THEM BY THE HAND TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT."
It is obvious that the covenant being referred to is the
Mosaic covenant, for that was the covenant inaugurated at
the exodus of the Israelite people from bondage in Egypt.
Though both were unilateral covenants of God, the old
covenant of law was "not like" the new covenant of grace in
terms of their functional provision. The old covenant was
purposefully temporary, comprised of externally codified
rules and regulations inculcating human performance of the
"works" of the Law, in order to expose the inability of the
Israelite people to generate the character of God in their
behavior, unto the glory of God. The new covenant, on the
other hand, is eternal, comprised of the internal presence
and function of the life of the risen Lord Jesus, the very
Being of God in action, expressing His grace ability to
manifest the character of God in Christian people, unto the
glory of God. The two covenants are "not like" one another.
They are opposite of each other in a polarized dichotomy of
functional provision.
"FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY
COVENANT, AND I DISREGARDED THEM, SAYS THE LORD."
The Israelite people did not continue, remain, or "abide in"
the conditions of the covenant that they so confidently
committed themselves to perform (cf. Exod. 19:8; 24:3,7).
Though they were responsible and culpable for their
faithless disobedience, it simply revealed the weakness and
inadequacy of the covenant of law to provide any functional
dynamic for keeping the law. This entire phrase in the
Septuagint takes wide latitude of liberty from, if it is not
a gross perversion of, the original Hebrew text, which
reads, "They broke My covenant, even though I was a husband
to them, says Jehovah." But if we take the Greek words as
Paul quoted them from the Septuagint, we must carefully note
that the word that describes God's response to the
disobedience of the Hebrew people is capable of a wide
variety of meanings. Etymologically it means, "to have no
care about," but it can be translated "to disregard," "to
pay no attention to" (cf. Matt. 22:5), "to neglect" (cf.
Heb. 2:3), "to be disinterested or disgusted," or even "to
reject, abandon, or give up on." Since Paul, in his letter
to the Romans, asked the question, "God has not rejected His
people, has He?", and then responded, "May it never be!"
(Romans 11:1), it is not likely that Paul considered God's
response to Israel to be that of rejection. Rather, it is
more likely that Paul thought that God had "disregarded" the
Hebrew people, that by regarding them as having served His
prefiguring purpose. Now, in conjunction with all the rest
of mankind, for "God is not one to show partiality" (Acts
10:34), the Jewish people have the same opportunity to
receive Jesus Christ and participate in the new covenant as
anyone else.
8:10 "FOR THIS IS THE
COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER
THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD;" In the Hebrew text the
word for "making" a covenant is the Hebrew word for
"cutting" a covenant, hearkening back to the ancient
practice of the sacrificial "cutting" of a "blood covenant"
.4
In the case of the "new covenant" the sacrifice of Jesus
Christ in "offering Himself" (7:27) serves as the defining
unilateral establishment of God's final, eternal covenant
with mankind. The "house of Israel" was used as an inclusive
reference to the "people of God." In the "new covenant" the
"people of God" are all Christians who have received Jesus
Christ as their life. To the Romans, Paul explained, "they
are not all Israel who are descended from Israel" (Rom.
9:6), for all who are in Christ are God's people (Rom.
9:25). The "Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16) is now the community
of Christians in whom "God rules" (yisra-el, the
Hebrew word for Israel, seems to have an etymological
meaning of "God rules") through the Lordship of Jesus
Christ. During the very time that Paul wrote this epistle to
the Hebrew Christians in Palestine, he explained to the
Christian brethren in Rome, "I am wearing this chain for the
sake of the hope of Israel" (Acts 28:20). In other words,
Paul regarded Jesus Christ, and his own participation "in
Christ", to be the fulfillment of "the hope of Israel"
everything that Israel was promised and expected. The "new
covenant" would be effected "after those days;" after the
preparatory and pre-figuring days of the old covenant
(B.C.), when "in the fullness of time, God sent forth His
Son, to redeem them under the Law" (Gal. 4:4,5).
The positive content of the new covenant
was promised by God through Jeremiah, "I WILL PUT MY
LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS, AND I WILL WRITE THEM UPON THEIR
HEARTS." Here is the promise of a "change of law"
that Paul indicated was necessary in 7:12, for the
externally codified Law of behavioral rules and regulations
"made nothing perfect" (7:19). The old covenant Law could
not restore mankind to the perfect end-objective for which
God had created them. But in the "new covenant", the law,
which expresses the character of God, is no longer
externally codified but is internally personified, as the
dynamic of Christ's life becomes the functional provision to
express God's character of godliness. "We have been granted
everything pertaining to life and godliness" (II Pet. 1:3).
The new covenant is "not of the letter, but of the Spirit;
for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (II Cor.
3:6). The law is no longer letters engraved on stone
tablets, but now in the new covenant the dynamic of deity
has engraved God's presence and character upon our minds and
hearts. Christians no longer have hearts that are
"desperately wicked" (Jere. 17:9), but have been "given a
new heart" because God has put His Spirit, the Spirit of
Christ (Rom. 8:9), into our hearts in order to cause us "to
walk in His statutes and observe His commandments" (Ezek.
11:19,20; 36:26,27), i.e. to function in the expression of
His character. It is important to note that this
implantation of God's law in Christians is not an
objectified legal imputation of Christ's law-keeping put on
our account in the heavenly bookkeeping department (as has
been such a prominent thought in Protestant theology).
Neither is this engravature of God's law in the "inner man"
(cf. Eph. 3:16) an event that is yet future for the
Christian in an alleged physical millennial kingdom. The
internally personified law of Jesus Christ is presently
experientially operative in every Christian, allowing for
the expression of godly character as Christ continues His
intercessory priestly ministry in the Christian life.
Continuing to explain what would
transpire in the "new covenant", God says through Jeremiah,
"AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY
PEOPLE." God's intent from the beginning was to have
a covenant relationship with humanity wherein they would
function by His dynamic to express His character unto His
glory. "They will be My people, and I will be their God"
(cf. Exod. 6:7; 29:45,46; Lev. 26:12; Deut. 26:18; Jere.
24:7; 31:33; Ezek. 11:20; 37:23). The unfaithfulness of the
people of Israel, in even failing to desire such a
relationship, was graphically illustrated by the prophet
Hosea marrying a prostitute (representing Israel), and
naming his first son, Lo-ammi, meaning "you are not
My people, and I am not your God" (Hosea 1:9,10). This
illustrates the "disregard" (cf. vs. 9) that God had for old
covenant Israel. In the new covenant, Christians are "the
people of God, a people for God's own possession" (I Pet.
2:9,10) in a covenant that is not legal and contractual, but
personal and relational the continuum of which will be
eternal (cf. Rev. 21:3).
8:11 In this new covenant that
Jeremiah prophesied of, "THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERY
ONE HIS NEIGHBOR, AND EVERY ONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, 'KNOW
THE LORD,' FOR ALL SHALL KNOW ME, FROM THE LEAST TO THE
GREATEST OF THEM." The essence of all human religion
is an attempt on man's part to "know God," and then to tell
others (their neighbors and brothers) how they might "know
God." The old covenant of Judaism was a law-based religion
that exhorted each generation to instruct future generations
to "know God" (cf. Deut 4:9,10; 6:20-25; 11:19), by
reviewing their history, and explaining their theology, and
admonishing moral conformity to the Law. The new covenant of
Christianity is not essentially a belief-system or a moral
code that can be instructively taught, cognitively known,
and behaviorally applied. It is the dynamic presence and
activity of the living Lord Jesus, who said, "I am the way,
the truth, and the life" (Jn. 14:6). Christianity is not a
collection of propositions, precepts and principles, but the
living Person of Jesus Christ.
Christians, within the new covenant, are
those who "know God." "You have come to know God, or rather
to be known by God," Paul told the Galatians (Gal. 4:9).
Jesus told His disciples, "If you know Me, you know the
Father" (Jn. 14:7). "This is eternal life, that they know
the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent" (Jn.
17:3). It is interesting to note that the Greek words for
"know" are different in the first and second parts of this
sentence (ginosko and eideo). Some have
differentiated between a Gnostic knowing of God and a
relational knowing of God, but we must not make too much of
these different Greek words, since they are often used
synonymously, and the two words are the same in the Hebrew
text. The point of Jeremiah's prophecy seems to be that the
new covenant will not be a religion based on instructional
education of epistemological ideology, but will instead by
an intimate relational knowing of spiritual union (cf. I Cor.
6:17) between God and man, wherein Christians are "taught of
the Lord" (cf. Isa. 54:13; I Thess. 4:9) by the Spirit.
Jesus told the disciples, "The Holy Spirit will teach you
all things" (Jn. 14:26). "The Spirit of Truth will guide you
into all truth" (Jn. 16:13). Later, the apostle John would
write, "The anointing (of the Spirit) abides in you, and you
have no need for anyone to teach you, but His anointing
teaches you about all things" (I Jn. 2:27). This does not
mean that Christians do not need teaching from those
spiritually gifted as "teachers" (cf. Rom. 12:7; Eph. 4:11),
as previously noted in the need of the recipients of this
epistle "for some one to teach them" (5:12). But Christians
do "know God" (cf. Gal. 4:9; I Jn. 2:3), "from the least to
the greatest of them," whatever their natural abilities,
social strata, or spiritual maturity, and can "listen under
God" (Greek word hupakouo) in obedience to be
receptive to God's activity in causing them to be and to do
all that He wants to be and do in them.
8:12 "FOR I WILL BE
MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES, AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SIN
NO MORE." The unrighteousness of sin, which is
contrary to and violates the character of God, has alienated
(cf. Col. 1:21) man from God. The sacrifices offered by the
old covenant priests could "not take away sins" (10:4),
could not bring forgiveness (10:18), could not make men
perfect (7:11; 10:1), and could not make men righteous (Gal.
2:21). Conversely, in the new covenant the alienation from
God because of sin has been resolved in reconciliation, for
"although you were formerly alienated, He has now reconciled
you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present
you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach" (Col.
1:20-22). The mercy of God in Jesus Christ extends
forgiveness to mankind, no longer necessitating any more
offering for sin (10:18), and "perfecting for all time those
who are sanctified" (10:14) in Christ.
That God "remembers our sins no more"
does not indicate that the recollection of such is erased
from God's memory, for this would impinge on the omniscience
of God. Nor does it mean that God is henceforth indifferent
to sin, for sin is always contrary to the character of God
and He hates (cf. Prov. 6:16) unrighteousness and all that
is not derived from His own Being. Rather, it means that God
no longer holds our sins against us, for the price and
penalty of death for sin has been paid once and for all by
the death of Jesus Christ, allowing for His continued
"finished work" (cf. Jn. 19:30) via the ongoing priestly
ministry of Jesus.
8:13 Paul adds a concluding
commentary to the extended quotation just cited from
Jeremiah, explaining, "When He (God)
said, 'a new (covenant),' He has made the
first (covenant) antiquated." When God
declared through Jeremiah that there would be a "new
covenant" (Jere. 31:31), this logically indicates that the
first covenant, the old covenant, the Mosaic covenant of
Law, is displaced and replaced when the new covenant is
inaugurated. The new covenant (He Kaine Diatheke, the
Greek title of "The New Testament") supersedes the old
preparatory arrangement of the old covenant, which was
designed with planned obsolescence. Paul was advising the
Jewish Christians in Jerusalem that the old covenant was a
thing of the past out-dated, antiquated, and obsolete. The
old covenant had served its provisional purpose and was now
untenable, invalidated and nullified. It had been "set
aside" (7:18) annulled, abrogated, and abolished. There
was no reason for the Palestinian Christians to seek to
restore the old covenant procedures, as the zealots were
promising to do as a consequence of their revolt against
Rome. But, if the old covenant was cancelled by the
redemptive and restorative work of Jesus Christ, the Hebrew
Christians in Judea might have asked, "Why is the religion
of Judaism still functioning in Palestine, and why are the
Jewish priests still performing their procedures in the
temple at Jerusalem?"
Paul explains that as a consequence of
the already accomplished antiquation of the old covenant,
"the thing being antiquated and growing old is near to
disappearing." The old covenant was dying of old
age. Its temporal and temporary purpose had been expended.
It was no longer viable. The Greek word translated "growing
old" is the word from which we derive the English word
"geriatrics." The old covenant was in its "dying days." It
had been superseded, and was, at the time this letter was
written, being "fazed out" and eliminated. It was "near to
disappearing," Paul wrote. How near? The time for the
disappearance of all the religious activities of the old
covenant was imminent when Paul wrote this letter. In just a
few years (perhaps five or less), the whole of Palestine was
destroyed, and the people who remained to fight against the
Roman armies were decimated and annihilated in the Jewish
wars of 66-70 A.D. The temple was demolished and laid
desolate. The Jewish priesthoods vanished (cf. Lk. 24:31;
James 4:14), and all Judaic practices were terminated.
Did Paul have an intuitive suspicion that
the Jewish revolt against Rome was going to fail? that the
entire Jewish enterprise was going to be eliminated? that a
catastrophic judgment was going to come upon the Jewish
rebels of Judea (as Jesus seems to have foretold; cf. Matt.
24,25)? We do not know the answers to those questions, but
certainly seems to indicate that the old covenant was "on
its last legs," antiquated and geriatric, and would soon
meet its terminal demise and disappear.
Concluding Remarks:
As we study the details of this chapter,
we must not lose perspective of the "big picture," the
over-all theme of the eternal priesthood of Jesus. The "main
point", Paul explains, is the present, on-going, continuous,
and eternal priestly ministry of the living Lord Jesus
Christ. And this priestly ministry transpires within the
context of a relational and dynamic "new covenant"
arrangement with mankind that has been unilaterally
determined by God, and yet is interactive.
Paul wanted the Palestinian Christians to
take their focus off of the physical practices of the Jewish
priests in the physical location of the temple in Jerusalem.
He wanted them to "think outside the box", so to speak, and
focus on the priesthood of Jesus that is outside of time and
space. God cannot be contained in a tabernacle "pitched by
man" (8:2) or a "temple made with hands" (9:11). The present
function of the risen Lord as intercessory priest is in the
heavenlies (8:1,5), in the presence of God (9:24), where
Christians are presently seated in Christ (Eph. 2:6). This
is not a cosmological location or a geographical place. It
is a spiritual reality, in contrast to the physical
realities of the old covenant.
Christ functions on the basis of His
"finished work" (cf. Jn. 19:30), having made the sufficient
sinless sacrifice for the sins of all mankind (to be
developed further in chapters 9 and 10), and now continuing
His priestly work of intercession (7:25) as the permanent
and perpetual priest of God. Jesus in us, as us, and through
us is intercessorily praying our prayers (cf. Rom. 8:26,27);
intercessorily worshipping the Father in our worship (cf.
Jn. 4:23,24); intercessorily making the sacrifice of praise
(cf. Heb. 13:15); intercessorily proclaiming Himself as the
Self-revelation of God in our witness and evangelism (cf.
Acts 1:8); intercessorily fellowshipping with other
Christians in whom He lives (cf. I Jn. 1:3); intercessorily
living out His life through us (cf. Gal. 2:20);
intercessorily laying down His life for others (cf. I Jn.
3:16). The priestly ministry of Jesus, the "Son made perfect
forever" (7:28), provides the divine dynamic for the
"perfecting" of humanity (cf. 7:11,19; 9:9), the process of
perfection that the Hebrew Christians were encouraged to
pursue (6:1). The continuing priestly ministry of Jesus
allows mankind to function in accord with the end-objective
of God, to allow the all-glorious character of God to be
expressed in His people unto His glory. And this can only
happen when Deity is functioning within humanity, when
Christ is living out His life in Christians. "He who began a
good work in you will perfect it" (Phil. 1:6). The
continuous and eternal priestly ministry of Jesus is the
dynamic of all Christian reality and activity!
Within the new covenant priesthood of
Jesus the concept of "law" has been radically changed
(7:12). The law is no longer an externally codified
inculcation for performance "works" of conformity to the
prescribed rules and regulations. Rather, the "law is put
into our minds and written on our hearts" (8:10; 10:16) in
an internally personified (Jesus) provision of the grace
expression of God's character. These concepts of "law" and
"covenant" are antithetically juxtaposed one to the other.
In a law-based, legal and contractual
concept of covenant there is the bilateral "bargaining
power" of an "If...then..." conditionalism. "If you do this,
then God will love you, or bless you." "If God does this,
then I will serve Him." Such conditional terms of
performance and meritorious action provide the basis for
"legalism." The imperatives become a contingency for the
indicatives. The "performance imperatives" (what some might
call "categorical imperatives") indicate the willingness to
engage in reciprocated action. Based on the performance of
such imperatives one has "rights" of expectation, or even of
leverage for the performance of the other party. Obedience
is regarded as the obligatory performance conformity to the
prescribed rulers and regulations, the principles and
precepts of the Law.
In a grace-based, relational and
ontological perspective of covenant the unilateral covenant
concept is retained, while still allowing for interactive
responsibility. The contractual "If...then..." stipulations
are displaced by the "I AMI will" of God's declaration and
active sufficiency. "I AM God, and I will act out of My own
Being, consistent with My own Being." The ontological
dynamic of divine grace still allows for human receptivity
of God's activity in faith. The indicative of God's presence
and function provide the context for the imperatives. "God
is the God of grace." "Jesus Christ is Lord." God acts
indicative of His own Being. He does what He does, because
He is who He is. Out of His own Being He acts in expression
of His own character in consistent self-revelation. Because
He has given Himself to man through His son, Jesus Christ,
He consistently issue "grace imperatives" with the
expectation of consistency with His character. He is the
dynamic of His own demands. He is the expression of His own
expectations. There should be no self-orientation of "What's
in it for me?", nor any regard for personal "rights" by
which one establishes contingencies or leverage. The
other-orientation of God's love (I Jn. 4:8,16) is the basis
for the love obligation of consistency with God's character.
Obedience is not performance conformity to the external
codes of conduct, but is an internal and relational
"listening under" (Greek hupakouo) to understand the
next opportunity to allow for receptivity to His activity in
the "obedience of faith" (Rom. 1:5; 16:26). Our
response-ability allows for the freedom and joy of
recognizing, "I can't; but He can!"
This part of the epistle was very timely
for the Jerusalem Christians. The time was very near when
the old covenant law and priesthood would vanish in 70 A.D.
But these words are just as pertinent to Christians in every
age, who are naturally prone to turn God's grace covenant
into a legal contract of behavioral performance. Even the
prevailing streams of contemporary theology (both
Dispensation theology and Covenant theology) have a tendency
to drift into fallacious concepts of covenant, law and
priesthoods. The need of the hour is to recognize that the
vital dynamic of all Christian life, activity and ministry
is the continuing and eternal intercessory priesthood of the
living Christ.
FOOTNOTES
1
Trumbull, H. Clay, The Blood Covenant: A Primitive
Rite and Its Bearing on Scripture. Minneapolis: James
Family Christian Publishers. n.d.
2 Aulen,
Gustaf, Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three
Main Types of the Idea of the Atonement. London: Society
for Promoting Christian Knowledge. 1934.
3
Philo, The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged.
"The Special Laws I, Section 66. Trans. C. D. Yonge.
Hendrickson Publishers. 1993. pg. 540.
4
Trumbull, op. cit.
JESUS: THE
BETTER SACRIFICE SUFFICIENT FOR FORGIVENESS
This portion of Paul’s epistle to the
Hebrews is integrally related to the previous argument of
the superiority of Jesus Christ over the Judaic priesthoods.
Having established the continuity of the eternal and
heavenly priesthood of Melchizedek in the person of Jesus,
Paul then proceeded to document how Jesus fulfilled all that
the Aaronic high priesthood prefigured in the annual Day of
Atonement sacrifice.
Jesus was a unique priest. He was both a
priest and the sacrifice that the priest offered. His
priesthood is from the order of Melchizedek, but His
sacrifice is patterned after the annual sacrifice of the
Aaronic priesthood on the Day of Atonement. In this section
(9:1–10:18), Paul returns to that crucial event of Christ’s
“offering up himself” (7:27) on the cross in sacrificial
death for mankind.
Some might think that this section of the
epistle is non-sequitur, or that there is a
regression as Paul moves from the eternal priesthood of
Jesus back to the historic sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
Paul’s logic follows the chronologic sequence of the old
covenant narratives – the historic progression from
Melchizedek to the Mosaic guidelines of the Aaronic and
Levitical priests and their practices in the tabernacle and
temple. As Melchizedek predates Moses, so the progression of
Paul’s thought moves from the eternal Melchizedekian
priesthood to Christ’s historic sacrifice of Himself as the
singularly sufficient sinless sacrifice for the sins of
mankind.
By establishing and reiterating the
superiority of Christ’s priesthood and sacrifice, Paul
continues to encourage the beleaguered Christians of the
Jerusalem church in the middle of the seventh decade of the
first century not to succumb to the inferior and antiquated
practice of the Jewish religion, as advocated by those who
wanted to restore such by ousting the Romans from Palestine.
Paul knew it was so important for the Judean Christians, who
were socially under siege by their religious kinsmen and
nationalistic countrymen to join the insurrection against
Rome, to “think outside of the box” – to realize that the
objects and practices in the “temple-box” that was still
standing in Jerusalem were intended by God to be merely
illustrative of the permanent access to God that was
effected only in the work of Jesus Christ. Within the
context of the “new covenant” (8:8,13; 9:15; 12:24) all of
the practices of the old system of Judaic religion became
antiquated and obsolete (8:13), displaced and replaced.
Perhaps the Christians of Jerusalem were questioning: Why,
then, is the temple still standing? Why is the Jewish
priesthood still functioning? Why are sacrifices still being
offered by the priests in the temple? Paul explained that
the Jewish practices were outmoded and in decline, and the
entire religious system was “near to disappearing” (8:13) –
a rather prophetic anticipation of what would transpire in
only a few years when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the
“temple-box” in 70 AD.
Paul’s objective in this section is to
walk his readers through the details of the
tabernacle/temple system of sacrificial worship in the old
covenant, and to point out the superiority and supersession
of such in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. Any thought
of returning and reinvolving themselves in the sacrificial
practices of the temple and its priesthood would be an
unthinkable, abominable reversion to the imperfect and
inadequate practices of the old covenant, which were only
intended to be provisional and temporary, preliminary to the
perfection of forgiveness and access to God afforded by the
Son, Jesus Christ. To return to the Judaic worship practices
– to consider the temple sacrifices to be of any value –
would be to deny all that Jesus accomplished in His
priesthood and sacrifice. To engage again in the restricted
access of the “temple-box” after Jesus had opened
unrestricted access to the Holy of Holies of God’s presence
(cf. 10:19) to all Christians would be to try to “put God in
the box” again. May it never be! The “place” (cf. Jn. 14:2)
that has been prepared for Christians, “near to the heart of
God,” has been opened forever in the “new and living way”
(10:20) of Jesus Christ in the “new covenant.”
By extension we might add that any
attempt by Christians in any age to rebuild and reconstruct
the Jewish temple, and to restore and reinstitute the cultic
activities of Jewish priesthood and sacrifices, would also
be an abominable affront to God’s redemptive work in Jesus
Christ. Paul tells the Judean Christians of the first
century and Christians in every subsequent century that they
must never go back to the insufficient objects and practices
of the old covenant, having accepted Jesus as “the better
sacrifice, sufficient for forgiveness,” allowing for
unrestricted eternal access to God.
9:1
Paul lays the groundwork (9:1-10) for emphasizing
the all-sufficient sacrifice of Jesus by reviewing the
historic and physical details of the tabernacle in the old
covenant. The progression of his thought begins with the
context of the two chambers of the tabernacle (9:2-5), and
moves to the regulated religious activities within those two
chambers (9:6,7). First the places, then the practices.
First the setting, then the sacrifices. First the logistics,
then the liturgy. First the furniture, then the functions.
Making a transitional connection, Paul
resumes his argument for the superiority of the “new
covenant” (8:8,13) by writing, “Indeed, even the first
(covenant) had regulations of worship and the holy
place of this world.” Though “the first” has no
qualifier, the immediate preceding context (8:13) dictates
that Paul is referring to the proto-covenant, the first
covenant, the old covenant, the Mosaic covenant of Law, and
not to “the first tabernacle” as some interpreters have
suggested, even though “first covenant” and “first
tabernacle” are connected (cf. 9:6) in this paragraph.
The paragraph begins and ends with the
concept of “regulations” (9:1,10). The old covenant
certainly had rules and regulations for the proper
administration of all activities in the tabernacle and
temple. God had carefully directed (cf. Exodus 25-31; 35-39)
the legal guidelines for the “right way” of doing things in
the Jewish worship center. There was a proper way to place
the furniture and a proper way to engage in every worship
practice. The word Paul uses for “worship” conveys the idea
of “serving God in subservience.”
By referring to the tabernacle as “the
holy place of this world,” Paul is indicating that the
Jewish worship center was tangible, terrestrial and
temporary. It was material and man-made, in contrast to “the
perfect tabernacle of God, not made with hands” (8:2; 9:11).
The physical tabernacle was earthly and this-worldly in
contrast to the heavenly tabernacle (8:1; 9:23,24) which is
“not of this creation” (9:11), and served as the pattern
from which the earthly was but a picture (8:5). Paul is
already alluding to the inferiority and insufficiency of the
Jewish “holy place” or worship center, in order to explain
its limited significance.
9:2
Beginning his review of the old covenant worship place,
Paul wrote, “For there was a tabernacle prepared,…”
The precise regulations for the construction of the original
worship tent are recorded in Exodus 26. Though Paul uses the
word “tent” which indicates a temporary enclosure, his
references to the tabernacle as “the holy place of this
world” (9:1) is surely inclusive of the more permanent
extension of the Jewish worship center in the subsequent
constructs of the Jewish temple. Paul refers to the tent of
the tabernacle to connect the Jewish worship center to the
original establishment of the old covenant and Moses’
instruction for the construction of the portable tabernacle
(Exod. 25:40; Heb. 8:5). Solomon’s temple (I Kings 6), the
second temple which was rebuilt after the exile (Ezra
3:8–6:15), and Herod’s reconstruction of the temple (John
2:20), though constructed of more permanent materials, were
just as temporary as the tabernacle tent when compared to
the eternal and heavenly dwelling place of God (8:1,5;
9:11,23,24). Paul wanted the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem
to realize that the Jewish worship center of the tabernacle
(and its later extension in the temple which still stood in
Jerusalem) was temporary and transient, but the heavenly
dwelling place of God was eternally opened up for direct
access to God in Jesus Christ. In just a few years, in 70
AD, the temporarily of the Jerusalem temple would be made
evident when it was totally destroyed by the Roman army.
Both the tabernacle and the temple were
constructed in a bipartite design with two compartments or
chambers. There was “the first one, in which
(were) the lampstand and the table and the setting
forth of the loaves.” The first room or chamber in
the tabernacle/temple housed the lampstand on the south side
of the enclosure (cf. Exod. 25:31-39; 26:35; 37:17-24). The
menorah (the Hebrew word for the lampstand) was a
candelabrum with seven candles, three on each side of a
single upright post. Though there was only one menorah
in the original tabernacle (Exod. 25:31), there were ten
such lampstands in the temple of Solomon (I Kings 7:49), but
Josephus mentions only one in the first-century temple
(5.216).
On the north side of the first chamber of
the tabernacle and temple was the table of showbread on
which the loaves were displayed (cf. Exod. 25:23-30; 26:35;
37:10-16). The loaves were replaced either daily (cf. II
Chron. 13:11) or weekly on the Sabbath (Lev. 24:8). Jesus,
the Bread of Life (John 6:35,48), indicated His superiority
and divine privilege over the Sabbatarian rules concerning
the temple showbread (Matt. 12:4; Mk. 2:26; Lk. 6:4).
“This (first chamber)
is called the holy place,” Paul explained in his
recapitulation of the architecture of the tabernacle (cf.
Exod. 26:33).
9:3
“And after the second curtain there was a tent
which is called the Holy of Holies,…” At the
entrance to the first compartment there was a curtain or
veil or screen (cf. Exod 26:36; 36:37) through which the
priests passed into the “holy place” (9:6). Between the
“holy place” and the second compartment there was a much
heavier curtain or veil (cf. Exod 26:31-33; 36:35; 40:3,21)
through which only the high priest entered once a year
(9:7).
Behind the second curtain “there was a
tent,” i.e. a temporary enclosure which was the rear chamber
of the larger tabernacle-tent. This back-room was called
“the Holy of Holies” (cf. Exod 26:33) or “the Most Holy
Place” (cf. I Kings 8:6). This was the place where the holy
presence of God was thought to be contained in the old
covenant worship center of the tabernacle and temple.
9:4
Paul’s list of the objects that were in the Holy of
Holies chamber is problematic. He begins by indicating that
the Holy of Holies “had a golden altar of incense.”
In the Old Testament narratives the altar of incense seems
to have been located in the front chamber of the “holy
place” in front of the second curtain (cf. Exod 30:1-10;
40:26). When Solomon constructed the temple the altar of
incense may have been placed in the inner chamber of the
Holy of Holies (cf. I Kings 6:21,22). Since the physical
tabernacle was patterned (8:5) after the heavenly sanctuary,
it might be noted that John saw “the golden altar before the
throne” (Rev. 8:3) in the heavenly dwelling place of God.
The centerpiece of the furniture in the
Holy of Holies was “the ark of the covenant covered on
all sides with gold…” This was the most important
object in the inner chamber. It was a sacred chest made of
acacia wood and covered with gold, having rings of gold on
each corner so staves could be placed through the rings for
transportation (cf. Exod. 25:10-26; 37:1-5). The “ark of the
covenant” chest was designed primarily to contain “the
tablets of the covenant,” i.e. the “testimony” (Exod
25:16,21) of God, the replaced tablets given to Moses on
which were inscribed the Ten Commandments (Exod. 34:28;
Deut. 10:1-5).
In another variance from the Old
Testament accounts, Paul seems to indicate that “a
golden jar containing the manna, and Aaron’s rod which
budded” were also placed within the sacred box of
the “ark of the covenant.” The Mosaic account indicates that
a sampling of “the bread from heaven” (Exod. 16:4), the
manna provided to Israel in the wilderness, was placed
within a jar that was to be placed within the Holy of
Holies, but in front of the ark (Exod. 16:31-34) rather than
inside of the ark. Likewise, Aaron’s rod which had budded
and bore almonds was to have been placed within the Holy of
Holies in front of the ark (Numb. 17:1-11), but not within
it.
Are these variances in the placement of
the temple objects to be considered as contradictions in the
Scriptures? Not necessarily, for in the long history of the
Hebrew people and their worship centers there were no doubt
different placements of sacred objects and movements of the
furniture. (Cf.
diagrams of the tabernacle/temple.) It was noted earlier
(9:2), for example, that Solomon had ten lampstands in the
“holy place” when he tripled the size of the temple
structure.
9:5
Paul continues his brief explanation of the furniture
and objects within the Holy of Holies. “And above it
(the ark of the covenant) were the cherubim of glory
overshadowing the mercy seat.” The top or lid that
covered the ark of the covenant was a golden slab that was
called “the mercy seat” (Exod. 25:17-22). It was on this lid
covering the chest that the high priest sprinkled the blood
of the bull and the goat on the annual Day of Atonement
(Lev. 16:14-16), as a “covering” for his own sins and the
sins of the Hebrew people. Paul’s argument was that the
merciful, propitiatory satisfaction of God had been made
once and for all in the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ
(cf. Rom. 3:25), allowing for an atonement reconciliation
between God and man that provided genuine cleansing and
eternal forgiveness for sins, rather than just a temporary
covering of such.
At each end of the mercy seat were “the
cherubim of glory.” These were sphinx-like figures, both
facing inward with their wings arching over the mercy seat
(Exod. 25:18-22). These angelic figures represented God’s
heavenly shekinah glory residing above the mercy seat
(cf. I Sam 4:4; II Sam. 6:2; II Kings 19:15; I Chron. 13:6;
Ps. 80:1; 99:1) in the Holy of Holies.
Cutting short his description of
tabernacle/temple details in order to proceed to the
argument at hand, Paul writes, “but of these things we
cannot now speak concerning each piece.” The
tabernacle objects and furniture, and their particular
placements, were of relative importance to what Paul had to
say. They were just the stage setting. And if Paul did not
deem it necessary to explain all the details of the usage of
each object, and the possible figurative or typological
meanings of each piece, neither should we! The two chambers
or compartments of the Jewish worship center, and the
practices that took place with them, provide the framework
for the point that Paul seeks to make.
9:6
“Now these things (the objects of
9:2-5) having been arranged, the priests keep going
into the first tent, performing the worship.” The
Levitical priests continually entered into the first chamber
of the tabernacle and temple to perform and accomplish their
subservient service of worship unto God. They trimmed the
lamps of the menorah (Exod. 27:20,21), burned incense
on the altar (Exod. 30:7,8), and replaced the loaves of
bread on the table (Lev. 24:8,9). The present tense verb
that the priests “keep going” into the chamber of the “holy
place”, likely indicates that this activity was still taking
place at the time when this epistle was written.
9:7
“…but into the second (chamber)
only the high priest (enters), once a year,…”
Contrasting the worship practices in the two compartments of
the tabernacle and temple, Paul notes that only the high
priest of the Aaronic high priesthood (cf. discussion in the
introductory comments to 4:14–5:10) was supposed to enter
the Holy of Holies, and that on only one day of the year,
the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:3-24). There was an exclusive
limitation of entrance into and access unto the presence of
God in the Jewish worship practices. Paul will use the
singularity of the high priest’s entry on the Day of
Atonement to point to the singularity of Christ’s
self-sacrifice (7:27; 9:12,26,28; 10:10), providing open
access to all who are in Christ into the Holy of Holies of
God’s presence (10:19-22).
The high priest entered the Holy of
Holies annually, but “not without blood, which he
offers for himself and for the ignorances of the people.”
The purpose of the high priest going into the Holy
of Holies on the Day of Atonement was to sprinkle blood on
the mercy seat lid of the ark of the covenant. He actually
entered the second chamber twice on that day, first to apply
the blood of a bull on and before the mercy seat, to cover
the sins of himself and his household (Lev. 16:11-14), and
second, to sprinkle the blood of a goat on and before the
mercy seat to cover and make atonement for the sins of the
people of Israel (Lev. 16:15,16). Although the atonement
sacrifice was for “all the sins” of Israel (Lev. 16:34),
rabbinic interpretation had restricted its application to
only unintentional or unknown sins committed in ignorance,
allowing no remedy for intentional sins. It is apparently
this popular and traditional interpretation that Paul refers
to. The sacrifice of an animal in death, and the application
of the blood before God, was regarded as having a cleansing
and purging effect for the impurities of the people (Lev.
16:16). Paul adroitly refers to the high priest as
“offering” the blood, even though the Old Testament refers
to “sprinkling” or “applying” the blood, as this corresponds
to Christ’s “offering” of Himself (9:14, 25-28; 10:10,12,14)
as the sacrifice sufficient for spiritual cleansing and
forgiveness. The necessity of blood (cf. 9:18,22) is
explained by the need for a counteraction of the death
consequences of sin.
Can you imagine what the mercy seat, the
cover-lid of the ark of the covenant, must have looked like,
caked with layer-after-layer of blood year-after-year? Can
you imagine how it must have smelled? Can you imagine how
the flies and the maggots must have been present in the heat
of the desert? Perhaps the burning of incense served another
purpose other than just representing reverence and honor
unto God, i.e. providing a fragrance to offset the stench.
9:8
Paul now begins to draw his conclusions in this
paragraph. Based on the personal revelation of God’s Spirit
to Paul, he explains that “The Holy Spirit is
signifying this” by the difference between the two
chambers of the tabernacle/temple and the worship practices
that transpired within them. Paul sees a parallel between
the “first chamber” (9:2,6,8) of the tabernacle and the
“first covenant” (8:7,13; 9:1,15,18), the “old covenant”
(cf. II Cor. 3:14); and between the “second chamber” (9:7)
of the tabernacle and the “second covenant” (8:7), or “new
covenant” (8:8,13; 9:15; 12:24). The first compartment of
the “holy place” was a figure of the temporal, old covenant
Jewish religion. The second compartment of the Holy of
Holies prefigured the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and the new
covenant access into the eternal and heavenly presence of
God’s glory. Only when the physical, old covenant, Jewish
worship center of the temple was destroyed and eliminated
would the eternal significance of open access into the Holy
of Holies of God’s heavenly presence be fully realized by
the Judean Christians who were the recipients of this
letter.
The spiritual significance, Paul writes,
is “that the way into the Holies has not yet appeared
while the first tent has standing, which is a parable unto
the present time.” Jesus Christ alone is the only
“way” into the holy presence of God (John 14:6). But this
had not become manifestly apparent to the Christians of
Judea. The physical temple was still standing in Jerusalem,
claiming to offer an indirect access to God once a year
through the high priest’s actions on the Day of Atonement.
The Christians in Jerusalem were still tempted to give
credence to the Jewish worship practices – to regard them as
having status, value and worth. The tabernacle/temple system
of the old covenant still had “standing” and respect in the
eyes of many of the Jewish Christians. Not until that “first
tent,” the physical temple (both the first chamber and the
second chamber) was destroyed (as it was in 70 AD) would the
insufficiency of Jewish worship become apparent, and the
full significance of access into the eternal Holy of Holies
be disclosed and revealed to the Christians to whom Paul was
writing.
So the temple that still stood in
Jerusalem, with its two worship chambers, served as a
parabolic illustration, a symbolic analogy, for those
Christians who were at that “present time,” in the middle of
the seventh decade of the first century, the mid 60s,
struggling to give full allegiance to Jesus Christ. Paul
wanted them to move into the full experience of the “second
chamber” within the “second covenant”, i.e. the “new
covenant” of Jesus Christ. While the old temple still stood
and had “standing” in the minds of the people, the way to
God was still pictorially blocked and barricaded by the veil
that separated the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies. The
sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross had caused the veil
in the temple to be “torn in two from top to bottom” (Matt.
27:51; Mk. 15:38; Lk. 23:45), signifying that the separation
of God and man had ended. Those who accepted Christ’s offer
of life could “enter within the veil” (6:19), “having
confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by
a new and living way which He inaugurated through the veil,
that is, His flesh” (10:19,20). This is what Paul wanted the
Christians in Jerusalem to understand and to live by.
9:9
Paul continues by explaining that, “In accord”
with the imperfect symbol of the still-standing temple that
still claimed to be the only proper place to worship God,
“both gifts and sacrifices are offered which are not able
to perfect the conscience of the one worshipping.”
In accord with the old covenant worship practices, gifts and
sacrifices were still offered in the temple at Jerusalem,
but there was no divine dynamic of God grace provision in
those “works” activities to bring about the intended
objective and purpose of God. “The Law made nothing perfect”
(7:19). The legal requirements of Judaic worship were unable
to cleanse from sin (9:13,14; 10:2), to effect forgiveness
(10:4,11), to make one perfect (10:1), or to provide direct
access to God. Those who participated in such religious
actions knew in their inner conscience that there was still
evil (10:22) and a “consciousness of sins” (10:2) that had
not been cleansed (9:14). There was still a haunting
emptiness of loneliness and alienation that hindered their
“drawing near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance
of faith” (10:22). F.F. Bruce remarks,
“The really effective barrier to a
man’s free access to God is an inward and not a material
one; it exists in his conscience. It is only when the
conscience is purified that a man is set free to
approach God without reservation and offer His
acceptable service and worship.”1
Paul wanted his Christian kinsmen in
Judea to see through and beyond the Jewish worship
practices, and to “serve the living God” (9:14) with a clear
conscience that allowed them to enter in and worship God
directly and intimately in the fullness of His holy
presence.
9:10
The gifts and the sacrifices of the old temple worship,
and all of the old covenant regulations of Jewish life,
“because they are only upon food and drink and various
washings, are but regulations of the flesh
being imposed until a time of setting things straight.”
The peripheral externalities of the right and proper way to
do everything that were imposed by the Jewish Law (cf. Lev.
11 for food laws) were but “a shadow of things to come”
(Col. 2:17). They were not beneficial to spiritual
development (Heb. 13:9), and were “of no value against
fleshly indulgence” (Col. 2:23). Jesus had confronted the
Jewish leaders about such “food and drink and washings,”
referring to their religious regulations as “precepts” and
“traditions of men” (Mk. 7:1-15). Paul calls them
“regulations of the flesh,” meaning that they pertain to
physical matters, but cannot provide any cleansing of the
conscience (9:14). Such earthly and human rules and
regulations certainly do not effect the heavenly realities
that Paul is pointing his readers towards. The Palestinian
revolutionaries, who were using religious issues as a
rallying cry, were tempting the Judean Christians to put
stock in such religious regulations, and this is what Paul
wanted to forestall.
The temporality, transience, and
impermanence of such bodily regulations is evidenced by
Paul’s statement that they are only “being imposed until a
time of setting things straight.” The old covenant religion
was out-dated, antiquated, and obsolete (8:13). Paul
anticipated that time when the misunderstanding of worship
and behavior in Judaism would be rectified and corrected. He
is not referring to a time of “reformation” when Judaism
would be “re-formed,” reconstituted, or restored. That was
the stated objective of the insurrectionists fomenting war
against the Romans. Paul was adamant that Christianity was
not a “re-formed” Judaism, but was a radically new reality
of the living Lord Jesus in mankind. “The time when things
would be set straight” would come in 70 AD when the
Christians to whom Paul was writing would realize that all
the worship practices and all the behavioral regulations of
Judaism were totally defunct, and that Jesus Christ was
indeed “the only way into the Holy of Holies” (9:8) of God’s
presence for all worship and life.
9:11
This verse commences the second major section
(9:11-28) of Paul’s argument concerning Jesus as the better
sacrifice (9:1–10:18). The first section (9:1-10) provided
the stage-setting of his theme, by considering the two
compartments of the Jewish worship center, with their
distinct fixtures (9:2-5) and differing functions (9:6,7),
followed by an explanation of their significance (9:8-10).
This second section (9:11-28) considers both parallels and
contrasts between the sacrifices of the Jewish old covenant
and the superior Self-sacrifice of Jesus Christ. It seems to
be divided into three subsections or paragraphs: [1]
sacrificial blood and cleansing (9:11-14) [2] sacrificial
death and covenant (9:15-22) [3] sacrificial singularity and
salvation (9:23-28).
In the old covenant worship, the high
priest arrived at the temple on the Day of Atonement to
apply the blood of the representative animal sacrifices in
order to cover the sins of himself and the people of Israel
(9:7) until the promised fulfillment of all that was yet to
come by the action of the Messiah deliverer. Contrasted with
this, Paul writes, “But Christ having arrived as High
Priest of the good things having come,…” Christ, the
promised Messiah, arrived at His heavenly destination (cf.
7:26; 8:2; 9:12,24) as the eternal High Priest after the
order of Melchizedek (6:20; 7:1-17). But in likeness with
the Aaronic high priests, He entered the Holy of Holies to
make a representative sacrificial offering for the sins of
the people. As an absolutely unique High Priest, He served
as both the priest and the sacrifice. Whereas the Jewish
high priests offered sacrifices on the cover of the
mercy-seat which were but a temporary covering for impurity,
anticipating more permanent “good things to come” in the
future, the Messiah-Priest brought those “good things” of
God into being in fulfillment of all the promises (cf. II
Cor. 1:20). The anticipated “good things to come” are now
the completed “good things having come.” This is the
difference between Jewish eschatology and Christian
eschatology. All that was anticipated and expected in the
old covenant has now been made available for viable
spiritual experience in the living Lord Jesus. All of the
“good things” – all of the “better things” that this epistle
points to – have historically (ex. crucifixion,
resurrection, ascension) and theologically (ex. Redemption,
salvation, sanctification) and personally or experientially
(ex. Forgiveness, cleansing, perfection, access to God) been
brought into being in Jesus Christ.
Christ entered “through”
the veil (10:20) and into “the greater and more
perfect tent not made with hands, that is, not of this
creation.” Jesus Christ serves as the High Priest in
the heavenly chamber (9:3,6) of God’s presence (cf. 4:14;
8:2; 9:24) – the superior dwelling place of God that
achieves the real end-objective of God’s intent for man,
i.e. allowing man into His presence, and His presence into
man. This worship place is obviously not man-made (cf. Isa.
66:1) of physical materials (cf. Mk. 14:58; Acts 7:48;
17:24; Heb. 9:24), but is “the tabernacle of God” (Rev.
21:3) “pitched by the Lord” (8:2). This dwelling place of
God “in heaven itself” (9:24) is “not of this creation,”
thus it cannot be identified with any physical temple in
Jerusalem, nor can it be identified as the physical body of
Jesus (cf. Jn. 1:14). The heaven-chamber is not subject to
shaking (12:26-28) or perishing (1:11), for it is not part
of the natural creation, and Paul wanted the Jerusalem
Christians who were reading this epistle to take their eyes
off of the physical temple and its practices which would
indeed be shaken and perish in the very near future.
9:12
Jesus Christ, the Messiah-Priest, entered the
heaven-chamber of the divine presence “not through the
blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood.”
The medium of access for the Christic high Priest was not
the blood of animals, as it was for the Aaronic high priests
(9:7) who offered animal sacrifices annually on the Day of
Atonement in the tabernacle in the temple in Jerusalem.
Jesus accessed heaven by a unique and superior
representative sacrifice, i.e. “through His own blood,”
which served as the instrumental means allowing all who
accept His representation to enter God’s presence “in Him.”
Reference to “the blood of Jesus” (9:12,14) does not
necessarily refer to the material substance of plasma,
corpuscles or platelets of the human blood of Jesus, but
rather to the action of Jesus’ sacrificial death,2
for by His death He counteracted the death that had come
upon mankind (2:14), and effected the death of death.3
Reiterating Christ’s access into heaven,
Paul writes, “He entered the holy place once for all,
having secured the redemption of the ages.” Unlike
the Judaic priests who entered the Holy of Holies
repetitively once every year (9:7,25), Jesus’ entrance into
the heavenly divine presence was singular and final. He had
secured the liberation of mankind from the clutch of sin and
death, finally and forever by the ransom payment (Matt.
20:28; Mk. 10:45; I Tim. 2:6) of His own death, the perfect
price paid (cf. I Cor. 6:20; 7:13; I Pet. 1:18,19; II Pet.
2:1) to free mankind from the slavery of sin. His sacrifice
in death is validated as satisfactory and sufficient by the
securing of the eschatological redemption and “eternal
salvation” (5:9) for mankind, confirming divine acceptance
and the fulfillment of all God intended for mankind.
9:13
In antithetical contrast to the finality of Christ’s
sacrifice, and to emphasize the insufficiency of the
ceremonial cleansings of the old covenant, Paul argues,
“For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the ashes of a
heifer sprinkling those having been defiled, sanctified for
the cleansing of the flesh,…” Paul is not doubting
or questioning the effects of the old covenant sacrifices,
but is affirming the limited efficacy of such when compared
to the sacrifice of Christ (14). The blood sacrifice of
goats and bulls occurred on the Day of Atonement, but Paul
seems to generalize in order to include all old covenant
sacrifices (cf. Numb. 7:15,16), particularly inclusive of
the sin-offering of the red heifer (cf. Numb. 19:1-22). The
application of animal blood by sprinkling was regarded as a
setting apart of the objects or persons that had been
defiled, polluted, or made impure, in order to cleanse them
of their physical defilement and make them available for
God’s holy purposes. These religious rituals of ceremonial
cleansing had limited efficacy, for they were only a
temporary and external “cleansing of the flesh,” i.e. of the
outward and physical defilement and corruptions, and could
not deal with the internal conscience and its consciousness
of sin.
9:14
The superior and surpassing efficacy of Christ’s
sacrifice is exclaimed, “…how much more will the blood
of Christ, who through the Spirit of the ages has offered
Himself without defect to God, cleanse your conscience from
dead works unto worship of the living God.” The new
covenant is not established on the blood of animals, nor
even on the blood of a martyr, but on the representative
sacrifice of the Messianic Son of God. The “blood of Christ”
once again (12) refers not to some mystical efficacy of the
material substance of Jesus’ blood, but to the
representative death of Jesus. Divinely empowered by the
Holy Spirit (cf. Lk. 4:18), “the Spirit of the ages,” Jesus
actively, willingly (10:5-10) and obediently (cf. 5:8,9;
Phil. 2:8) offered Himself (7:27), serving as both the
priest and the sacrifice. His was a voluntary sacrifice (cf.
Jn. 19:30), whereas the animals of the old covenant were
sacrificed involuntarily and passively. But like the animal
sacrifices which were to be without spot, blemish or defect
(Lev. 1:3,10; 22:18-25; Numb. 19:2; Deut. 17:1), Jesus was
“without sin” (4:15; II Cor. 5:21), “holy, innocent, and
undefiled” (7:26), the sinless sacrifice sufficient to deal
with the internal and spiritual separation of mankind from
God.
Whereas the animal sacrifices could only
assuage the external defilement in a ceremonial “cleansing
of the flesh” (13), the representative death of Jesus can
“cleanse your conscience from dead works.” The Jewish
rituals could not deal with the internal cleansing or
perfecting of the conscience (9:9; 10:2). Sin, and its
consequence of death, is much deeper than external
defilement and behavioral transgression. Only Jesus’ death
can “cleanse the conscience” from the guilt of sin and the
condemnation of thinking one has to pay or offer something
to appease and please God. Religion, on the other hand,
capitalizes on this nagging need of performance “works” to
“measure up” and “get right” with God, advocating that their
adherents go through the motions of endless rituals and
confessional cleansings to feel connected to God. To the
Romans, Paul wrote, “There is now no condemnation for those
who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1). On the basis of Jesus’
death, Christians are reconciled (Rom. 5:10) and have peace
with God (Rom. 5:1). The positive side of “cleansing from
dead works” is the provision of being “made righteous” (Rom.
5:17,19; II Cor. 5:21) in order to participate in the “good
works” that God prepares (Eph. 2:10), equips (Heb. 13:21),
and supplies sufficiency for by His grace (II Cor. 9:8).
Paul did not want the Hebrew Christians
in Jerusalem to be conscientiously bound to their past
worship practices, or to revert back to the ineffectual
temple rituals of Judaism, which were but the “dead works”
of religion. He wanted them to operate out of a cleansed
conscience, a “good conscience” (13:18; I Pet. 3:21) that
did not wallow in the “consciousness of sins” (10:2). He
wanted them to recognize their freedom “to worship the
living God” in spiritual worship (cf. Jn. 4:24; Rom. 12:1),
accessing the Holy of Holies of God’s presence
transcendently and immanently.
9:15
In this second subsection (9:15-22) the sacrificial
death of Jesus is connected to the concept of “covenant.” In
the previous study of “JESUS: the Better Minister of the New
Covenant” (8:1-13), background material was presented
concerning the ancient practices of “blood covenants,” and
the Hebrew concept (berith) of God’s establishment of
unilateral covenants with mankind. Paul took the prophecy of
Jeremiah 31 concerning a “new covenant” and explained that
this involved an internalization of God’s Law upon the
hearts and minds of His people (8:10; 10:16). Consistently,
Paul continues his present argument, “Through this,”
the death of Jesus that allows for the internal cleansing of
the conscience and the positive ramifications of
reconciliation, justification and spiritual union, along
with experiential peace and assurance, “He is the
mediator of a new covenant,…” The old Jewish
covenant explained in the Old Testament was obsolete and
antiquated (8:13), nullified and abrogated (7:18; 10:9). The
new covenant promised through Jeremiah (Jere. 31:31-34) was
inaugurated by the death of Jesus, and that is why Jesus
explained that the Eucharist observance represented “the new
covenant in My blood” (Matt. 26:28; Mk. 14:24; Lk. 22:20; I
Cor. 11:25). The new covenant (7:22; 8:6,8; 10:16; 12:24;
13:20) was the new arrangement, agreement, and settlement
that God had “put through” in His Son, Jesus Christ, who was
the mediator (8:6; 12:24), the one who “stood in the middle”
between God and man as the God-man, “the one mediator
between God and man” (I Tim. 2:5), to effect and enact what
was God’s intent for man from the beginning.
The means of Jesus’ mediatorial enactment
of a new covenant is explained, “so that a death has
occurred for the redemption of the transgressions at the
time of the first covenant,…” The inadequate animal
sacrifices of the old covenant have been superseded by the
historical representative death of Jesus Christ, the Son of
God, who effected the purchased losing and liberation of
redemption (9:12; Eph. 1:7), the buying back of mankind by
the price of His own death (I Cor. 6:20; 7:23), even from
the consequence of the transgressions that occurred at the
time of and under the regulations of the first covenant (cf.
Rom. 3:25).
The result of Jesus’ mediatorial
enactment of a new covenant is explained, so that
“those having been called might receive the promised
fulfillment of the inheritance of the ages.” The
“calling of God” (Rom. 11:29; Eph. 1:18) to Himself is in
the Person and work of Jesus Christ, who as “the Elect One”
(Lk. 23:35) is the basis and dynamic of the divine effectual
calling. “Those having been called” are all those who have
responded to God’s calling in Jesus Christ and received
Jesus Christ (cf. Jn. 1:12,13), and in so doing may/should
receive (not a future tense) the fulfillment of the promises
of the eschatological inheritance of all the blessings of
the new covenant “in Christ” (cf. Eph. 1:3). This inheriting
(1:4) of the “eternal salvation” (5:9) involves becoming
heirs that inherit the fulfillment of all God’s prophetic
promises in the old covenant (6:12,17), an inheritance that
is “imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away” (I
Pet. 1:4). This inheritance is not just a future
expectation, but is the fullness of Christ experience
“already” in the present, with a “not yet” consummation in
the future.
It is here that we must address the most
problematic issue in this passage. Paul’s reference to
“covenant” (15,16,17,18,20) has been interpreted in several
ways due to the divergent Hebrew and Greek concepts of
“covenant” that existed in the first century. The Hebrew
word berith was used for both bilateral agreements
between persons, and for the unilateral arrangements that
God established with man. The Greek language had two
separate words: suntheke (“to put together with”) for
bilateral agreements, and diatheke (“to put through”)
for the unilateral arrangements of a “last will and
testament.” Since the Greeks had no theological
understanding of divine unilateral arrangements, the word
diatheke was never used for such. But when the Jewish
people of the Middle East began using the Greek language as
their medium of expression, the only viable word for a
unilateral arrangement was diatheke, and they
employed the word in reference to God’s unilateral
covenants. When Jesus, and the subsequent Christian
community, began to refer to the “new covenant” in Christ,
they also employed the available Greek word diatheke.
So, the Jewish and Christians communities were using the
word diatheke in a way that it was never used in the
Hellenistic community.
The question before us is: How did Paul
(who grew up as a Jew in the Hellenistic community of
Tarsus, and then became a Christian) use the word
diatheke in this particular passage of his epistle to
the Hebrews? Some have concluded that all references to
diatheke in this paragraph refer to the original Greek
concept of a “last will and testament.” Others have
concluded that all references to diatheke in this
paragraph refer to the Jewish concept of a divine unilateral
‘covenant” of God with man. Still others, have concluded
that Paul jumps back and forth, switching his meaning from
“covenant” (15), to “last will and testament” (16,17), and
then back to “covenant” (18,20); or even more ambiguously,
integrating the concepts in a merged double entendre. Though
the mention of “inheritance” (15) could create a legal
connection to the Greek idea of “testament” in the following
verses (16,17), it will be our contention in the following
comments that Paul, a Hebrew Christian, writing to his
fellow Hebrew Christians in Jerusalem, retains a Hebrew
concept of berith in his use of the Greek word
diatheke, and that the concept of a unilateral
“covenant” of God predominates throughout this passage.
9:16
Continuing to explain Jesus as “the mediator of a new
covenant” (15) – and let it be noted that mediators were not
necessary for a “last will and testament” – Paul writes,
“For where there is a covenant a death is necessary to be
represented by the one covenanting.” As the ancient
covenants were almost exclusively “blood covenants,” usually
requiring the death of a sacrificial animal to ratify the
agreement, so God’s covenants utilized the confirmation
validation of sacrificial death (18). The Hebrew word berith
was derived from the word bara, meaning “to cut,” and the
one covenanting was regarded as “cutting a covenant,” which
involved the cutting and death of a representative
sacrifice. A “covenant,” in the Hebrew sense of the word,
required a representative death performed by the one cutting
the covenant in order to seal the covenant. The Greek
concept of “testament” does not make sense here, for the
testator’s death was not necessary in order to make a “last
will and testament.”
9:17
Explaining a general principle of covenants, Paul
continues, “For a covenant is ratified upon corpses,
since it is not even binding as long as the one covenanting
(allows the sacrifice) to live.” God speaks
through the Psalmist, of “those who have made covenant with
Me by sacrifice” (Ps. 50:5), thus stating the same covenant
principle of sacrifice and representative death. Covenants
were ratified and confirmed “upon corpses.” Usage of the
Greek term nekrois, “corpses,” had no known usage in
reference to “last will and testaments” in Greek literature.
Its usage here refers to dead bodies, whether animals or
men, but there is nothing in the word itself that requires
it to refer to humans. Covenants (bilateral or unilateral)
were not regarded by the Hebrews to have any strength for
binding enforcement as long as “the one cutting the
covenant” allowed the representative sacrifice to live
without the cutting that led to blood and death.
It must be admitted that in the Greek
text the verb “lives” appears to connect with the subject of
“the one covenanting,” rather than to the one being
sacrificed, which leaves the door open for an interpretation
of “testator death” instead of the representative death of a
sacrifice. But all the other words and grammar in this
paragraph seem to point to the idea of “covenant” rather
than “testament.”
9:18
Moving from the general principle (16,17) to the
particular of the inauguration of the old covenant, Paul
wrote, “This is why the first (covenant)
was not initiated without blood.” The first
covenant, the “old covenant,” the Mosaic covenant of Law,
was not inaugurated, confirmed, validated or ratified, so as
to become legally binding, without representative blood
sacrifice. The sacrificial blood of a representative death
established, confirmed, sealed, and made the covenant
agreement effectual.
9:19
The historical occasion of the establishment of the old
covenant by sacrificial blood is recorded in Exodus 24:3-8.
Paul reviews this, “For when every commandment
according to the Law had been spoken by Moses to all the
people, taking the blood of calves, with water and scarlet
wool and hyssop, he sprinkled both the scroll itself and all
the people.” The Old Testament text does not mention
the blood of goats, only of bulls, and the oldest
manuscripts of the Greek text of this epistle (dating to
approximately 200 AD) do not contain the word “goats”
either. The primary variance, then, is Paul’s addition of
applying the blood “with water and scarlet wool and hyssop.”
This is not recorded in Exodus 24, but these items were
sometimes used for the application of blood sacrifices on
other occasions (cf. Lev. 14:4-7, 51,52; Numb. 19:6). Though
Exodus does not specifically indicate that the blood of the
bulls or calves was applied to the “scroll of the covenant,”
this may have been part of Jewish tradition that Paul
remembered.
9:20
Upon applying the blood for the initiation of the
covenant, Moses “said, ‘This is the blood of the
covenant which God commanded towards you.’” Paul is
quoting this statement of Moses from Exodus 24:8, made after
the Hebrew people had accepted the covenant and promised to
abide by it. There does not appear to be any veiled allusion
in these words to the word of Jesus when taking the last
supper with His disciples.
9:21
Paul’s reiteration of the inauguration of the old
covenant with blood sacrifices has additional details not
recorded in Exodus 24. “And likewise, he
(Moses) had sprinkled both the tent and all the
vessels of the tabernacle worship with the blood.”
When the tabernacle was later erected there was an anointing
of the tent and all its utensils with oil (Exod. 40:9,10),
but there is no record of such action when the old covenant
was established. These utensils and vessels included the
shovels and snuffers, and all of the pots, jars, plates,
bowls, basins, spoons, etc., which were utilized in the
Jewish worship center (cf. Numb. 4:7-12).
9:22
In summary of his argument of God’s Mosaic covenant
inaugurated with blood sacrifices, Paul concludes this
subsection paragraph, “And according to Law, almost
all things are being cleansed by blood, and without the
application of blood nothing is pardoned.” In the
limited context of the Law covenant, almost all things (but
not all), underwent the ceremonial and ritualistic cleansing
by blood to remove contamination and defilement. There were
situations, though, where the poor could bring a
sin-offering of flour (Lev. 5:11), and when defilement could
be cleansed with water (Lev. 15:10-12; Numb. 31:23) or with
fire (Numb. 31:23).
In contradistinction to “almost all
things” being cleansed with blood, Paul notes that “nothing”
is pardoned without the application of blood. This part of
the summary statement is still qualified by “according to
the Law,” and refers to old covenant understanding of the
expiatory and propitiatory value of blood sacrifices. It is
not the release of blood from the animal in blood-letting or
blood-shedding that is being referred to, but the
blood-pouring ritual application of the sacrificial blood
that was regarded as being efficacious for the discharge,
pardon or forgiveness or transgressions (15) or sins. The
Hebrew word for this atoning action, kaphar, meant
“to cover,” and by figurative theological extension, “to
place” or “to appease” God in order that He might be
satisfied in order to condone, pardon, or cancel the effects
of the sin-offense. In the old Mosaic covenant of Law the
application of the blood sacrifice of animals was regarded
as efficacious for the release of culpability and liability
for transgressions of the Law. Paul’s objective in this
reiteration of the old covenant application of blood
sacrifices was to set up his argument that “it is impossible
for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (10:4),
and thus to discourage the Hebrew Christians in Judea from
reverting back to their inferior and inadequate worship
practices, as were still practiced in the temple in
Jerusalem.
9:23
In this third subsection (23-28), Paul returns (cf.
11-14) to the contrasts and parallels between the old
covenant sacrifices and the singularly sufficient and final
sacrifice of Jesus Christ. “Then, it was necessary for
the models of the things in the heavens to be cleansed by
these means, but (now) the heavenlies
themselves (are accessed) by better sacrifices
than these.” Utilizing a “then – but now” contrast,
Paul explains that “it was necessary” (cf. 7:12; 9:16),
logically, theologically, and particularly legally (22), for
the old covenant worship center models or examples (4:11;
8:5) to be cleansed in ceremonial purification from external
defilement and contamination, by the means of representative
blood sacrifices. The Jewish worship places and practices
were but “a copy and show of the heavenly things,” Paul
explained previously (8:5), and God told Moses to erect the
tabernacle “according to the pattern” (8:5) of the heavenly
worship place. For this reason Paul refers to the old
covenant worship rooms as “models,” examples, or facsimiles
which were both, patterned after the heavenly reality, and
prefiguring of the access to heavenly worship in Jesus
Christ. The tangible tabernacle and temples were but the
temporary, inadequate and imperfect subdemonstration of the
heavenly presence and worship of God. The Greek word for
“model” or “example” means “to show under,” and could be
transliterated as “hypodigmatic.”
The “heavenlies,” on the other hand, in
contrast to the earthly “models,” are accessed not by
ceremonial animal sacrifices, but by the singularly
sufficient sacrifice of the representative death of Jesus
Christ. The verb action of “cleansing” in the first phrase
cannot be inserted as the non-specified verb action of the
second phrase in this verse. There is nothing in the
heavenlies of God’s presence that requires cleansing, but
access to the dwelling place of God did require the
cancellation and abolishment of sin by the sacrifice of the
Son of God (26). So, the verb action of “entering” access
from the following contextual phrase must be supplied as the
absent verb in this second phrase. The “better sacrifice” of
the death of Christ is the only sacrifice that can “cleanse
the conscience” (14) internally, and allow Christians to
participate in the “living sacrifice” (12:1) of themselves,
and the offering of “the sacrifice of praise” (13:15) for
all that was accomplished on our behalf by the Savior.
9:24
Returning to a contrast of the activities of the old
covenant Aaronic high priests on the Day of Atonement, Paul
explains, “For Christ has not entered the holy places
made with hands, an antitype of the real things,…”
Again, Paul indicates that the physical tabernacle and
temple that were man-made (9:11), temporary and inferior,
were but a copy, representation, reproduction, or “antitype”
(Greek word antitypa) of the heavenly realities. The
following diagram may assist in understanding Paul’s
perspective of the contrasts between the heavenly and
earthly worship centers:
The divine-human Jesus never physically
entered the Holy Place or the Holy of Holies of the temple
in Jerusalem, for He was from the tribe of Judah, not Levi;
but that is not the point Paul is making. The contrastual
point is, “but (Christ has entered) into
the heaven itself, to appear in the presence of God on our
behalf.” “Heaven itself” is not a cosmological
consideration of a spatial locality, but refers to the
presence of God where God can be worshipped face-to-face.
The Greek word for “presence,” prosopon, means
“before the face.” Jesus Christ, crucified, resurrected and
ascended, has entered (the verb is supplied from the
previous phrase), and now, in the eschatological period of
Christian fulfillment, has been manifested and made apparent
in the heavenly and glorified presence of God. Not only does
His returning entrance into the presence of God allow Him to
intercede “on our behalf” (2:18; 4:15,16; 7:25; Rom. 8:34; I
Jn. 2:1) as a mediating High Priest, but is also opens
immediate access for all Christians who are “in Christ” to
“draw near” to the presence of God (4:16; 6:20; 7:19;
10:19,20) in direct face-to-face worship. F. F. Bruce
writes,
“His entrance into the presence of
God is not a day of soul-affliction and fasting, like
the Day of Atonement under the old legislation, but a
day of gladness and song, the day when Christians
celebrate the ascension of their Priest-King.”
4
9:25
When Christ entered the Holy of Holies of God’s
presence, it was “not in order that He should offer
Himself often, even as the high priest enters into the holy
place annually with the blood of others.” In
contrast to the Aaronic high priests, Jesus does not have to
offer Himself as a representative sacrifice over-and-over
again in the multiplicity of repetition. Using a present
tense verb that may indicate the present continuation of the
activity of the high priests in the temple at Jerusalem,
Paul notes that the high priest enters the holy place, the
Holy of Holies, year-after-year in annual repetition, to
sprinkle the blood of slain animals (not his own) serving as
representative sacrifice to “cover” the sins of the people.
9:26
Jesus is not like the Aaronic high priests,
“Otherwise, it would have been necessary (for Him)
to suffer often from the foundation of the world;…”
If, as is not the case, Jesus had to make repetitive
sacrificial offerings of death, as the Jewish high priests
had to do, this would have required Jesus to suffer and die
repetitively “from the foundation of the world,” i.e.
throughout human history. Underlying this statement of Paul
may be a presupposition of Jesus’ preexistence (1:2; Jn.
1:1) “from the foundation of the world,” but nowhere does
Scripture indicate that Jesus died before the foundation of
the world (despite the mistranslation of Revelation 13:8 in
the KJV), or that He died repetitively since the foundation
of the world. This is patently impossible, for Jesus, the
eternal High Priest, made the historic representative
sacrifice of death as a man (2:9-16), and Paul would soon
note that a man only dies once (27).
The counterbalance to the absurd
hypothesis of Jesus’ repetitive dying is, “…but now,
once, upon the climax of the ages, for the abolition of sin
through the sacrifice of Himself, He (Jesus)
has been manifested.” In contrast to any hypothesis
of a multiple repetitive dying, Jesus as High Priest offered
Himself “once and for all” as the singularly unique and
sufficient representative sacrifice for mankind. This served
as the completing climax and consummation of the ages, the
eschatological fulfillment of “the last days” (1:2; Acts
2:17), the “end of the ages” (Matt. 13:39,40; 24:3; 28:20; I
Cor. 10:11), serving in the “fullness of time” (Gal. 4:4) to
establish the Christian age, the last age, the new age, and
fulfill God’s intent for mankind. The High Priest, the Son
of God, voluntarily allowing for the sacrifice of Himself,
the Sinless One (4:15; 7:26), in a representative death for
all mankind, could do far more than cover up sin, as the
Jewish high priests did in their ceremonial sacrifices.
Jesus could set aside (7:18) sin, put it away (I Jn. 3:5),
cancel it, remove it, abolish it, and absolve it by His own
death. The God-man, Priest and sacrifice, did just that when
He was historically manifested as a man in the incarnation
(Jn. 1:14; Gal. 4:4; I Pet. 1:20), and that for the purpose
of dying as a man (Matt. 20:28; Mk. 10:45; Jn. 12:27), a
representative death to take upon Himself the death
consequences of mankind.
9:27
To show the logical relationship and personal
application of these themes, Paul writes, “And
accordingly, it is laid upon man to die once, and after this
judgment.” Because of the fall of man into sin (Gen.
3:1-7), the death consequences (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 6:23) that
came into being through “the one having the power of death,
that is, the devil” (Heb. 2:14) have been the common plight
of mankind. It is not the particular divinely appointed time
of death (cf. Eccl. 3:1,2) that Paul is referring to, but
the general inevitability of human death. The mortality of
man is universal, and the singularity and finality of
physical death necessarily (though not necessarily
immediately) leads to a final determination, evaluation and
assessment of the life that was lived (Lk. 16:22,23; Jn.
5:28,29; Rom. 2:5-11; II Cor. 5:10). Judgment does not
necessarily have a negative connotation of condemnation or
damnation. The word “judgment” (Greek word krisis,
from which we get the English word “crisis”) does not have
positive or negative connotations, but recognizes man’s
accountability for the consequences of freedom of choice.
“God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is
hidden, whether it be good or evil” (Eccl. 12:14). It is sin
that links death with negative consequences of judgment, but
Christ’s removal, abolition and absolution of sin (26) by
His own death, allows death for the Christian to be linked
to salvation (28) and the confident expectation of hope
(3:6; 6:11,18; 7:19). Paul connects the death of Christ to
the death of mankind in general, and this is what the
Christians in Judea needed to hear as they faced the ominous
situation of the possibility of their own deaths in
confrontation with the overpowering Roman army.
9:28
Connecting the singularity of human death to the
singularity of Christ’s death, Paul continues the sentence,
“so Christ having been offered once to have born the
sins of many,…” Christ, in conjunction with all
humanity, dies once (not repetitively), but His is a
representative death whereby He is offered by God (Isa.
53:6,13; Acts 2:23) in the Priestly Self-sacrificing of
Himself (7:27; 9:14,26; Gal. 2:20; Eph. 5:2) to vicariously
bear the sin consequences for “many.” The “many” for whom
Christ has borne the sin-consequences of death, refers to
all mankind, not just a few arbitrarily predetermined
“elect” as some would have us to believe. Isaiah prophesied
that the Suffering Servant would “bear the sins of many”
(Isa. 53:12). To the Romans, Paul explained, “the gift of
the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to the
many” (Rom. 5:15), and “through the obedience of the One
the many will be made righteous” (Rom. 5:19). The
apostle John wrote, “He Himself is the propitiation for the
sins…of the whole world” (I Jn. 2:2). Earlier Paul
wrote, “By the grace of God, Jesus tasted death for every
one” (Heb. 2:9). This universality of the efficacy of
Christ’s death for the sins of all mankind is inclusive of
all men other than Himself (7:26,27; 9:7), for He was
“without sin” (4:15; II Cor. 5:21), and could thus serve as
the sinless representative sacrifice sufficient to remove
sin from all the remainder of the human race.
This is what Christ accomplished in His
first appearance when as the incarnate God-man He put away
sin and its death consequences (26), but “He shall be
made visible a second time without (reference to)
sin, to those eagerly awaiting Him unto salvation.”
Jesus was manifested on earth in the incarnation (26),
appeared in heaven on our behalf (24), and will be made
visible on earth in a second advent. Some would interpret
this second appearance of Christ as the coming of divine
judgment that was soon to occur in 70 AD (cf. 10:37), but
the context of the eternal High Priesthood of Christ seems
to indicate a reference to the impending (though not
imminent) second physically visible appearance of Jesus
Christ on earth, which Christians have expected from the
beginning. Since sin and its consequences were removed (26)
in the first incarnational coming of Jesus, the second
coming of Christ will not pertain to sacrificial atonement
for sin and the redemptive efficacy of representative death.
The man, Jesus, could only die once (27), and that
representative death was totally sufficient to take the
death consequences of sin (26). His second coming will serve
as the consummation of the salvation made available in the
“saving life” of Christ (Rom. 5:10). Christians are already
“made safe” from the misused humanity that was enslaved (II
Tim. 2:26) by the one having the power of death (2:14), and
liberated to function by Christ’s life (Gal. 2:20; Col. 3:4)
unto God’s glory, but the removal of all hindrances (Rev.
21:4) to such salvation-living will transpire after Christ’s
second advent on earth in the experience of “eternal
salvation” (5:9).
The eager expectation of Christ’s return
can be linked to the return of the high priest on the Day of
Atonement. The people of God waited eagerly for the high
priest to return from the Holy of Holies, whereupon they
were assured that God had accepted the representative
sacrifice to cover their sins for another year. Jewish
literature records the return of Simon the high priest,
“How glorious he was when the people
gathered round him as he came out of the inner
sanctuary! Like the morning star among the clouds, like
the moon when it is full; like the sun shining upon the
temple of the Most High, and like the rainbow gleaming
in glorious clouds. …Then the sons of Aaron shouted;
they sounded the trumpets; they made a great noise to be
heard for remembrance before the Most High. Then all the
people made haste and fell to the ground upon their
faces to worship their Lord, the Almighty, God Most
High.” (Sirach 50:5-7, 16,17)
In similar manner Christians eagerly
await (Rom. 8:25; I Cor. 1:7; Phil. 3:20) the earthly return
of the eternal High Priest, Jesus Christ, in glory, already
assured of the singular sufficiency of Christ’s
representative sacrifice, but desiring to see the completed
consummation of salvation unto the ages. By faith they
eagerly anticipate “a salvation ready to be revealed in the
last time” (I Pet. 1:5), and the privilege of an eternity of
worshipping God (Rev. 22:9). Jesus’ final words were, “Yes,
I am coming quickly” (Rev. 22:20).
10:1
The third major section (10:1-18) of Paul’s assertion
that Jesus is the better sacrifice, sufficient for
forgiveness (9:1–10:18), exposes the inadequacy of the
Mosaic covenant of Law to do away with a constant reminder
of the consciousness of sins (1-4), explains that Jesus’
physical death in accord with the will of God does away with
the old covenant sacrifices (5-10), asserts that Jesus’
priestly sacrifice singularly and finally brought mankind to
their intended purpose of holiness (11-14), and concludes
that the internal provision of the new covenant does away
with sin-consciousness and animal sacrifices (15-18). In
these four subsections Paul makes the point that the death
of Jesus Christ is the termination of all old covenant
sacrifices.
Paul reiterates what he wrote earlier
(8:3-5; 9:23-26), but makes different points of emphasis.
“For the Law, having a shadow of the good things coming,
not itself the image of those things,…” It is not to
denigrate the Law, but to show its deficiency, that prompts
Paul to characterize the Law as but “a shadow of the good
things to come.” Previously Paul had written that the
priests “offering gifts according to the Law, serve as a
copy and show of the heavenly things” (8:5). To the
Colossians, he explained that the old covenant food laws and
festivals were “a shadow of what is to come; but the
substance belongs to Christ” (Col. 2:17). Everything in the
old covenant arrangement was insubstantial and temporal
(space/time) – an unreal profile or outline that prefigured
and foreshadowed the good things yet to come in Jesus
Christ. The “good things” expected in Jewish eschatology are
the “good things having come” (9:11) in Christian
eschatology. Jesus Christ is the essential eschatological
fulfillment of all the promises of God (II Cor. 1:20), and
the essence of all new covenant realities. The “image” or
visible manifestation, the form and reality, the substantive
embodiment of all that the old covenant Law foreshadowed is
realized in Jesus Christ. Jesus is the new covenant
substance that cast the old covenant shadow. Christ is the
“image” (II Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15), the visible manifestation
of God. All the pragmatic (Greek word pragmatõn) good
things (cf. James 1:17) that God intends for man are summed
up in Christ (Eph. 1:10), “every spiritual blessing in
heavenly places” (Eph. 1:3). Paul is attempting to dissuade
the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem from settling for the
insubstantial shadows of the old covenant Judaic system.
Instead, he wants them to be conformed to the image of the
Son” (Rom. 8:29).
The Law “by the same sacrifices
year-after-year, which they offer repetitively, is never
able to make perfect those drawing near.” The old
covenant Law and the sacrificial rites mandated by that Law,
particularly the repetitive annual sacrifices of the high
priest on the Day of Atonement, are ineffectual religious
formalities, futile mechanical motions that cannot develop
any real personal relationship with God. Those who would
“draw near” to the Jewish worship center, sincerely desiring
to worship God, can never be “made perfect” by the Jewish
sacrifices. They can never be brought to God’s intended
objective or end-purpose of bearing His image (Gen. 1:26,27)
and glorifying Him (Isa. 43:7) by manifesting His character,
apart from Jesus Christ (14).
10:2
“Otherwise” (as is contrary to fact, i.e.
the assumption that the old covenant sacrifices were
efficacious for perfection), “would not they
(the sacrifices) have ceased being offered, because
those worshipping would not still have a consciousness of
sins, having once been cleansed?” In typical lawyer
fashion, Paul asks a rhetorical question which implies and
necessitates an affirmative answer, “Yes, of course!” Would
not the animal sacrifices have been discontinued as
superfluous, their repetition terminated, if they were
indeed efficacious to bring mankind into right relationship
with God? If you have to do this over and over again, is it
really working? The ceremonial sacrifices of the Jewish
worship could only cleanse the externalities of flesh
(9:13), and could not perfect the internal conscience (9:9).
That is why Jewish worshippers continued to have an “evil
conscience” (10:22), an on-going consciousness of guilt and
shame and condemnation. They continued to have a burdened
heart haunted by sin-consciousness.
Paul wanted his brethren in Jerusalem to
know that their hearts had been cleansed by faith in Jesus
Christ (Acts 15:9); their “consciences cleansed from dead
works to serve the living God” (9:14). “There is now no
condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1).
The sin-consciousness of repetitive confessionalism is
indicative of Jewish theology and practice, but Christian
theology and worship focuses on Jesus (12:2). Jesus said,
“This is the new covenant in My blood. Do this in
remembrance of Me” (Lk. 22:20; I Cor. 11:25), not in
reminder of your sins! “Why would you even consider returned
to the Jewish temple practices and their guilt-producing
rituals?” Paul is asking the Judean Christians.
10:3
“In fact, (there is) in those
(old covenant sacrifices) a reminder of sins
year-after-year.” The Day of Atonement included
confession of sins (Lev. 16:21) and humbling (Lev.
23:26-32). Other ritual offerings were a “reminder of
iniquity” (Numb. 5:15). The repetition of the sacrifices,
whether annually (1,3) or daily (11), kept a continual
remembrance of sin in the consciousness of the Jewish
worshippers. There was no remission in the old covenant
system, just reminder that their sins separated them from
God.
10:4
“For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and
goats to take away sins.” This is a concise and
succinct denial of the effectiveness of old covenant worship
practices. The ritual sacrifices of Judaism offered an
external cleansing from contamination, pollution and
defilement, but not the internal cleansing and spiritual
transformation required to forgives sins and take away sin
(10:11). The sacrifices may have provided a temporary and
psychological cathartic relief and a religious sense of
piety, but only the death of Christ inaugurating the new
covenant could “take away sins” (9:26; Rom. 11:27).
10:5
Drawing a conclusion based on the ineffectiveness of
the old covenant sacrifices and the sufficiency of the
singular sacrifice of Jesus Christ, Paul employs Old
Testament scripture as evidence to support his argument.
“Therefore, the One coming into the world says,…”
Jesus’ “coming into the world” may include a presupposition
of His preexistence (1:2; Jn. 1:1), but it is certainly a
reference to His incarnational birth (Jn. 1:14), and is a
common Johannine expression for such (Jn. 1:9; 6:14; 16:28;
18:37). When writing to Timothy, Paul stated, Christ Jesus
came into the world to save sinners” (I Tim. 1:5).
Using a technique he had utilized earlier
(2:12,13), Paul puts Old Testament words into the mouth of
Jesus. Since Jesus was instrumental in all Old Testament
history and the focal point of all its prefiguring, Paul
felt free to project Christ as the implied speaker of the
words in Psalm 40:6-8 (quoted again from the Greek
translation of the Old Testament [LXX], the Septuagint). His
objective is to document and demonstrate that even the Old
Testament literature critiques the efficacy of the animal
sacrifices.
Projecting these words of David into
statements of Christ, “He says, ‘SACRIFICE AND
OFFERING YOU HAVE NOT WILLED,…” Didn’t God command
the sacrifices and offerings of the old covenant? Yes, but
as with the entirety of the old covenant, it was provisional
to prefigure and foreshadow the sacrificial death of Jesus
Christ. Through the prophet Jeremiah, God says, “I did not
command your fathers… concerning burnt offerings and
sacrifices. But this is what I commanded them, ‘Obey My
voice, and I will be your God, and you will be My
people’”(Jere. 7:21-23). The primary intent of God was for a
people who would obey Him and humble themselves before Him.
“Does the Lord take delight in thousands of rams? …What does
the Lord require of you, but to do justice, to love
kindness, and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:,7,8).
“Has the Lord as much delight in burnt offerings and
sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to
obey is better than sacrifice” (I Sam. 15:22; cf. Mk.
12:33,34).
God knew what he was going to do to
remedy man’s sin problem. “…BUT A BODY YOU HAVE
PREPARED FOR ME,…” In solidarity with humanity
(2:14), Jesus was “made in the likeness of men” (Phil. 2:7),
incarnated in a human body. It was only in a human body that
He could be “obedient unto death, even death on a cross”
(Phil. 2:8). A textual problem is evident as the Hebrew text
of Psalm 40:6 reads, “You have pierced My ears,” while the
Greek translation reads, “You have prepared a body for Me.”
How, and why, the text was altered is an open question. What
we do know is that Paul quotes from the Greek Septuagint (LXX).
10:6
The quotation of Psalm 40:6 continues, “IN WHOLE
BURNT OFFERINGS AND SIN-OFFERINGS YOU HAVE NO PLEASURE.”
God is not a “God of gore” who takes delight and pleasure in
bloody animal sacrifices. Through Jeremiah, God declares,
“Your burnt offerings are not acceptable, and your
sacrifices are not pleasing to Me” (Jere. 6:20). Through
Isaiah, “I have had enough of burnt offerings… I take no
pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs, or goats. …Bring your
worthless offerings no longer” (Isa. 1:11,13). “Even though
you offer Me burnt offerings, I will not accept them” (Amos
5:22). What does God delight and take pleasure in? “I
delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, and in the
knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings” (Hosea 6:6;
cf. Matt. 9:13; 12:7). The psalmist, David, writes
elsewhere, “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a
broken and contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise”
(Ps. 51:17). God’s deepest interest is in the spiritual
condition of man, and not in the carcasses and corpses
(9:17) of animal sacrifices.
10:7
The quotation from Psalm 40:7,8 is continued as the
statement of Jesus, “THEN I SAID, ‘BEHOLD I COME (IN
THE SCROLL OF THE BOOK IT HAS BEEN WRITTEN OF ME) TO DO YOUR
WILL, O GOD.’” Paul uses these verses to show Jesus
became incarnate in accord with the prophecies of the Old
Testament. The primary emphasis is on the projected
statement of Jesus from Psalm 40:8, “Behold I come to do
Your will, O God.” This is always what God wanted from man
(I Sam. 15:22; Jere. 7:21-23; Hosea 6:6). God’s will is
always that His invisible character might be made visible in
the behavior of His human creatures, imaged (Gen. 1:26,27)
unto His glory (Isa. 43:7). This was accomplished perfectly
in the body of Jesus (Jn. 1:18; II Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15)
without sin (4:15; II Cor. 5:21). More specifically, in the
God-man, Jesus Christ, God’s will was that the Son should be
“obedient unto death” (Phil. 2:8) to be the representative
sinless sacrifice, sufficient to remove the sins of all
mankind. This was the “will of God” that Jesus came to do.
As He approached death, He said, “Not my will, but Thine be
done” (Lk. 22:42).
10:8
Paul now dissects the statement from Psalm 40:6-8 into
two parts. The first part is the negative comments about the
old covenant sacrifices. “After saying above,
‘SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS AND WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND
SIN-OFFERINGS YOU HAVE NOT WILLED, NOR HAVE YOU TAKEN
PLEASURE,’ (which are offered according to the Law),…”
Paul loosely summarizes Psalm 40:6,7 and lumps together all
the various kinds of sacrificial offerings in the old
covenant: (1) peace offerings, (2) meal offerings, (3) burnt
offerings, and (4) sin offerings, to indicate God’s disdain
and rejection of the entire sacrificial system of worship
practices, advocated “according to the Law” (9:22; 10:1).
Reference to “a body having been prepared” is omitted in
this recap, since it will be referred to later (10).
10:9
The second part of the quotation, from Psalm 40:8, is
the positive portion that Paul has cast into the
Christological context of Christ’s willingness to become the
representative sacrifice for mankind. “Then He said,
‘BEHOLD, I COME TO DO YOUR WILL.’” The old covenant
animal sacrifices are not in accord with God’s will, but the
new covenant sacrifice of Jesus Christ for all mankind is
the accomplishment of God’s will.
The first and second portions that Paul
has divided from the quotation of psalm 40:6-8 are then
expanded to apply to the first (8:7,13; 9:1,15,18) and
second (8:7) covenants, as a whole. “He takes away the
first in order to establish the second.” Paul, the
lawyer, chooses his words carefully and deliberately, using
juridical language to explain how the first covenant is
retracted in order that the second covenant might be
enacted. The first is invalidated in order that
the second might be validated. The first covenant,
the old covenant (8:13), the Law covenant (7:12; 8:4;
9:19,22; 10:1), with all its rules and regulations of
external performance “works”, and all its rituals of
sacrifices and offerings in the tabernacle/temple worship
center, is annulled, abrogated, and abolished. It is taken
back, retracted, and done away with, because it served its
purpose in planned obsolescence (8:13). The entire Jewish
system of religion is displaced, in order to be
replaced by the establishment, enactment, and
confirmation of the new covenant (8:8,13; 9:15; 12:24) in
the representative death of Jesus Christ. In contrast to the
first covenant, the second covenant operates by the internal
dynamic of God’s grace instead of external Law regulations.
The obedience of faith (cf. Rom. 1:5; 16:26) replaces the
performance obedience of the works of the Law (Gal. 2:16;
3:5,10). The new worship center allows direct and immediate
access to God’s heavenly presence (10:19,20), with the
worth-ship of God’s character manifested in human behavior
by the grace of God (4:16; 12:15; 13:9,25) to the glory of
God (13:21).
This is a radical statement that Paul
makes. He has jettisoned the entire Jewish religion and
replaced it with the eschatological fulfillment of God’s
objective in Jesus Christ. What is Paul telling the
Christians in Jerusalem? He is categorically asserting that
the old covenant and the new covenant are mutually exclusive
– antithetical and irreconcilable. There should be no
consideration given to returning to the vacuous and
worthless practices of Judaism.
10:10
Still emphasizing the second part of the quotation
from Psalm 40:8, Paul writes, “By this will we have
been sanctified through the once for all offering of the
body of Jesus Christ.” Christ’s willingness to be
“obedient unto death” (Phil. 2:8) as the representative
sacrifice for the sins of mankind allowed for the
establishment of the second covenant. The Self-offering
(7:27; 9:14) of the physical body (5) of Jesus Christ in
sacrificial death was the singular and final (7:27; 9:12)
remedial act that removed the sin-consequences from man and
ratified the new covenant. Through the death of Jesus
atonement for sin has been made, allowing for a reconciled
at-one-ment and spiritual union with the Holy God.
Christians who have accepted the efficacy of Christ’s death
on the cross are “sanctified by faith in Christ” (Acts
26:18). As sanctified “holy ones” or saints (Rom. 8:27; Eph.
1:18; 4:12), they are set apart to function as God intended
in the manifestation of His holiness. This sanctification is
both an initially received spiritual condition of the
Christian (Acts 20:32; I Cor. 6:11), as well as a behavior
process of growth in the expression of His Holy character
(14; Jn. 17:19; I Thess. 4:3).
10:11
Paul returns to the repetitive and ineffectual
sacrifices of the Jewish priest to make a renewed argument
for the singularity and finality of Christ’s sacrifice, and
its efficacy for the restoration of mankind. “And many
a priest indeed has stood day-after-day ministering, and
offering the same sacrifices over-and-over again, which are
never able to take away sins;…” This initially
appears to be a summarizing restatement of 10:1-4, but Paul
wanted to emphasize the finished work of the One who was
High Priest as well as sacrifice. The Jewish priests stood
day-by-day and year-by-year (9:25; 10:3) ministering or
liturgizing (Greek word leitourgõn), by offering the
same kinds of sacrifices time-after-time. The type of
priests (Aaronic or Levitical), and the frequency of their
sacrifices (yearly or daily) is not the real issue Paul is
addressing; rather, he emphasizes the plurality and
repetitiveness of the monotonous sacrifices. The fact that
the old covenant priests were standing to do their priestly
work will be contrasted with Christ being seated (12). There
was no place to sit in the Jewish worship center of
tabernacle or temple. Their work was never done, never
completed; that because their sacrifices were impotent and
ineffective, never able or adequate to take away or cancel
sins. Theirs was an exercise in futility, as they
calculatingly put the sins of the people in the debit column
of last year’s ledger.
10:12
Again, contrasting Jesus to the Jewish priests,
Paul writes, “But having offered one sacrifice for
sins unto perpetuity, He has sat down at the right hand of
God.” As the High Priest in the order of Melchizedek
(5:6; 6:20), Jesus offered the sacrifice of Himself (7:27;
9:14). This sinless sacrifice was singularly efficacious as
an acceptable expiation and propitiation to remove the
sin-consequences of mankind, as well as to perfect and
sanctify (14) those receptive to such in order to make them
safe from the power of sin. Jesus’ sacrifice in death was
singularly efficacious, in contrast to the plurality and
repetition of the Jewish sacrifices. Jesus’ sacrifice was
efficacious unto perpetuity, in ultimate extension forever,
in contrast to the temporality and ineffectiveness of the
Jewish sacrifices. The finality and finished work of Jesus’
sacrifice is evidence by the fact that “He sat down at the
right hand of God.” As High Priest, Jesus had finished His
work (Jn. 19:30) and sat down in the Holy of Holies of God’s
presence. This was almost inconceivable to Jewish thinking
for they viewed God as an antagonist who was against them
because of their sins. They would even tie a rope around the
high priest’s leg to pull him out of the Holy of Holies of
the tabernacle/temple in case he should die in there while
performing his duties on the Day of Atonement. The
ever-enduring finished work of Jesus Christ allowed Him to
be exalted to the highest place of glory (Phil. 2:9-11) at
the “right hand of God” the Father, and to share His
authority. Christ is enthroned as the King-Priest in the
heavenly sanctuary, an image that Paul uses several times
(1:3; 8:1; 12:2; Eph. 1:20; cf. Mk. 16:19).
Christians who are “in Christ” are
“seated in the heavenlies” (Eph. 1:3; 2:6) with Him, and can
likewise “cease from their labors” in order to appreciate
God’s “rest” of grace (4:10,11). That is what Paul wanted
his readers to understand, appreciate and experience; rather
than reengaging in the repetitious, never-ending Jewish
practices and causes.
10:13
Thus seated at the right hand of God, our triumphant
Lord is “in the meantime waiting, “UNTIL HIS ENEMIES
ARE PUT AS A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET.’’ Drawing again
(1:3,13; 8:1; 12:2) from Psalm 110:1, Paul emphasized the
completion of Christ’s finished work (Jn. 19:30) by noting
that it transcends history and awaits ultimate consummation.
The triumph of Christus Victor5
is already complete, yet there is the anticipation of the
subjugation of all contrary powers and persons under the
authority of the triumphant Christ. Writing to the Ephesian
Christians, Paul explained that God “raised Him from the
dead, and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly
places, far above all rule and authority and power and
dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this
age, but in the one to come. And He put all things in
subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all
things…” (Eph. 1:20-22; cf. Col. 2:15). To the Corinthians,
Paul noted the yet awaited “end, when He delivers up the
kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all
rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He
has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that
will be abolished is death. FOR HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN
SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET” (Ps. 8:6) …And when all things
are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will also be
subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, that
God may be all in all” (I Cor. 15:24-28). The “already” and
the “not yet” of Christ’s triumph must be kept in Scriptural
balance.
The embattled recipients of this epistle
were caught in the enigma of the interim of the victory of
Christ. They were being bombarded by the principalities and
powers of religious and political dominion and authority.
Paul was warning them not to join the “enemies” who would be
ultimately defeated at the feet of Jesus Christ, and
encouraging them to participate in the peace and rest of the
eternally triumphant Lord.
10:14
The finality of Christ’s finished work objectively in
history (and beyond) is now applied subjectively in its
effects for Christians. “For by one offering He has
perfected unto perpetuity those being sanctified.”
Whereas Christ “abides as a priest perpetually” (7:3), and
“offered one sacrifice for sins unto perpetuity” (12), now
the Christian’s perfection in Christ is declared to be “unto
perpetuity;’ a permanent result that carries through
forever. There was no perfection of man under the law
(7:11,19; 10:1), and the old covenant worship could bring no
perfection of the conscience (9:9. Mankind can only be
brought to God’s intended objective in their lives by the
perfect sacrifice of Christ and the indwelling presence of
the Perfect One (2:10; 5:9, Jesus Christ. Thus perfected
(Phil. 3:15) in spiritual condition, as “the spirits of
righteous men made perfect” (12:23), Christians can “press
on towards perfection” (6:1) in behavioral expression. Just
as there is an “already” and “not yet” in Christ’s triumph,
there is an “already” of Christian perfection in spiritual
condition, and a “not yet” of perfect in behavioral
expression. Likewise, Christians have “already” been
sanctified (10) and set apart to function as God intended in
holiness, and “yet” are “being sanctified” in the process of
the progression of Christian growth (II Pet. 3:18), pursuing
sanctification (12:14) in the consistent expression of God’s
holy character in their behavior.
10:15
In this final subsection of the paragraph, Paul quotes
again (8:7-12) from Jeremiah 31 to connect the internalizing
provision of the new covenant with the absence of
sin-consciousness (2) and the abolishment of all Jewish sin
offerings (18). Adding to his Old Testament citations to
document his case for the superiority of the sacrifice of
Jesus, Paul writes, “And the Holy Spirit also witnesses to
us;…” Believing “all Scripture to be inspired by God and
profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and
for training in righteousness” (II Tim. 3:16), Paul also
understood the Holy Spirit to be the active divine agent who
utilized the Scriptures as an instrumental means to provide
an evidentiary witness to Christians (3:7; cf. I Thess.
1:5,6). This witness of the written revelation is not the
same as the personal revelation of “the Spirit bearing
witness with our spirit that we are children of God” (Rom.
8:16), but is the witness of the Spirit through Scripture.
10:16
The witness of the Spirit in Scripture is this:
“…for after having previously said, ‘THIS IS THE COVENANT I
WILL COVENANT TOWARDS THEM AFTER THOSE DAYS SAYS THE LORD:
GIVING MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEARTS, I WILL ALSO WRITE THEM
UPON THEIR MINDS,…’” Paul again (cf. 16,17) dissects
a text into two parts to make his point. The first part is
the quotation of Jeremiah 31:33 which explains that the new
covenant that will be made with God’s people after the old
covenant period, will not be an external codification of
regulations on “tablets of stone” (II Cor. 3:3), and
contained in external phylacteries (Matt. 23:5) on Jewish
foreheads, but God’s law which expressed His character will
be subjectively internalized in “human hearts” (II Cor.
3:3). The divine dynamic of God’s grace for manifesting the
character expression of law is received by Christians in
Christ. What God desires and wills (5) is inscribed in the
minds of Christians, for they have “the mind of Christ” (I
Cor. 2:16).
10:17
The second part of the sequence, from Jeremiah 31:34,
reads, “AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESSNESSES I SHALL
NOT AT ALL HAVE REMEMBERED.” In contrast to the
constant reminder of sins (3) in the Jewish sacrifices, the
new covenant does not foster sin-consciousness (2) and
condemnation (Rom. 8:1). The new covenant emphasizes
forgiveness and freedom, in a positive focus (12:2) on the
Savior, Jesus Christ, rather than on sin. Religious and
psychological techniques of introspection to become more
conscious of sins and sinfulness have no place in the new
covenant experience of Jesus Christ. Yes, there is a proper
place for “confession of sin” (I Jn. 1:9) that is brought to
our attention by the Holy Spirit, but not for a
guilt-producing preoccupation with sins and sinfulness that
results in a depressive confessionalism, rather than a
vibrant and intimate communion with Christ. How tragic that
even in so-called “Christian religion” many revert to
wallowing in sin-consciousness, and even accuse those who
point to the “finished work” of Christ in the new covenant
of a “triumphalism” that is not realistic.
10:18
“Now where there is forgiveness of these things,
(there is) no longer (any) offering for
sin.” In the inaugurated new covenant there is
pardon and release from sins and lawlessnesses (17). The
consequences of these are discharged and cancelled, allowing
the Christian to operate in freedom and liberty, with bold
(Eph. 3:12) and confident (3:6; 4:16; 10:35) access to the
presence of God (10:19,20). “There is no longer any offering
for sin,” for the offering was made finally and forever in
the death of Christ (12).
Paul wanted the Hebrew Christians in
Jerusalem to know that the repetitive offering of animal
sacrifices that were still taking place in the temple there
in Jerusalem were monotonous meaninglessness. Even the
offering of repetitive confessions for the absolution of sin
were of no value. It was extremely important that the
Jerusalem Christians repudiate all old covenant practices,
for to fail to do so was to deny the efficacy of Christ, and
for such apostasy “there no longer remains a sacrifice for
sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment” (26).
Concluding Remarks
In this extended passage (9:1 – 10:18)
Paul lays out his case for the singularity and finality of
the representative sacrifice of Jesus Christ – the only
means by which man’s sins are taken away, once-and-for-all.
The old covenant, with its sacrificial
worship practices, could not forgive sins (10:4,11); could
not cleanse a person’s conscience from the consciousness of
sin (9:9,10,13; 10:2); could not provide access to God, for
such was limited to the high priest once a year (9:7,25);
and could not perfect and sanctify man to function as God
intended (7:19; 9:9; 10:1). The singularly sufficient
sacrifice of Jesus Christ, on the other hand, does effect
redemption (9:12,15) and forgiveness of sins (9:26,28;
10:12,18); does cleanse man’s conscience internally (9:14)
so that there is no consciousness of sins (10:2,17); does
provide free access to God, unrestricted, direct, and
immediate (9:12,24; 10:19,20); and does perfect and sanctify
the believer (10:10,14) to be all that God intends man to
be.
The finality of Christ’s sacrificial
death signifies the end of all animal sacrifices (10:18).
His forgiveness of sins is such that these sins can forever
be put out of our remembrance, as they are from His
remembrance (10:17). The inauguration of the new covenant
signifies the complete abrogation of the old covenant (10:9)
– “Christ is the end of the Law” (Romans 10:4) – the shadow
gives way to the substance (10:1). Christ’s victorious
access to the Holy of Holies of God’s presence evidences
that God cannot be confined to any worship-box in any
religion, but has an “open-door policy” for all who will
approach Him through Christ (10:19).
What did this mean for the Hebrew
Christians in Jerusalem to whom Paul was writing? It was a
direct warning that to return to any involvement in the
Jewish worship practices would be a denial of Jesus. It
would necessarily indicate the apostasy of “standing away
from” Jesus, in repudiation of His singular sufficiency. It
would be to say that Jesus – His sacrifice, His life – was
not enough. Paul will proceed to explain the dire and
terrifying consequences of such a rejection.
FOOTNOTES
1
Bruce, F.F., Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Series: The New International Commentary on the New
Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1992. pg. 196.
2
Fowler, James A., The Blood of Christ. Fallbrook:
CIY Publishing Co. 1991.
3
Owen, John, The Death of Death in the Death of
Christ. London: The Banner of Truth Trust. 1963.
4
Bruce, op. cit., pg. 199.
5
Aulén, Gustaf, Christus Victor: An Historical Study
of the Three Main Types of the Idea of the Atonement.
London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. 1934.
JESUS: THE BETTER WAY OF
ACCESS TO GOD
Jesus, the “better priest” (7:1-28)
offered Himself as the “better sacrifice” (9:1–10:18),
providing the “Better Way of Access to God” through Himself.
This section of the epistle to the Hebrews is the logical
conclusion of the argument that Paul has made previously.
Paul transitions from instruction to application, from
exposition to exhortation, from the didactic to the direct
implications.
There are three (3) subsection paragraphs
within this direct exhortation. In the first section (19-25)
Paul encourages the Christians in Jerusalem to enter the
legitimate and certain access that they have to God’s
presence through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ,
using three (3) appeals to specific action (22,23,24).
Warning of divine judgment occupies the second section
(26-31), as Paul explains what his readers are in danger of
doing, and what the terrifying consequences of apostasy
might entail. In the third section (32-39), Paul returns to
encouragement by noting the prior hardships that the Hebrew
Christians had endured, and prods them to continue to
persevere through the trials.
Similarities with Paul’s previous
encouragement/warning statements (cf. 3:12-14; 6:4-8) are
evident.1
This is to be expected since the historical context of the
writing of this letter found the recipients in a very
perilous situation. They had previously been ostracized,
ridiculed, and publicly humiliated by their Jewish neighbors
(cf. I Thess. 2:14), for in becoming Christians they were
regarded as traitors to their Jewish heritage and religion.
These people had suffered persecution, physical abuse, acts
of violence, and the confiscation of their property. Then,
these same Jewish countrymen began to woo them, desiring
their assistance in the impending conflict of revolution
against Roman occupation. There was a strong pressure to
capitulate, to join the wave of nationalistic fervor, and to
fight for the Jewish faith and homeland. This would have
been the “easy way out,” to go with the flow of public
sentiment, to join the cause of insurrection, and to find
some temporary “acceptance” from those around them. But the
Hebrew Christians knew that such capitulation would be to
deny all they claimed to have in Jesus Christ. To “sell out”
in this way would be to “stand away from” Jesus Christ in
apostasy (“apostasy” is the transliteration of the Greek
word apostasia, meaning “to stand away from,” though
this word is not used in this epistle). To join forces with
the Jewish revolutionaries would be to repudiate their
Christian faith.
The temptation to give up and apostasize
was intense. This is evident in various words that Paul uses
throughout the letter. They were “sluggish” (6:12), and in
danger of “drifting away” (2:1), of “going astray” (3:10),
of “falling away” (3:12; 4:12; 6:6), and of “throwing away”
(10:35) all they had in Jesus Christ. Paul could sense that
they were “wearying” (12:3), “wavering” (10:23), and “losing
heart” (12:3); contemplating the “disobedience” (3:18;
4:6,11) of “shrinking back” (10:38,39) and “hardening their
hearts” (3:8) by “neglecting their salvation” (2:3). To do
so would be to “come short” of all that God had promised
(4:1; 12:15), and to suffer the terrifying consequences of
God’s judgment.
Perhaps still restricted and restrained
by the Roman authorities after being taken as a prisoner
from Jerusalem to Rome (Acts 28:17,30), Paul had a heavy
heart for his brethren back in Jerusalem. In this last-ditch
letter, he employs every means at his disposal to instruct
them about the “better things” they have in Jesus Christ,
and the superiority of the vital access they have to the
heavenly presence of God. Paul reminds them and praises them
for their past endurance (10:32-34). He chides them about
their seeming lack of maturity and stability (5:12–6:3), and
warns them of the precarious position they are in, even
threatening the terrifying consequence of everlasting
destruction (10:38,39) if they decide to reject and deny
Jesus Christ. Like a good lawyer, Paul argues his case from
every angle, trying to persuade the Hebrew Christians in
Jerusalem to stand firm in their faith in Jesus Christ.
“Don’t give up! Don’t go back! Don’t reject Jesus!”
10:19
This long, rambling sentence (typical of Paul – cf. Eph.
1:3-14) comprises the entire paragraph (19-25). It begins
with a connective review (19-21) of the previous explanation
of Jesus as priest, offering the single and final redemptive
sacrifice for sin, which allows for the Christians’
unhindered access to God.
“Having, therefore, brothers,
certainty unto the access of the Holies by the blood of
Jesus,…” Jesus is not ashamed to call us “brothers”
(2:11), and Paul identifies with his readers by recognizing
that they are “brothers” in Christ (3:1,12; 13:22) in the
family of God. His objective us to reiterate that by the
priesthood of Christ (21) and the sacrifice of Christ
(19,20), Christians have legitimate access to the Holy of
Holies of God’s presence. The verb “having” controls the
entire introductory phrase (19-21).
Instead of a subjective “confidence”
(35), Paul seems to be referring to the objective
“certainty” of the Christian’s having legitimate access, a
right-of-way of entrance to the heavenly sanctuary. To the
Ephesians, Paul wrote, “in Christ Jesus our Lord …we have
certainty and confident access through faith” (Eph.
3:11,12), “access in one Spirit to the Father” (Eph. 2:18).
Such right of entry to the Holy of Holies was inconceivable
to Jewish thought, as they still acted out the religious
motions of a temporary and mediated access to God through
the high priest in the Jerusalem temple once a year on the
Day of Atonement. To have direct and immediate access to God
– to have a real personal relationship with God in real
face-to-face worship – was beyond their wildest
imaginations. Yet, this is what Paul is telling the Hebrew
Christians they have by the instrumental means of “the blood
of Jesus” (9:12,14; 10:19,29; 12:24; 13:12,20), the
representative and sacrificial death of Jesus. Again
(9:12,14), there was no magical efficacy in the human blood
of Jesus, but by His voluntary death He vicariously and
substitutionally assumed the death that was the consequence
of mankind’s sin, removing the alienation between God and
man. “Christ died for sins one for all, the just for the
unjust, in order that He might bring us to God” (I Pet.
3:18).
10:20
This certainty of entryway into the Holy presence of
God is “a fresh and living way,…” The word
Paul uses for “fresh” often referred to a freshly-slain
animal sacrifice, but Paul’s intent was apparently to
indicate that the new way of access to God through Jesus
Christ was recent, unprecedented, and refreshing. In
addition, it was not the old death-dealing way of being held
at bay from God, as in the tabernacle/temple exercises, but
was a life-giving way that proceeded from death to life in
order to open a dynamic interaction with the living God
(3:12; 9:14; 10:31; 12:22). Jesus is in Himself, by means of
His priesthood and sacrifice, the “way” (Jn. 14:6) of access
to God, declaring, “No man comes unto the Father, but by Me”
(Jn. 14:6). Having life in Himself (Jn. 5:26; 14:6), Jesus
provides a way of access to God that allows a vital
relationship of living humanity with the Living God. Those,
other than the high priest on his annual visit, who entered
the Holy chamber of the tabernacle or temple met certain
death (Numb 4:20; 17:13). There was no “living way” of
access to God in the old covenant.
This new and living way of access to God
was the one “which He has initiated for us, through
the curtain, that is, (through) His flesh.”
The way of access to God was initiated (9:18), inaugurated,
dedicated, and made available, when Jesus was willing to go
“through the curtain,” the veil (6:19; 9:3). The curtain was
the means of access to God’s presence, but in Jewish thought
it was regarded as an obstacle or barrier, representing
hiddenness and inaccessibility. The barrier to open access
to God was that the death consequences of mankind’s sin had
to be taken and conquered. Incarnated in the flesh (2:14;
5:7; Jn. 1:14) as the God-man, Jesus was susceptible to
death, and “obedient unto death” (Phil. 2:8), to become the
sinless representative sacrifice who could take the death of
mankind upon Himself, and open the way to God’s presence.
“He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through
death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless
and beyond reproach” (Col. 1:22). The “blood of Jesus” (19)
and “His flesh” (20) both refer to the instrumental means by
which Jesus accepted sacrificial death in order to serve as
the forerunner that all Christians can follow directly into
intimate relationship and fellowship with God. This was
illustrated at the time of Jesus’ death by crucifixion when
the veil in the temple at Jerusalem was “torn in two from
top to bottom” (Matt. 27:51; Mk. 15:38) – which, by the way,
indicates that God did it, not man, in order to illustrate
His acceptance of Jesus’ death, and His open-door policy for
all who would come to Him through Jesus Christ.
10:21
The dual basis of our having access to God was
because Jesus was willing to be the sacrifice involving
“flesh” (20) and “blood” (19), while at the same time
serving as the priest who offered the sacrifice. “…and
(having) a great priest over the house of
God.” “We have a great high priest who has passed
through the heavens” (4:14). “A great priest” is just
another way of saying “a high priest,” and Paul has
thoroughly argued that Jesus is the High Priest “according
to the order of Melchizedek” (4:14-16; 5:11; 6:19,20;
7:1-28). Jesus’ high priesthood “over the house of God” may
refer to His eternal priesthood in the heavenly sanctuary of
God’s presence, or it may refer to the visible and earthly
counterpart of such, wherein the community of faith, the
church, is regarded as the temple (I Cor. 3:16; II Cor.
6:16) or the “household of God” (Eph. 2:19; I Tim. 3:15).
Since Paul referred to “Christ as a Son over His house,
whose house we are” (3:6) earlier in the epistle, and
nowhere else refers to heaven as the “house of God,” the
interpretation of “the household of God, which is the church
of the living God” (I Tim. 3:15) is preferable. We can be
certain that Paul was not referring to the temple in
Jerusalem as the “house of God,” for his objective is to
point out the inadequacy of that house, that priesthood,
those sacrifices, and that place of inaccessibility.
10:22
Based on the open access that Christians have to God
through the priesthood and sacrifice of Jesus Christ, Paul
makes three (3) appeals (22,23,24) using the “we should” or
“let us” verb form. Many commentators have noted that within
these three encouragements to action there is also the triad
of the themes of “faith” (22), “hope” (23), and “love” (24),
a triad that Paul seems to have been fond of (6:10-12; I
Cor. 13:13; Gal. 5:5,6; I Thess. 1:3; 5:8). One should be
cautious, though, of overemphasizing these three topics,
lest they diminish the appeals Paul is making.
Appealing to the responsibility that they
have as Christians, Paul enjoins, “Let us draw near
(to God) with a true heart in full assurance of
faith,…” Earlier Paul had written, “Let us draw near
with confidence to the throne of grace” (4:16), for “He is
able to save forever those who draw near to God through Him”
(7:25). Paul wanted the Judean Christians to utilize their
privilege of access and intimacy with God. This approach to
God in personal relationship needed to be done with a “true
heart” that was genuine, without pretence or divided
loyalties (the issue his readers were struggling with). The
new covenant in Jesus Christ changes hearts (8:10; 10:16),
but a continued loyalty of heart, rather than a “hardness of
heart” (3:8,15; 4:7), is still required. Jesus said,
“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God”
(Matt. 5:8). Loyalty and purity of heart is evidenced and
enacted “in full assurance of faith.” Previously, Paul had
encouraged his readers to be “diligent to realize full
assurance of hope until the end” (6:11). Here, he is
encouraging their confident access to God through faith in
Christ (Eph. 3:12); faith that is fully persuaded (cf. Rom.
14:5) of what Christ has done.
Access to God is also based on
“having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our
bodies washed with pure water.” In contrast to the
external sprinkling of blood (9:13,19,21) by the Jewish
priests, Paul is emphasizing the internal cleansing of the
conscience (9:14) whereby the Christians is no longer
burdened by guilt and consciousness of sins (10:2), but has
a subjective sense of pardon and peace in coming before God.
Reference to “our bodies washed with pure water” could be a
generalized parallel to the sprinkling of the conscience “by
the washing of regeneration, and renewing by the Holy
Spirit” (Titus 3:6), the “cleansing by the washing of water
by the word” (Eph. 5:26; cf. I Cor. 6:11; Rev. 1:5). On the
other hand, this may be a reference to the outward
expression of such inner cleansing, when their physical
bodies were overwhelmed in the water of baptism. Peter
refers to baptism as “not just a removal of dirt from the
flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience” (I Pet.
3:21). The early Christians looked at the event of their
water baptism as a decisive public confirmation of their
faith in Christ, and Paul is probably reminding the Hebrew
Christians of how that event fixed their identification as
Christians, especially in the eyes of their Jewish kinsmen.
10:23
Paul’s second appeal was, “Let us hold fast the
confession of our hope without wavering, for the One having
promised is faithful.” Because the Jerusalem
Christians were in danger of letting go of their faith and
hope in Christ, Paul repeatedly admonishes them to “hold
fast” (3:6,14) their confidence and hope until the end. In
like manner, he had encouraged the Corinthians to “hold
fast” to the gospel they had received (I Cor. 11:2; 15:2).
The “confession of our hope” is not just a verbal formula of
a baptismal confession or a creedal recitation, but is
inclusive of the Christian’s total agreement and concurrence
with the person and work of Jesus Christ, “who is our hope”
(I Tim. 1:1). Subjectively, Paul wants the Hebrew
Christians, who have been “born again to a living hope
through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (I
Pet. 1:3), to have a confidence expectation in God’s
continued grace to the very end (3:6; 6:11). His discourse
on faith (11:1-40) will begin with the statement, “Faith is
the assurance of the things hoped for” (11:1). The reason
the Christian can have a hope that does not waver, bend, or
vacillate, which can serve as “an anchor for the soul”
(6:19), is because there is nothing more stable, steadfast,
and unchanging (6:17,18) than the faithfulness of God to His
promises. God is faithful (I Cor. 1:9; 10:13; II Cor. 1:18;
I Thess. 5:24; II Thess. 3:3), reliable, and trustworthy in
every promise He utters (11:11). Our security and hope is
founded on God’s faithfulness, and every promise finds its
fulfillment in Jesus Christ (II Cor. 1:20).
10:24
The third appeal of Paul to the Hebrew Christians
pertains to their interactions with one another. “Let
us consider how to incite one another unto love and good
works,…” The Jerusalem Christians had cared for one
another (33), but Paul wants them to pay attention and be
mindful of the need to spur each other on – to prick, to
provoke, to “jab,” to “needle” (the English word “paroxysm,”
meaning “intension emotion or excitement” is a
transliteration of the word used here) one another about the
practicalities of mutual love and good deeds (to be
amplified in 12:14 – 13:21). Instead of the “dead works”
(6:1; 9:14) of religion, Paul wants His fellow Christians to
engage in “love and good works” among themselves. These
loving “good works, prepared beforehand that we should walk
in them” (Eph. 2:10), and for which we are “equipped”
(13:21) by the grace of God, are the outworking (James
2:14,26) of the life and love of Jesus Christ (I Jn.
4:7-21). Paul is advising the Hebrew Christians that they
are “in this (Him) together.” We need each other. We have a
collective responsibility to one another. The isolationism
and individualism of “lone ranger” Christians is not
compatible with the community of Christ.
10:25
For that reason, because we have a collective
responsibility to one another to arouse and stimulate to
interactive love and good deeds, we should “not
(be) forsaking the assembly of ourselves together, as
is the pattern of some,…” Apparently some of the
Christians in Jerusalem were withdrawing from Christian
fellowship, discontinuing their gathering together, and
abandoning or deserting their fellow Christians. Their
reasons for so doing are not given. They may have been
fearful, and decided to “go underground” in hiding. There
might have been personality differences or divisive
rivalries. They might have become disappointed by the delay
of Christ’s victory and second coming. Perhaps they decided
to “give up” in apathy or indifference, or worse yet, in
contempt and disregard for the things of Christ. Whatever
their excuses, Christian love demands that we be there for
the other, and any self-centered preoccupation that keeps
Christians from such mutual edification in “the upbuilding
of the Body of Christ in love” (Eph. 4:16) is a concern for
Paul, for he seems to regard such failure to participate as
a perilous prelude to apostasy.
Contrary to such self-oriented withdrawal
from fellowship, Paul wants the Christians to be
“encouraging (one another); and all the more,
as you see the day drawing near.” Mutual
encouragement (3:13) is a foremost purpose of Christian
assembly. We gather together for others, not just to
selfishly “get fed” with good instruction, or “get high” on
the emotional excitement of music or entertainment. The
interrelational function of the Body of Christ by the
spiritual giftedness of the Holy Spirit allows Christians to
serve one another in the new covenant community of faith. We
need each other, and the comforting encouragement of the
Holy Spirit (Jn. 14:16,26) through the other. The intense
importance of these relationships was “all the more,”
because the Hebrew Christians could observe an approaching
and impending “day drawing near.” The “day” that Paul is
referring to might have been “the Day of the Lord” (I Cor.
1:8; 3:13; I Thess. 5:4) when Jesus would “appear a second
time” (9:28). More likely, Paul was referring to the “day”
that was coming in “a very little while” (37), when the Jews
and Romans would meet in mortal conflict. The Christians in
Jerusalem could “see” that the winds of war were brewing,
the “day was drawing near,” the “day” (cf. Matt. 24:36,42;
Mk. 13:32) when the Lord would come in judgment through the
Roman army, in 66-70 AD, and destroy Jerusalem, the temple,
and the entire Jewish nation and religion. The old covenant
would “disappear” (8:13). It was inconceivable to Paul why
any of the Jerusalem Christians would be considering a
reversion to Judaism.
10:26
Making a direct connection to the foregoing peril of
“wavering” (23) and desertion (25), Paul begins this
paragraph, “For sinning deliberately after receiving
the full knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a
sacrifice for sins,…” The previous paragraph (19-25)
explained the response that Paul desired from the Christians
in Jerusalem, whereas this paragraph (26-31) warns of the
unacceptable response and the dire consequences of such.
F.F. Bruce is correct in his observation
that “this passage (26-29) was destined to have
repercussions in Christian history beyond what our author
could have foreseen.”2
Christians with differing theological presuppositions have
produced abstract theological arguments about Christian
permanency and impermanency in the broad theological systems
of Calvinism and Arminianism. Failing to appreciate the
dynamic of the living Savior in Christian salvation, such
arguments about permanency, security, preservation and
perseverance often arrive only at theological dead-ends of
static belief-systems. When they approach the text of
scripture with the pretext of bolstering their predetermined
presuppositions and premises, they find either a proof-text
for their position, or engage in bizarre interpretive
distortions of the text in order to deny what it states. How
tragic when theological commentators seek to protect and
preserve their presuppositions, rather than explain the
plain teaching of the scripture. They engage in eisegesis
(bringing ideas into the text), rather than exegesis
(determining the meaning out of the text).
Paul’s warning about “sinning
deliberately after receiving the full knowledge of the
truth” was made to the Christians in Jerusalem who had
received Jesus Christ (cf. Jn. 1:12,13), who is the Truth
(Jn. 14:6), and the full reality of spiritual life. Paul
explained to Timothy, “God our Savior desires all men to be
saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (I Tim.
2:3,4), and the Hebrew Christians had received such by
faith. References to the spiritual condition of the
Christians in Jerusalem could not be clearer in the
immediate context: They had “agreed with the hope that is
Jesus Christ” (23); their “hearts had been sprinkled from an
evil conscience” (22); and “their bodies had been washed in
the water” of baptism (22). They were “enlightened” (32)
with the Light of Christ, “sanctified” (29) by the Holy One,
and were regarded as “righteous ones” (38).
“Sinning deliberately,” whether
singularly or repetitively, is not a reference to general
(or specific) misrepresentations of God’s character in a
Christian’s behavior. “If we say we have no sin, we are
deceiving ourselves” (I Jn. 1:8). Every Christian sinfully
misrepresents the character of Christ in their behavior –
acting out of character in misrepresentation of their
identity as a Christ-one, a Christian, who is spiritually
united with Jesus Christ (I Cor. 6:17). Every Christian
often does so deliberately and willfully, because sinful
expression is a choice of the will. But the Christian knows
that “if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to
forgive us our sins” (I Jn. 1:9).
The historical and textual context of
Paul’s words indicate that by “sinning deliberately,” he is
referring to the specific and definite sin (or pattern
thereof) of deliberately rejecting and denying the person
and work of Jesus Christ. Some of the Hebrew Christians in
Jerusalem were on the brink of definitively repudiating and
renouncing the efficacy of the life and death of Jesus; of
denying and disavowing that Jesus was God’s Messiah and
Savior; and of regarding Jesus to be of no value. “Standing
apart from” Jesus in apostasy, intentional and contemptuous
desertion and defection from Christ and the new covenant
community of faith, is the particular willful sin that Paul
is referring to in this passage, just as it was in 3:12 and
6:4-8.
Such an interpretation of Paul’s words
admittedly impinges upon the theological presuppositions of
some Christians, whose doctrines of “eternal security” and
“once saved, always saved” disallow for any secession,
defection, desertion, or apostasy. We cannot avoid, however,
the obvious assertion that Paul refers to the possibility of
a Christian rejecting Jesus Christ in apostasy. Though most
genuine Christians find this unfathomable and unthinkable,
Paul does posit the possibility of such a terminal
repudiation.
When an individual departs from Jesus
Christ in apostasy, “there no longer remains a sacrifice for
sins.” Such defection is irremediable. Once apostasized,
always apostasized. There can be no “renewal of repentance”
(6:6), because the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for sin is
unrepeatable (9:26; 10:18). If one has received Christ and
then left Christ, there is nothing left to redeem him. They
have rejected and repudiated the only means of forgiveness
(18) from sin, and reconciliation with God. There are no
options beyond the singularly sufficient sacrifice of Jesus
Christ. G.W. Buchanan remarks,
“The once-for-all nature of Christ’s
sacrifice is like a two-edged sword. On the one hand, it
is so effective that it does not need to be repeated
(7:27), but, on the other hand, it cannot be repeated,
even if needed.”
3
10:27
The only thing the apostate can expect is “a
certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and THE ZEAL OF
A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES.” As Paul
will declare in the conclusion of this paragraph, “It is a
terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the Living God”
(31). The apostate can only expect the inevitable and
inescapable judgment of God, apart from Jesus Christ. In
this case (cf. 9:27), the divine assessment and evaluation
of judgment has terrifying consequences because God’s only
solution of eternal life in His Son, Jesus Christ, has been
rejected.
Paul quotes from Isaiah in describing
God’s judgment: “O Lord, Thy hand is lifted up, yet they do
not see it. They see Thy zeal for the people and are put to
shame; indeed, fire will devour Thine enemies” (Isa. 26:11).
Zephaniah also referred to the figure of devouring fire in
describing God’s judgment: “All the earth will be devoured
in the fire of his jealousy” (Zeph. 1:18). “The Lord our God
is a consuming fire, a jealous God” (Deut. 4:24), said Moses
(quoted by Paul in Hebrews 12:29). God is zealous and
jealous to manifest His character, and those who refuse to
accept Him through His Son, Jesus Christ (or subsequently
reject Him) are necessarily regarded as adversaries. “He who
is not for Me, is against Me” (Matt. 12:30; Mk. 9:40; Lk.
9:50; 11:23), Jesus said. Paul is warning the wavering (23)
Jerusalem Christians not to become adversaries of God
through apostasy, and suffer the irrevocable consequences of
God’s judgment.
10:28
Arguing from the lesser to the greater (cf. 2:2,3), Paul
sets up a comparative argument that contrasts the
consequences of apostasy in the old covenant (cf. Deut.
30:15-20) and in the new covenant. “Anyone setting
aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on (the
evidence of) two or three witnesses.” On
numerous occasions in the old covenant literature the death
penalty is assigned for violation or rejection of the Law of
Moses. To disregard or disobey the Law concerning idolatry
(Deut. 13:8,9; 17:2-7) or murder (Deut. 19:11-13), led to
death without pity (Deut. 13:8; 19:13) or appeal.
Unintentional violations of Law could be forgiven (Numb.
15:27-29), but deliberate and willful (26) defiance of the
law (Numb. 15:30,31) led to being cast out of the covenant
community. The evidence for such required the testimony of
“two or three witnesses” (Numb. 35:15,20; Deut. 17:6;
19:13,15,21), to avoid vindictive false accusations.
10:29
As Jesus is greater than Moses (3:1-6), the more serious
violation of rejecting Jesus Christ leads to a punishment
far worse than a physical death penalty. The greater
privilege demands a greater punishment. “How much
severer punishment do you think will be deserved for the one
having trampled on the Son of God,…” Paul uses a
triad of expressions that explain what apostasy involves.
First, it means bringing the One who is Highest to the
lowest position, whereby you “walk on Him,” and “grind Him
in the dirt.” With deliberate disdain, contempt, and scorn,
such an individual, who had confessed Jesus as the Messianic
Savior, now treats the Deity as dirt!
Continuing with his second explanation of
apostasy, “…and has considered as common the blood of
the covenant by which he has been sanctified,…” The
apostate considers the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, by
which the new covenant was established (20), and by which he
was set apart to be the bearer of the Holy presence of God,
to have no value or significance. The death of Jesus is
regarded as “nothing special,” just the historical execution
of another Jewish trouble-maker, another “bloody bore” of
Jewish history. To deliberately and defiantly regard the
sacred as profane, the Holy as common, the Word of God as
worthless, is indicative of the attitude of the apostate.
A third representation of apostasy:
“…and has insulted the Spirit of grace?” The Holy
Spirit, “the Spirit of grace and supplication” (Zech.
12:10), by whom one has been spiritually born (Jn. 3:1-8),
and without whom one is not a Christian (Rom. 8:9,16), and
through whom the living Lord Jesus is present and actively
expressing the grace of God (Acts 2:1-4; II Cor. 3:17) is
now arrogantly and contemptuously despised and scorned. Such
blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (cf. Matt. 12:31,32; Mk.
3:22-30) is indeed the “sin unto death” (I Jn. 5:16). The
apostate has so thoroughly rejected everything that God has
done in Jesus Christ, that he now calls good “evil,” truth
“a lie” (cf. Rom. 1:25), and Deity “demonic.” Such full and
complete rejection of the things of God is indicative of the
apostate, who will not be even slightly concerned with what
a “non-existent God” cares about his attitude.
10:30
Judgment of the apostate is certain, “For we have
known who it was that said, ‘VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL
REPAY.’” Quoting from Deuteronomy 32:35 (cf. Ps.
94:1,2), Paul reminds the Christians in Jerusalem that God
is just in vindicating the righteous and allowing vengeance
to be served upon the wicked. Paul quoted this same
statement (Deut. 32:35) in his epistle to the Romans
(12:19), emphasizing there that the enacting of vengeance or
judgment is God’s business, and not to be initiated by men,
even in the Christian community.
Continuing the citation from Deuteronomy
32:36, Paul wrote, “And again, ‘THE LORD WILL JUDGE
HIS PEOPLE.’” In Deuteronomy this appears to
indicate, “God will vindicate His people,” as in Psalm
135:14, but Paul seems to be using the text to refer to a
punitive judgment upon those who have been “His people,” and
have subsequently rejected Him.
10:31
Paul sums up the paragraph (26-31), “It is a
terrifying thing to have fallen into the hands of the living
God.” Though this verse has often been used, and
abused, as a heavy-handed warning to non-Christians, Paul’s
statement is in the context of a warning to the faltering
Christians in Jerusalem. It does not appear that Paul had
“written off” any of his readers as unsalvageable apostates,
but he was still hoping that they would avert the disaster
of God’s judgment by drawing near to God (22), holding fast
to their confession of Christ (23), and participating in the
community of faith (24).
10:32
In this third paragraph (32-39), Paul seems to cajole
the Jerusalem Christians by reminding them of their previous
fellowship and suffering, in order to use that as an
incentive to continued endurance to avoid the dire
consequences of defection and apostasy. “But remember
the former days, when, having been enlightened, you endured
a great struggle of sufferings,…” Paul wanted his
readers in Jerusalem to have a vivid recollection of the
early days after their conversion and spiritual
enlightenment. Some of them had been Christians for a long
time (5:12), perhaps for as long as thirty-five years, since
Pentecost (Acts 2:1-47). Paul was reminding them of the time
when they received Jesus Christ as “the Light of the world”
(Jn. 8:12; 12:35), when they “turned from darkness to light”
(Acts 26:18), when the light “shone in their hearts to give
the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face
of Christ” (II Cor. 4:6). “Having been enlightened, and
having tasted of the heavenly gift, and having been made
partakers of the Holy Spirit” (6:4), they had endured a
great struggle or striving or contest (the Greek word
athlesis is the basis of the English word “athletic”) of
sufferings. The early Christians in Judea suffered
persecution at the hands of the Jewish community, who
regarded them as traitors. Writing to the Thessalonians,
Paul referred to “the churches of God in Christ Jesus that
are in Judea who endured suffering at the hands of their own
countrymen, …from the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and
the prophets, and drove us out” (I Thess. 2:14,15). In the
Sermon on the Mount, Jesus had said, “Blessed are those who
are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs in
the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when men revile you,
and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you
falsely, on account of Me. Rejoice, …for your reward in
heaven is great” (Matt. 5:10-12). Paul reminds the
Christians of Judea of their past faithfulness and suffering
in order to encourage them to continue in the present,
difficult situation.
10:33
Some of their sufferings are recounted.
“…sometimes being made a public spectacle by defamations and
tribulations,…” It is always difficult to be
theatricized (the Greek word is theatrizomenoi) as a
public spectacle of ridicule, humiliation, and shame. Paul
knew what it meant to “become a spectacle to the world,
…fools for Christ’s sake” (I Cor. 4:9,10). The Christians in
Jerusalem had “borne the reproach of Christ” (11:26; 13:13)
in denunciation, defamation, and accusation. They had been
jeered, mocked, reviled, and ostracized from family and much
of society. The pressure was intense as they were afflicted
with acts of violence and physical abuse. Paul had explained
to the new Christians in Asia Minor, “Through many
tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:22),
and regarded such as “the fellowship of His sufferings”
(Phil. 3:10), the “filling up of what is lacking in Christ’s
affliction” (Col. 1:24).
The sufferings of the Jerusalem
Christians were “at other times, by having become
sharers with those being so treated.” They had stood
with those who were being mistreated, recognizing the
fellowship of being common partners and participants in the
Body of Christ. A strong sense of solidarity of
identification, association and community was evidenced by
this unity of the Church of Jesus Christ. Paul had explained
to the Corinthians, “If one member suffers, all the members
suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members
rejoice with it” (I Cor. 12:26). “We who are many, are one
Body in Christ” (Rom. 12:5).
10:34
Continuing his explanation of their solidarity and
suffering: “For you have sympathized with the
prisoners, and have accepted joyfully the confiscation of
your property,…” Jesus explained that a practical
expression of righteousness was visiting those in prison,
“for to the extent that you do so unto them, you do so unto
Me” (Matt. 25:36,40). Paul, himself, may have been a
prisoner in Rome when he wrote this epistle (Acts 28:17,30),
and could appreciate being visited in prison. Whether the
sympathy shown to those incarcerated in chains was to
fellow-Christians who had been imprisoned is not indicated,
but Paul commends them for such ministry, and encourages
them to continue to “remember the prisoners, as though in
prison with them” (13:3).
The Christians in Jerusalem had also
experienced the seizure and confiscation of their property.
Whether this was legal action by the authorities, or the
illegal action of pillage, plunder, stealing, looting, or
robbery by those opposed to the Christians, we are not told.
This may have been a contributing factor to the poverty of
some of the Christians in Jerusalem, which prompted Paul to
receive contributions for “the poor among the saints in
Jerusalem” (Rom. 15:26). Paul commends them for having
accepted this joyfully, i.e. without complaint. James, the
prior head of the church in Jerusalem, had previously
written, “Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you
encounter various trials” (James 1:2). His half-brother,
Jesus, had taught, “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures
upon earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves
break in and steal. But lay up for yourselves treasures in
heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where
thieves do not break in and steal; for where you treasure
is, there will your heart be also” (Matt. 6:19-21). The
earliest Christians in Jerusalem had acted on this material
detachment, and were “selling their property and
possessions, and were sharing with all, as anyone had need”
(Acts 2:45).
In accord with Jesus’ admonition, the
Christians in Jerusalem had suffered, “knowing
themselves to have in themselves a better and abiding
possession.” The qualification “in heaven” (KJV) is
not in the best Greek manuscripts, and detracts from the
immanency of what the Christian has in the indwelling
presence of Jesus Christ, but is valid, nonetheless, for the
Christian is a “citizen of heaven” (Phil. 3:20), and “seated
in the heavenlies” (Eph. 1:3; 2:6). The Christians in
Jerusalem knew that the real “treasure” was spiritual, not
material; both “an inheritance imperishable and undefiled,
reserved in heaven” (I Pet. 1:4), as well as the superior
and permanent “treasure” of the indwelling Spirit of Christ
(II Cor. 4:7). Such treasure cannot be seized or stolen; but
it is often the physical adversities that cause us to focus
on, and get a better perspective of, our imperishable
spiritual realities, as was apparently the situation with
those to whom this letter was written.
10:35
“Therefore,” in light of what you have
been through, “you should not throw away your
confidence, which has a great reward.” “Don’t give
up now! Don’t let your past suffering count for nothing!
Don’t jettison your courage and confidence and
steadfastness! Don’t cast off your faith in Jesus Christ!”
“God is a rewarder of those who seek Him” (11:6), Paul will
go on to say. Jesus had said, “Blessed are you when men hate
you, and ostracize you, and heap insults upon you, and spurn
your name as evil, for the sake of Me, …your reward is great
in heaven” (Lk. 6:22,23; Matt. 5:11,12). When salvation
(9:28) is consummated in the perfection of life in the
heavenly realm, Christians will recognize that “the
sufferings of this present realm are not worthy to be
compared with the glory that is revealed to us” (Rom. 8:18).
Such heavenly reward will not be anything other than, or
more than, Jesus Himself, but Christians will glory in the
everlasting appreciation and enjoyment of Jesus.
10:36
In order to experience this glorious heavenly
reality, Paul admonishes the Jerusalem Christians,
“you have need of endurance, so that, having done the will
of God, you may receive the promise.” Some of the
Christians in Jerusalem needed to recognize their
responsibility to persevere, to persist, to endure in the
midst of the present difficult situation. The Greek word for
“endurance” is hupomene, meaning “to abide under.”
Instead of seeking some way to escape or defer the problems
they were encountering, the Christians needed to “abide
under” the situation, trusting the sufficient grace of God
through faith. The patron saint of Jerusalem had written,
“The testing of your faith produces endurance” (James 1:3).
Paul is about to write his extended excursus on faith
(11:1-40), which will be followed by the conclusive words,
“Therefore, …let us run with endurance the race set before
us” (12:1), in like manner as Jesus “endured the cross,
despising the shame, and sat down at the right hand of the
throne of God” (12:2).
The Jerusalem Christians could
“accomplish the will of God” in their lives if they were
willing to be obedient in faith, receptive to the active
expression of the character of Christ in every situation –
even if that “will of God” meant being “obedient unto death”
(10:5-10; Phil. 2:8). By such “endurance” in “doing the will
of God,” Paul explained, “you shall receive the promise” –
the “better promises” (8:6), the “promise of an eternal
inheritance” (9:15), the better possession (10:34), “the
great reward” (10:35), the “crown of glory” (I Pet. 5:4),
“the salvation of your souls” (I Pet. 1:9), the “heavenly
city” (12:22; Rev. 21:2,10-27) – the very promises that many
heroes of faith sought (11:13,39), and are now ours
(realized and yet anticipated) through faith in Jesus Christ
(II Cor. 1:20).
10:37
The Old Testament scriptures were lodged in Paul’s
memory, and he quotes from them again to explain the “need
for endurance” (36). “FOR YET IN A VERY LITTLE WHILE,
THE ONE COMING WILL COME, AND WILL NOT DELAY.”
Quoting from the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint (LXX),
as he does throughout this epistle, Paul allows the words of
Habakkuk 2:3 to speak to the situation of the Jerusalem
Christians. The delayed consummation of Christ’s victory to
be revealed in the second advent created an “enigma of the
interim” for the early Christians, but Paul uses Habakkuk’s
words as his words to indicate that “the Coming One,” Jesus,
will come “in a very little while,” very soon, i.e.
imminently. This may refer to the “second coming of the
parousia, as in Revelation 2:25, “Hold fast until I come.”?
More likely, Paul is referring to the imminent coming of
Christ in judgment, when (perhaps within a year after the
receipt of this letter) the Romans came against the
residents of Palestine from 66-70 AD, destroying everything
and decimating the population. This is the same “coming of
the Son of Man” (Matt. 24:27,30,37,42) that Jesus referred
to in His Mount of Olives discourse (Matt. 24:3-45). Paul is
warning the Hebrew Christians again that judgment is coming,
and everything in the old covenant will “disappear” (8:13).
10:38
Paul continues to quote from Habakkuk 2:4, though
the two phrases are reversed. “BUT THE RIGHTEOUS ONE
WILL LIVE OUT OF FAITH;…” This is a favorite text of
Paul’s, which he quoted in his epistle to the Galatians
(3:11), as well as in the letter to the Romans (1:17). The
Jerusalem Christians are identified as “righteous ones”
(Rom. 5:19; I Cor. 1:30; II Cor. 5:21), who needed to
continue to “live by faith,” remaining receptive in faith to
the activity of the living Lord Jesus within them.
This responsibility of faithfulness is
contrasted, “AND IF HE SHOULD DRAW BACK, MY SOUL HAS
NO PLEASURE IN HIM.” Paul uses these words of
Habakkuk to continue his warning against defection,
desertion, and apostasy. The word for “draw back” was used
in the Greek language as a nautical term meaning, “to
shorten the sail.” The Christians in Jerusalem needed to let
the sails of their lives be open and receptive to the winds
of the Spirit of Christ, and if they were to “shorten sail”
in a withdrawal of faith, God would not be pleased. “Without
faith it is impossible to please Him” (11:6).
10:39
Not willing to give up on His Christian brethren in
Judea, Paul identifies himself with them and confidently
asserts, “But we are not those who draw back unto
destruction, but those who have faith unto the safekeeping
of the soul.” In a reverse form of encouragement,
Paul rallies his readers to deny that they are defectors and
deserters who are disloyal and draw back from faith in
Christ, to suffer the consequence of ruin and everlasting
death in “the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly
men” (II Pet. 3:7). Paul draws them into an identification
with “the faithful” who steadfastly endure in the faith that
relies on God whatever the circumstances – which unbeknownst
to them would become even more unpleasant and difficult in
the near future. Only in faithful receptivity to the
strength and life of the living Lord Jesus would they
experience the secure safe-keeping and preservation of
theirs souls in the eternal life of Jesus Christ, and the
privilege of enjoying all God’s promises (36). “God has not
destined us for wrath, but for the safe-keeping
(preservation) of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ”
(I Thess. 5:9).
Concluding remarks
A sense of heart-breaking agony can be
detected in Paul’s words as he expresses his deep-seated
desire that the Hebrew Christians might recognize and
realize the better way of access to God that they have in
Jesus Christ. There is an angst apparent in his appeals to
the battered brethren in Jerusalem, to “draw near to God in
faith” (22), to “hold fast their confession of hope” (23),
and to “incite one another to love” (24).
The real possibility of these Christians
lapsing into an irrevocable apostasy has presented a
perplexing problem for many Christians throughout the
centuries. Some have misused Paul’s comments to browbeat
fellow Christians into increased performance of piety in
order to avoid an alleged ever-present danger of damnation.
Others have struggled with, or denied, any possibility of
such apostasy, having adopted a static and determinative
structure of divine actuation.
Paul always maintains a balanced
perspective that takes into account the dialectic of God’s
sovereign activity and man’s responsibility of receptivity.
Divine grace and human faith connect for the implementation
of God’s intent on earth (Eph. 2:8,9). Paul affirms the
divine preservation of the Christian: “God…shall confirm you
to the end, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ”
(I Cor. 1:4,8). “He who began a good work in you will
perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus” (Phil. 1:6). “I am
convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to
Him until that day” (II Tim. 1:12). Simultaneously, Paul
explains the necessity of the Christian being faithfully
diligent in perseverance and endurance: “He has reconciled
you…in order to present you before Him holy and blameless
and beyond reproach – if indeed you continue in the faith
firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from
the hope of the gospel that you have heard” (Col. 1:22,23).
“If we endure, we shall also reign with Him” (II Tim. 2:12).
“You have need of endurance, so that when you have done the
will of God, you may receive what was promised” (Heb.
10:36). The balanced tension of God’s preservation by grace
and man’s perseverance in faith must always be maintained in
the same manner that Paul presents such.
Paul’s reference in the final two verses
to “the righteous ones living by faith” (38), and “having
faith to the safe-keeping of the soul” (39), serve as the
transitional springboard for the extended excursus on faith
that follows (11:1-40). The survey of the faithful of the
old covenant is intended to show the Jerusalem Christians
that despite the faith of the Old Testament figures, they
“did not receive what was promised” (11:39), whereas
Christians, by the “better things” in Christ, “may receive
what was promised” (10:36).
FOOTNOTES
1
cf. Lane, William L., Word Biblical Commentary:
Hebrews 9-13. Vol. 47B. Dallas: Word Books.1991. pgs.
296,297.
2
Bruce, F.F., Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Series: The New International
Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1992. pg. 258.
3
Buchanan, George Wesley, To the Hebrews. Series:
The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday and Co., Inc. 1981.
pg. 171.
Long known as “the faith chapter” of
the Bible and characterized as “God’s Hall of Fame” or
“The Westminster Abbey of Scripture,” this excursus on
faith has often been extracted from its historical and
textual contexts, disallowing and distorting the
emphases that Paul intended when he first penned this
letter to the Hebrew Christians in Jerusalem. Only
within its self-limiting contexts can we properly
understand the intertwining emphases of promise,
fulfillment, faith, hope, and endurance as they related
to the first century Christians of Palestine, and have
meaning by extended application to Christians of all
ages.
It does appear that Paul could have
proceeded directly from 10:39, “we are those who have
faith to the safe-keeping of the soul,” to 12:1,
“Therefore, …let us run with endurance the race set
before us.” Such a transition would have a logical flow
of thought. But Paul takes his transitional “key” from
the quotation of Habakkuk 2:4 in 10:38, “My righteous
ones shall live by faith” (a favorite text of Paul’s –
Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:13), and sets out to give a brief
description of faith along with an extended historical
review of such faith in the old covenant. The entirety
of 11:1-40 must be interpreted by this contextual
reference to Habakkuk 2:4 in 10:38. Otherwise, the
commentator runs amok by defining faith in accord with
his/her presuppositions and interpreting the text by
reading those biases into the meaning (eisegesis)
– a false pretext for reading the text outside of its
context.
Why does Paul utilize Habakkuk 2:4 to
connect with a review of the historical heritage of
faith in the old covenant? The revolutionary zealots
were demanding that the Hebrew Christians reconnect with
their historical Jewish heritage, and join them in their
military exploits to oust the Romans from their
homeland, thereby allowing the implementation of all the
divine promises for the Jewish people. Paul wanted the
Judean Christians to recognize that they were already
connected with the historic faith of their forefathers
by receiving the “better things” in Jesus Christ, that
the complete fulfillment of God’s promises are in Jesus
Christ (10:36; cf. II Cor. 1:20), and that their present
need was to respond with a forward-looking faith like
that of their Hebrew forebears, anticipating and
expecting the ultimate fulfillment of God’s promises as
they continued to remained faithfully steadfast in their
endurance of the present situation.
These exemplars or “heroes” of faith
that Paul mentions are intended to provide an exemplary
incentive (12:1) for the Jerusalem Christians to respond
in like manner. They needed to recognize and receive the
better promises of God (6:12; 8:6; 9:15; 10:36; 11:39)
that were expectantly anticipated in hope (3:6;
6:11,18,19; 7:19; 10:23; 11:1), but could only be
appropriated by a forward-looking faith (4:2; 6:12;
10:38,39; 11:1,6 et al; 12:2) that acted in persevering
endurance (10:36; 12:1-3,7).
The faith of the old covenant people
of God was established on the promises of God and the
faithfulness of the One who had promised (I Cor. 1:9;
10:13; Heb. 10:23; 11:11). Anticipating these promises
in hope required their endurance through many obstacles
and difficult circumstances, which Paul sets out to
review. Jewish eschatology involved a forward-looking
faith that sought the promises of God in a hope that was
ultimately focused on the coming Messiah. Paul
encourages the Jerusalem Christians to maintain a faith
that continues to be forward-looking to the future
fulfillment and restoration of all things in Jesus
Christ, “unto the end” (3:6,14; 6:11). Such a “theology
of hope”1 is a
continuing necessity for Christians, contrary to the
assertions of some full preterists who eschew all future
expectation of Christian hope. Paul connects Christian
faith and hope with its Jewish precedent, but
simultaneously explains that “God has provided something
better for us” (11:40) in the radically new
Christocentric object and dynamic of faith and hope.
Christian eschatology begins by looking back at the
historical establishment and basis of Christian faith
and hope in the “finished work” (Jn. 19:30) of Jesus
Christ, when (and where), by the death, resurrection,
and ascension of Jesus, the victory over the
counterforce of evil, sin, death and destruction, the
victory of God was won for eternity. This does not
consign Christian eschatology to only historical
categories, but grounds the “last” and final work of God
in Jesus Christ in the historicity of Jesus, allowing
Christian eschatology to develop a dynamic understanding
of faith and hope in the continuous present of the lives
of Christians in all ages. Christians are to have a
dynamic expectation of hope in God’s continued faithful
action in the present and unto the future. By a dynamic
receptivity of the activity of the living Lord Jesus
within, the Christian responds to God in faith, having
the divine dynamic provision of God’s grace to endure
and persevere whatever may transpire. There is no
promise in the Christian gospel of exemption or immunity
from the tribulations of life; of escape or deliverance
from problems, hardships, or disease; and no allowance
for inertia, inaction, passivism, resignation or
acquiescence. Christians are responsible to endure and
persevere in their faith – the very point that Paul
sought to drive home to the Hebrew Christians in
Jerusalem. The only alternative, in Paul’s mind, to such
faithful endurance that expected to receive the promises
of God in Jesus Christ was an abject apostasy that
absolutely rejected the Lord Jesus Christ (3:12; 6:4-8;
10:26-31,35-39).
Paul masterfully wove several
objectives into the argument that he employed in this
passage. [1] He wanted to connect the Jewish
Christians with their Jewish heritage of faith in a
recitative listing of historically attested examples of
promise, hope, faith, and endurance. [2] While so doing
he would contrast the unfulfilled promises
(13,39) of the old covenant with the better promises
(8:6) of the new covenant in Jesus Christ. He does this
by interspersing a commentary of interpretive analysis
within the review that posits the better city (10), the
better country (16), the better riches (26), the better
resurrection (35), and better provision (40) that are
eschatologically fulfilled in the new covenant. [3]
Throughout, his objective is to convince the
Hebrew Christians in Jerusalem to endure the trials that
were confronting them as the conflict with the Roman
army loomed on the horizon.
The entire recitation of the old
covenant heroes of faith is distinctively formulated in
a context of Jewish Christian thought patterns. The
Greeks regarded “faith” in opposition to reason. “Faith”
was the response of the simple and uneducated to what
could not be explained rationally and logically. Greeks
would have conceived of these old covenant characters as
“dupes of faith” or “fools of faith,” rather than
“heroes of faith.” They would have been intrigued, if
not astonished or appalled, at the willingness of Jews
and/or Christians to suffer adversity with an
unreasonable certitude in an indemonstrable cause. This
makes Paul’s comment all the more pertinent when he
wrote, “He who comes to God must believe that He is, and
that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him” (6).
A structural outline of this chapter is somewhat
difficult to formulate, but the following points serve
to provide a functional structure:
I. Concise description of faith –
1,2 (6)
II. Chronological review of faith – 3-31 (32)
III. Contextual experiences of faith – 32-38
IV. Conclusive incentive to faith – 39,40
11:1 Transitioning to
continue the theme introduced by the quotation of
Habakkuk 2:4 in 10:38, Paul begins, “Now faith is
the substantiation of things being hoped for,…”
Paul is not attempting to formulate a formal definition
of faith, but rather to provide a functional description
of the faith required by the Jerusalem Christians in the
context of the situation confronting them. This is
sometimes called a “working definition.” The Hebrew
Christians needed faith that would endure the pressures
and persecutions of their present problems, until such a
time that their hopes would be realized in the peaceful
fulfillment of the promises of God, whether in this life
or beyond. Instead of defining faith as an exact
equation of essential equivalence to a particularly
defined static idea or concept, Paul is describing faith
as the dynamic means of forward-looking action that
anticipates the fulfillment of divine promise.
In contrast to the rejection of
Christ in apostasy (Greek apostasis – “to stand
away from”), the Jewish Christians needed a faith that
would culminate in the “substantiation” (hupostasis
– “to stand under”) and actualization of all the things
they were looking forward to in Jesus Christ. The word
Paul uses (hupostasis) can be interpreted
subjectively as an “understanding” or realization of
confidence and assurance (3:14), or objectively as the
substantive essence (1:3) that constitutes the
underlying foundational support and groundwork of
promised expectations. Rather than encouraging an
internal and psychological feeling of assurance, it is
more likely that Paul is indicating that the faith of
the embattled Jerusalem Christians should/would look
forward to and lead to an objectively existent and
secure fulfillment of everything hoped for in Jesus
Christ. This is all the more likely since the Hebrew
word for “faith,” used in Habakkuk 2:4, from which Paul
had just quoted in 10:38, and was using as the
springboard for his argument, is emunah, which
refers to established firmness, solidity and stability.
This certainly corresponds with the objective
interpretation of faith as forward-looking action that
expects the firm foundational substance of the
subsequent fulfillment of all Christian hope in the
“finished work” of Jesus Christ.
It must be noted, however, that
personal faith does not create the substantive reality
hoped for. Faith does not give substance to that which
does not exist. Christian faith is not “positive
thinking” or “possibility thinking” that allegedly
brings into being its own object of concern. Rather,
Christian faith looks forward with the confident
expectation of hope to the substantive actualization and
materialization of what God has promised, and what God
will faithfully fulfill. It was this objectification of
faith that the Greeks could not conceive of with their
subjective understanding of faith as “wishful thinking.”
Neither could the Greeks have
understood faith as the means to proving “the
certainty of things not seen.” Again, the word
Paul uses, elengchos, can be subjectively
interpreted as an inner conviction or convincing of
certainty, or objectively explained as the evidence,
proof, and demonstration that exposes the certainty of
that which is looked for, but not seen. The pragmatic
(Greek word pragmaton) practicalities of the
events and realities that were not yet observable with
the sense perception of physical sight would be
demonstrated and proven by the objective fulfillment of
God’s promises.
Paul’s mention of “things not seen”
is not a metaphysical reference to mystical intangibles.
Paul is not indicating that faith itself can make
invisible things visible in some magical manifestation.
Nor is he promising that unseen spiritual realities can
be made to seem as real (subjectively) as those observed
with physical eyes. The “things not seen” refer to
future promised events and situations, the fulfillment
of which was not yet in sight. Paul was still
encouraging the Judean Christians to a forward-looking
faith that could endure the then present observable
situation that appeared quite bleak. Their enduring
faith would lead to an obviating demonstration of the
certainty of all that God had promised in Jesus Christ.
Believing in the certainty of God’s faithfulness to His
promises would serve to set aside the subjective
uncertainty and paranoia that plagued some of the
Christians in Jerusalem. Their faith would be proven
valid in the demonstrable evidence of events and
realities that, though not seen now, would be made
visible and real in the fulfillment of God’s promises.
Promise will become reality; hope will become
experience; faith will become sight. In the meantime,
faith acts (cf. James 2:14,16,20,26) with a certitude
that expects the certainty of “things not seen” to be
made visible in the future in accord with God’s
promises. Such enduring action of faith is what Paul
sought to motivate the Jerusalem Christians to maintain.
11:2 Paul commences to
connect this “working definition” of faith with the
Jewish forefathers (1:1) who were rightfully revered by
the Jewish Christians. “For by it the men of old
have received witness.” By their enduring faith
that looked forward to substantive and visible
fulfillment of God’s promises, the elders (Greek word,
presbuteroi), the “old ones,” the ancients from
earlier generations, the Jewish forefathers whom Paul
will begin to chronologically review in the subsequent
survey (11:4-38), received the witness of God’s
attestation and commendation of their faith in the
fulfillment of His promises. The fact that Paul begins
(2,4,5) and ends (39) this extended passage with
reference to the divine commendation of faith, reveals
that his intent was to motivate his readers to the
endurance of faith that would receive God’s
commendation, “Well done, good and faithful servant”
(cf. Matt. 25:21,23).
11:3 Prior to his survey
of forward-looking faith in the old covenant people of
God, Paul briefly mentions the backward-looking faith
that accepts the creative work of God without the
benefit of having observed such divine action with the
sense perception of physical sight. Mankind was not
present to observe most of the creation event. Since the
creative acts of God described in Genesis 1 and 2
preceded the first case-study of Abel in Genesis 4, Paul
includes faith in the past acts of God’s creation as
well as the historical acts of God in the lives of the
Hebrew faithful.
“By faith we have comprehended
the universe to have been ordered by a word of God.”
God asked Job, “Where were you when I laid the
foundation of the earth! Tell Me, if you have
understanding” (Job 38:4). Job needed the same kind of
enduring faith that the Jerusalem Christians needed, the
faith that trusted the acts of God in the past, present
and future. Paul explains that it is via faith that we
comprehend and understand with our minds (the Greek word
for mind is nous, and the word for “comprehended”
is nooumen) the evidence of God’s creative acts
in the past. Faith is not a blind leap of conjecture or
presumption, but is a mental and volitional act based on
objective evidence. Looking at the created order, honest
searchers after truth can see a power, if not a Person,
who brought the universe into being with “intelligent
design.” Writing to the Romans, Paul explained the
natural revelation of God in the universe, “since the
creation of the world, His invisible attributes, His
eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen,
being understood through what has been made” (Rom.
1:20).
It is only by means of faith that we
understand that the ages, the aeons, the entire
space/time context of the universe, was formed, framed,
ordered, prepared, and arranged by God. It is
interesting that Paul does not use the usual word for
“create” (Greek, ktizõ), but instead uses the
word katartizo, meaning “to prepare” (10:5), “to
equip” (13:21), to form, order, or arrange. This may
have been based on the Hebrew use of bara for
“create” (Gen. 1:1,21,27), and yatsar for the
forming, fashioning, framing, and molding of preexisting
materials (Gen. 2:7,8,19). This latter process of
formation is explained in the Genesis account as “God
said…” (Gen. 1:3,6,9,11,14,20,24,26). This speaking
things into being in the formation and arrangement of
the creative process seems to be what Paul is referring
to by his reference to the universe having been ordered
“by a word of God.” The psalmist wrote, “By the word of
the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of His
mouth all the host. …For He spoke, and it was done; He
commanded, and it stood fast” (Ps. 33:6,9). Asaph’s
Psalm explained, “Thou hast prepared the light and the
sun. Thou hast established all the boundaries of the
earth” (Ps. 74:16,17), obviously referring to the
Genesis account, “And God said, ‘Let there be light…’”
(Gen. 1:3). The universe was formed and ordered by the
utterance of the Creator God brining things into being
and arrangement out of Himself (ek Theos). “Word
of God” does not refer to scripture, nor is it a
Christological reference to Jesus as the “Word of God”
(Jn. 1:1,14). The word for “word” used in this verse is
rhema rather than logos. Because of recent
misrepresentations of God’s creative acts, it must be
noted that God did not create and fashion the universe
by employing some “law of faith” or speaking a “word of
faith;” utilizing a proceduralized formula or technique
which can then be exercised by others to create
supernatural phenomenon also. Faith did not create
anything – God created all things! Faith is not
predicated of God, but is a personal responsibility
(response-ability) of man – not a God-given commodity or
God-effected response (despite misinterpretations of
Eph. 2:8,9 and Gal. 2:20) – allowing man to respond to
God by recognizing His past creative acts, His present
sufficiency, and His future consummation of all things.
Our faith is not in faith principles, but in God
Himself!
The result of comprehending the
creative arrangement of the universe spoken into being
by God’s power is that we then understand “the
things being seen to have been brought into being not
out of things appearing.” This phrase might have
been a precautionary clarification of the creative
process spoken of in the previous phrase, or it might be
a transitional statement that links faith in the “things
being seen” in creation to faith in “things not seen”
(1,7) in future events – the content of the following
argument.
If Paul was attempting to clarify by
making a parallel restatement or amplification of his
comment on God’s creative formation of the universe, his
words have certainly been interpreted in a morass of
ambiguity that is anything but clear. It has been
suggested that Paul’s statement about “the universe
being arranged by God’s utterance” could have been
misconstrued by Greek philosophy that posited the
eternal existence of matter and nature, and regarded
this formless, primal matter to have phenomenalized
itself into arrangements of various forms by natural
processes. Is Paul correcting this naturalistic view of
the evolution of rearranging or restructuring material
particles into various observable phenomena by stating
that the physically observable order was made by that
which is not physical material, i.e. that creation
points to a Creator, an invisible God who created all
things visible? The Greeks explained the origin of
everything as ek phainomenõn, “out of existent
phenomena,” and the emphatic part of Paul’s statement is
that what we see has been brought into being me ek
phainomenõn, “not out of phenomena.” Was Paul
emphasizing that visible created objects were not
brought into being by created objects, for this leads to
the idolatrous worship of the creation (Rom. 1:25)? Was
Paul attempting to affirm that the visible creation was
brought into being not out of visible material (ek
phainomenõn), but out of God (ek Theos), the
invisible, immaterial God who is Spirit (Jn. 4:24), who
created all things out of His own power and Being (cf.
Rom. 11:36; I Cor. 8:6; 11:12). Such a denial of the
pre-existence and auto-generation of natural matter
would necessarily deny the Greek philosophies, as well
as naturalism, radical dualism, monistic pantheism, and
a multitude of other pernicious man-made theories of
origin and sustenance of the universe. But Medieval
theologians were fearful that the idea of creation ek
Theos would foster a monistic pantheism by failing
to differentiate the creation from the Creator if the
Creator was thought to have created a phenomenalization
that was essentially Himself in visible forms. Failing
to recognize that the invisible Creator could (and did)
create visible phenomena that were not Himself, the
greater creating the lesser, the church theologians used
this very phrase to espouse a doctrine of creation ex
nihilo (Latin phrase, meaning “out of nothing”). To
counter the Greek thought of creation ek phainomenõn,
the traditional explanation of the Christian church has
been creation ex nihilo – a concept that is not
necessarily Biblical, even though they have used this
verse to document their thesis by interpreting “not
appearing” as “not existent,” i.e. nothing. The
apocryphal account of a mother trying to convince her
son “to look at the heaven and the earth and see
everything that is in them, and recognize that God did
not make them out of things that existed” (II Macc.
7:28) is the only plausible basis for the creation ex
nihilo doctrine.
In addition to all such theological
obfuscation of the process of creation from this phrase,
the religious mystics have taken these words out of
context to document their convoluted concepts that are
often akin to monistic pantheism. “What is visualized is
brought into being and created out of the
non-phenomenal.” “By faith we noumena that
phenomena are but manifested pneumena.” The
Mind-Science advocates and the New Age devotees often
interpret this phrase to mean that “visibility is
brought into being out of the invisibility of the
metaphysical materializing of phenomenality” – whatever
that means!
It seems most likely that Paul was
using this statement as a connective phrase to return to
his main theme of faith that endures to see the
fulfillment of God’s promised action. These words are
best understood as drawing together the fleeting
reference to faith in the unseen creative acts of God
(3a), to the faith of the Jewish forebears (4-38) who
experienced the promised acts of God in their lives, and
that with the objective to encourage the Jerusalem
Christians to anticipate the unseen acts of God that
were yet future in their lives. If the “things not seen”
in the working definition of faith in verse 1 referred
to events in time which were not yet visible in physical
sight (cf. previous comments), an interpretation
verified by reference to Noah and “things not yet seen”
in the events of the flood (7), then the “things seen”
in this phrase (3) are likely to refer to the creative
events at the commencement of time, rather than to
physical created and visible objects. G.W. Buchanan
notes,
“The author’s concern for the unseen
was not primarily that which was invisible or
intangible, but that which was future, that which had
not yet happened. It was a concept of time, rather than
of substance or essence.”2
The creative events enacted by God’s
utterance at the beginning of time were instrumentally
and causally brought into being by the non-phenomenal,
immaterial, invisible God of the universe. In like
manner, the historical events in the lives of the old
covenant faithful (which Paul will go on to review) were
brought into being by the power of God in fulfillment of
His promises. And this was all directed to the
Christians of Jerusalem to provide an anticipation of
the events yet to come in time which would be brought
into being by the God who is faithful to His promises,
as they endured in their receptivity of faith to God’s
continuing grace activity.
11:4 Paul begins his
review of old covenant personages who exemplified faith
to one degree or another. These people were not perfect.
There are adulterers, murderers, drunkards, prostitutes,
and cowards in the list. It has been suggested that this
survey of the exemplars of faith could be alternatively
viewed as a “rogue’s gallery.” But these persons
exemplified faith in particular situations despite their
faults, and Paul considered them worthy of comment on
their faithfulness.
“By faith Abel offered to God a
better sacrifice than Cain, through which he has
received witness to be righteous, God witnessing about
his gifts, and through it, having died, yet he speaks.”
Based on the account in Genesis 4:4-8, Paul comments on
Abel, the younger son of Adam and Eve’s first two sons.
There were a number of interpretive traditions that
arose over the ages concerning why Abel’s animal
sacrifice was better than Cain’s produce sacrifice, and
how that acceptability was made known to them. Was the
difference in the quality of the sacrifice, the manner
of the sacrifice, or the attitude of the sacrificers? We
can only speculate on the answers to some of these
questions. What we do know is that the sacrifice of Cain
was regarded as unacceptable (Gen. 4:5), and that he was
unwilling to “do right” (Gen. 4:7). Cain’s “deeds were
evil” because he was deriving “out of the evil one” (I
Jn 3:12), the personified sin who was “crouching at the
door” (Gen. 4:7). On the other hand, the sacrifice of
Abel God regarded as acceptable (Gen. 4:4), and Abel was
commended by God for his righteousness. Jesus referred
to Abel as “righteous Abel” (Matt. 23:35), and John
writes that Abel’s deeds “were righteous” (I Jn. 3:12).
The connection of faith and righteousness (10:38; Hab.
2:4) is still on Paul’s mind, but he does not divert to
explain that new covenant righteousness is only the
result of the Righteous One, Jesus Christ (I Jn. 2:1; I
Cor. 1:30) manifesting His righteous character in the
Christian. Rather, in accord with old covenant criteria
of righteousness, God commended Abel’s right attitude of
faith that led to right action, and God’s testimony of
such in Genesis 4:4-8 allows Abel’s faith to continue to
be a testimony, despite the fact that he was murdered by
his brother and became the first martyr to die for doing
right. Some have interpreted Abel’s continued speaking
to be Abel’s blood crying from the ground for
vindication (Gen. 4:10), and later in the epistle Paul
does state that the “blood of Jesus speaks better than
the blood of Abel” (12:24), but it seems more likely
that Paul is explaining in this context that Abel’s
faith continues to have a posterity of divine
attestation through the approving commendation of God’s
witness to such in Genesis 4:4-8.
11:5 Paul’s second
faith-witness is Enoch. “By faith Enoch was
removed not to see death, and he was not found because
God removed him, for before his being removed he had
received witness to have been pleasing to God.”
Enoch is another briefly mentioned figure of the Old
Testament, concerning whom there were many traditional
additions of interpretive data. In the brief passage of
Genesis 5:21-24, the Hebrew text indicates, “Enoch
walked with God” (Gen. 5:22,24), whereas the Greek text
of the Septuagint (LXX) reads, “Enoch was
well-pleasing to God” (Gen. 5:22,24). As usual in this
epistle, Paul works from the Greek text, and mentions
that Enoch had received the divine commendation on his
faithfulness as being “well-pleasing to God” prior to
his being removed, lifted up, or translated into another
realm without seeing death. The details of Enoch’s
removal without death are sketchy, and many apocryphal
accounts were written to fill in the details. Sirach
49:14 states, “No one like Enoch has been created on
earth, for he was taken up from the earth.” The removal
of Enoch without experiencing death was a phenomenon
that stood out in the minds of the Jewish people. As
they read the narrative of the descendants of Adam in
Genesis 5 there was a repetitive statement, “and he
died” (Gen. 5:5,8,11,14,17,20,27,31), and the sole
stand-out was Enoch who “was not found because God
removed him” (Gen. 5:24 – LXX). The majority of
people are called upon to endure in faith until they
die, but Enoch enjoyed a longevity of being
well-pleasing to God in his faithful endurance for 300
years (some of us have a tough time making 30 years),
and was apparently miraculously removed from the earth.
This should not be construed as a “type” of rapture, or
as a mystical representation of Christian death, but
merely as the historical reward of his well-pleasing
faith. It is clear throughout Scripture that God is not
pleased by man’s “works” of righteousness, but only by
faith that allows God to do what He wants to do (cf.
Isa. 64:6; Phil. 3:8,9; Gal. 3:11-14), and that the
divine commendation is based on such faithful
availability.
11:6 Following up on
Enoch’s being “well-pleasing to God,” Paul inserts
another statement that explains and describes the
forward-looking faith that he was encouraging the
Jerusalem Christians to participate in. “And
without faith it is impossible to please (Him), for the
one coming before God must have believed that He is, and
that He becomes a rewarder of those seeking Him.”
Without faith, like that exemplified by Abel (4) and
Enoch (5), it is impossible to live righteously or to be
well-pleasing to God. Paul wanted his readers to aspire
to such righteousness and divine pleasure, looking
forward expectantly in faith to the reward of the
fulfillment of God’s promises, despite what might
transpire physically. Abel was martyred. Enoch was
translated. Both lived by faith (10:38) and were
well-pleasing to God. Whether the Christians in
Jerusalem were killed or delivered, martyred or removed
in the soon coming conflict, they would still receive
their heavenly reward if they would continue to exercise
anticipatory and enduring faith, and not reject Jesus
Christ. “Without faith it is impossible to please Him,”
but the ultimate pleasure of God is not in the faith
action itself, but in the fact that faith allows God’s
grace action to manifest His character and work. In his
benedictory remarks, Paul prays that the Hebrew
Christians will allow God “to equip them in every good
thing to do His will, working in them that which is
pleasing to His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be
the glory forever and ever. Amen” (13:21).
Still attempting to encourage the
Hebrew Christians to “draw near to God” (4:16; 7:25;
10:1,22; 12:18,22), Paul notes that “the one coming
before God” or approaching God, must believe in the
existence of God, that He is who He is, and that He is
faithful (11) to reward (10:35) those who keep on
seeking Him with all the eternal promises (6:12; 9:15;
10:36). Although the words of this verse have been used
as an evangelistic call to unbelievers, the context
clearly indicates that Paul is referring to Christians
who are being encouraged to dynamically approach God and
to seek God’s action and fulfillment in their lives.
Such a relational faith and a forward-looking faith
would prove to be the ultimate fulfillment and
restoration of the Christians in Jerusalem and the
Christians in every age. The words of the psalmist are
appropriate: “Those who seek Him will praise the Lord.
Let your heart live forever” (Ps. 22:26).
11:7 Noah is selected as
the first in a sequence of Old Testament personages
whose faith responded to a divine directive. “By
faith Noah, being warned about things not yet seen, in
reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his
household,…” Though the narrative in Genesis
6:13-22 does not refer to Noah’s faith explicitly, Paul
surmises such since “Noah found favor (was pleasing) in
the eyes of God” (Gen. 6:8) and was regarded as “a
righteous man” (Gen. 6:9). Without faith it is
impossible to please God (6) and be a righteous man
(10:38; Hab. 2:4). Noah was warned by God concerning
“things not yet seen” (1,3), events still in the future,
i.e. God’s coming judgment and destruction in the deluge
of the flood. Noah believed in the existence of God (6),
that God was in control of history, that God could
reveal His intents, and that God would reward (6) those
who responded to Him in faith. In the reverence of a
godly fear that was attentive to God’s direction, Noah
prepared an ark according to God’s detailed
instructions. The ark served as a vehicle of safety for
the escape and deliverance of his household, his family
members, from the floodwaters. The “salvation” referred
to is not the spiritual or regenerative salvation from
sin and death that is in Jesus Christ alone, but the ark
was the vessel by which they were “made safe” from the
destruction of the flood. Peter connects the safety of
the ark to the saving significance of Jesus Christ: “In
the days of Noah …eight persons were brought safely
through the water. And corresponding to that, baptism
now saves you…” (I Pet. 3:20,21). “God preserved
Noah…when He brought a flood upon the world of the
ungodly” (II Pet. 2:5).
The consequence of Noah’s faith
action in constructing the ark was that “through
this he condemned the world, and became an heir of the
righteousness which is according to faith.” The
people surrounding Noah were, in contrast to Noah’s
faith, condemned in their unbelief. One can only imagine
the mockery, scorn and ostracism of those who observed
the apparent foolishness of “nutty Noah” building a boat
on dry land. Noah’s faith endured and prevailed as he
expected and experienced the events God had foretold,
and it was his detractors who experienced “the vengeance
of God because of their wickedness.”3
Though Noah was previously regarded as “a righteous man”
(Gen. 6:9), his faith action in building the ark
qualified him as “an heir of the righteousness which is
according to faith.” Noah is commended for his faith
obedience to God’s revelatory directions concerning
future events.
The Jerusalem Christians were being
encouraged to have the same kind of enduring faith as
that exhibited by Noah. There was a destructive judgment
coming against those who would not believe in God’s
revelation of Himself in His Son, Jesus Christ. The
Christians of Judea needed to prepare for this coming
catastrophe by having faith in “things not seen”
(1,3,7), despite any scornful opposition around them.
Their faith would likewise prove to be a condemnation
upon the unbelieving world of their fellow countrymen.
11:8 Paul now commences
his extensive coverage of the faith of Abraham (8-19).
Approximately one-third of the text of this chapter is
devoted to Abraham. This is no doubt because those of
Hebrew origin regarded Abraham to be the “father” of the
Jewish religion (Jn. 8:33,39). Stephen’s defensive
review before the Jewish Council began with Abraham
(Acts 7:2-8). Paul had previously used Abraham as the
springboard for discussion of faith in his letters to
the Galatians (Gal. 3:6-18) and to the Romans (Rom.
4:1-23). Even in this epistle, Paul had previously
referred to Abraham (2:16; 6:13,14; 7:1-10).
“By faith Abraham, having been
called, obeyed to go forth unto a place which he was to
receive for an inheritance, and he went out, not knowing
where he was going.” Abraham responded by
believing (Gen. 15:6) in God’s promises of a place
(8-10; 13-16) and a progeny (11,12; 17-19). God called
him to go to an unknown land (Gen. 12:1; 15:7), a
destination and destiny “not yet seen” (1,3,7). With
forward-looking faith Abraham “listened under” God in
obedience (cf. Gen. 26:5), and his faith was put into
action as he set out on a journey to the unknown place.
Faith is not just theoretical trust, but active advance
toward what God has promised. Abraham did not know where
he was going. He had no map with an itinerary. He had no
advance reservations. A sense of security in our faith
is not based on knowing where we are going, but on
knowing Him who called us to go, and being willing and
flexible to allow Him to take us through the turns and
detours and reversals. The place that Abraham was called
to receive as a promised inheritance is referred to as a
“land” (9), a “country” (14), and a “city” (10), even
though the ultimate destination was not a geographical
place. Abraham was faithful to go the place of Canaan
(Neh. 9:7,8) that was a prefigurative portion of the
promised inheritance (Ps. 105:11), but this was not the
intended inheritance of God for Abraham never owned “a
foot of ground” (Acts 7:5) in that geographical land.
Faith is not sight, and the Christians of Jerusalem
needed a similar forward-looking faith that responded to
God’s calling in obedience, awaiting an eternal place of
inheritance which was “not yet seen” (1,3,7) or visible.
11:9 “By faith he
(Abraham) sojourned unto a land of promise, as in
a foreign land, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob,
fellow-heirs of the same promise.” Abraham lived
as a pilgrim, a nomad, a transient, a migrant, a
temporary resident alien when he lived in various places
in Canaan. He was a foreigner in a foreign land, for he
did not possess any real estate (Acts 7:5) in Palestine,
except for the purchase of a burial plot for his wife
(Gen. 23:1-20). Canaan was not the ultimate “land of
promise” that fulfilled the promises of God, but was
only the “shadow-land” that prefigured the real
“promised land.” Isaac and Jacob were also migratory
wanderers and pilgrims dwelling in tents in a nomadic
and impermanent existence. They were all unsettled
sojourners (Gen. 23:4; 37:1; 47:4), fellow-heirs of the
same promised inheritance, which was not a geographical
location, but which could only be fulfilled through
Jesus Christ (II Cor. 1:20).
11:10 Consistent with his
eschatological understanding throughout his writings,
Paul interjects an interpretative explanation to clarify
that the objective of Abraham’s migration was not to
possess a land in the Middle East. “For he
(Abraham) had waited expectantly for the city
having foundation, of which the designer and builder was
God.” Instead of a topographical and
geographical place, Abraham was hopefully expecting with
a forward-looking faith a community where God’s people
could have settled communion with God, the “place” that
Jesus prepared (Jn. 14:2,3), “near to the heart of God.”
This “City of God,” in contrast to the tent encampments
in Canaan, would have permanent and eternal foundation,
for its established foundation would be Jesus Christ (I
Cor. 3:11). God Himself would be the city planner and
city developer of this “city which was to come” (13:14),
“the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem”
(12:22), “the Jerusalem above” (Gal. 4:26). This “city
that God build” would be where God dwells and God reigns
eternally in His unshakeable kingdom (12:28). This is
the heavenly city that Paul was encouraging the
Jerusalem Christians to focus on as the fulfillment of
God’s promises in Jesus Christ. The religious
revolutionaries wanted them to fight for the physical
city of Jerusalem, but Paul wanted them to identify with
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who were sojourning resident
aliens in that very land of Palestine. As “citizens of
heaven” (Phil. 3:20), the Christians in Jerusalem needed
to recognize that they were like sojourning foreign
pilgrims who were looking forward in faith to the
promised heavenly city, just as their patriarchs
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were.
11:11 Turning from the
promise of place to the promise of progeny, Paul
continues to note Abraham’s faith. “By faith, he
(Abraham) received power for the deposit of sperm,
even though Sarah herself was barren and beyond the time
of age, since he considered Him faithful, the One having
promised.” Many versions have translated this
verse to refer to the faith of Sarah. Not only would
this be a non-sequitur insertion, but there is
little evidence of exemplary faith in Sarah who laughed
at God’s promise (Gen. 18:12) and then lied about having
laughed (Gen. 18:15). In addition, and most importantly,
this phrase, “the deposit of sperm” (Greek word
spermatos) was a common Greek phrase for male
procreation, referring to the ability to ejaculate semen
in order to impregnate a woman and father a child. There
is no evidence of its being used of a woman’s ability to
conceive. The UBS4 Greek Testament and several
modern English translations (NIV, NRSV, GNB)
recognize this reference to Abraham’s faith for
paternity. Abraham believed God’s promise of progeny
(Gen. 15:6) with a forward-looking faith, despite the
fact that Sarah was barren (Gen. 11:30), sterile, and
past menopause (Gen. 18:11). Despite every natural
indication that childbirth for Sarah was gynecologically
impossible, Abraham endured in the faith that “with God
nothing is impossible” (Lk. 1:37), and God specializes
in the impossible. The reference to being “beyond the
time of age” for childbearing may refer only to Sarah or
to both Abraham and Sarah, since they were 100 years old
and 90 years old respectively at the time of Isaac’s
birth.
11:12 Continuing his
reference to Abraham’s faith, Paul wrote, “and
therefore, from one (man), and that one
having died, there came into being “AS THE STARS OF
HEAVEN IN MULTITUDE, AND COUNTLESS AS THE SAND BY THE
SEASHORE.” Through the one man’s (Abraham’s)
faith in God’s promise of progeny, a faith that acted to
deposit sperm in Sarah, there came into being (were
born) many descendants. Abraham’s “having died” means
that he was impotent, as good as dead when it came to
the natural ability of fathering a child. Writing of
Abraham’s faith in his epistle to the Romans, Paul
wrote, “he contemplated his own body, now as good as
dead since he was about a hundred years old, and the
deadness of Sarah’s womb; yet, with respect to the
promises of God, he did not waver in unbelief, but grew
strong in faith” (Rom. 4:19,20), believing in “God who
gives life to the dead and calls into being that which
does not exist” (Rom. 4:17; Heb. 11:3). The promise of
God’s blessing Abraham with a multiplied progeny (6:14)
was reiterated throughout the Old Testament record. The
promises that his descendants would be “as the stars of
heaven in multitude” (Greek word plethei, root of
the word “plethora”) is recorded in Gen. 15:5; 22:17;
26:4; Exod 32:13; Deut. 1:10; 10:22; 28:62; I Chron
27:23; Neh. 9:23). The promise of descendants “as
countless (Greek word anarithmetos, meaning
“beyond mathematical computation”) as the sand by the
seashore” is recorded in Gen. 22:17; I Kings 4:20; Isa.
10:22; Rom. 9:27). The prefiguring of innumerable
physical progeny was fulfilled in Israel (cf. Deut.
1:10; I Kings 4:20; II Chron. 1:9; Neh. 9:23), but God’s
promise of innumerable spiritual progeny through Abraham
is fulfilled in all who have faith in Christ (Rom. 4:16;
9:7,8; Gal. 3:7,16,29; 4:28).
11:13 If Paul were just
reciting the details of Abraham’s faith, he could have
proceeded to verse 17. Instead, he gives another (10)
interpretive interjection (13-16), an insertion of
commentary that explains his eschatological perspective
of history. “All these died in faith, not having
received the promises, but seeing and welcoming them
from afar, and having confessed that they were strangers
and sojourners upon the earth.” Abraham and all
of his physical descendants in subsequent generations,
particularly Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph (20-22), died with
an expectant, forward-looking faith that endured to the
end of their lives. They did not receive the intended
fulfillment of the divine promises first given to
Abraham (Gen. 12,15,17). The descendants of Abraham in
the nation of Israel did receive the physical
prefiguring of those promises (Josh. 21:45; 23:14; I
Kings 8:56), but they did not receive the ultimate
spiritual experience and enjoyment of the promises that
God had given to the patriarchs. The true and complete
fulfillment of the promises to Abraham would only come
in Jesus Christ (II Cor. 1:20; Eph. 1:10), leading Jesus
to say, “Abraham rejoiced to see My day” (Jn. 8:56). The
patriarchs caught a glimpse of the spiritual realities
of Christ with the foresight of faith, and greeting
those “yet unseen” (1,3,7) Messianic events with an
embrace that extended across time. They admitted that
they were “strangers and sojourners on the earth” (Gen.
23;4; 47:4,9; I Chron. 29:15), temporary and transient
residents of Canaan. They observed the “shadow-land” of
Canaan, but looked forward in faith to the deferred
“fullness of time” (Gal. 4:4) when the promises would be
fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
The Jerusalem Christians need to
“hold fast their confession” (4:14; 10:23) that they had
already received the fulfillment of the promises in
Jesus Christ and were now “citizens of heaven” (Phil.
3:20). At the same time, there was still a yet
anticipated experience of the promises in the heavenly
realm (6:12; 8:6; 9:15; 10:36) which cast them into a
similar situation as their forefathers, as “aliens and
strangers” (I Pet. 1:1; 2:11), looking forward to a
future fulfillment which likely would require “dying in
faith” to fully experience “the city which was to come”
(13:14).
11:14 Paul continues his
explanation of the faith of the nomadic forefathers.
“For those saying such things make it clear that they
seek a fatherland.” Abraham and his descendants,
by admitting and stating that they were sojourners,
wanderers, pilgrims, nomads, migrants, or transients,
make it explicitly plain by their own confession that
they are on a forward-looking journey, in transit, on
their way to somewhere else, seeking a goal of a
homeland where they could feel at home, a fatherland
(Greek patrida) which would be the land of the
Father where they could permanently settle and reside in
fellowship with God. They were not seeking real estate
on the eastern edge of the Mediterranean Sea, but were
journeying toward the “Jerusalem above” (Gal. 4:26),
“the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem”
(12:22) with permanent and eternal foundations (10).
With a similar faith objective, the
Jerusalem Christians of the first century needed to
recognize and admit that they were on their way to
somewhere else, to the eternal homeland or fatherland of
God. The zealots wanted them to join in defending their
homeland and fatherland of Palestine against the Romans
with nationalistic and patriotic pride, but Paul wanted
them to understand that the physical Jerusalem was of no
consequence compared to the “heavenly Jerusalem” (12:22)
of God’s eternal presence.
11:15 Paul clarifies the
fatherland that Abraham and his descendants were
seeking, first by negation and then by affirmation.
“And indeed if they were thinking of that
(fatherland) from which they came out, they had
time to return.” Abraham did not regard his
birthplace in Ur of the Chaldees (Gen. 11:28) in
Mesopotamia as his true homeland or fatherland. In fact,
he did not even want his son to ever return (Gen. 24:8)
to that place of idolatry (Josh. 24:2). The promised
fatherland that Abraham sought was not a geographical
location in Mesopotamia, or in Canaan or Palestine, but
was the place where the divine Father lived.
11:16 Affirmatively Paul
explains, “But as it is, they sought a better
(fatherland), that is, a heavenly
(fatherland).” With the forward-looking
aspiration of hopeful faith, Abraham and his descendants
kept their eye on the goal of a better fatherland that
would be their permanent homeland. Paul identifies their
destination of faith as the heavenly homeland of God,
the fulfillment of all the land promises of God to
Abraham (Gen. 12:7; 13:4; 15:7,18; 17:8). This
“inheritance…reserved in heaven” (I Pet. 1:4), the
“heavenly kingdom” (II Tim. 4:18) of the “heavenly
Jerusalem” (12:22) was made available and accessible in
Jesus Christ.
“Therefore,” since
Abraham and his descendants desired the place of God,
the heavenly fatherland, “God was not ashamed to
be called their God; He prepared a city for them.”
God is often referred to as “the God of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob” (Gen. 28:13; Exod. 3:6,15,16; Matt.
22:32; Lk. 22:37). Because of their faith to seek only a
place with Him, God “prepared a city for them.” “I go to
prepare (same Greek word) a place for you,” Jesus told
His disciples (Jn. 14:2,3), the “city of God” in the
eternal fatherland, the “lasting city” (13:14) with
permanent foundations (11:10), the “heavenly Jerusalem”
(12:22).
Christians are already “partakers of
a heavenly calling” (3:1), “having tasted of the
heavenly gift” (6:4), being “seated in the heavenly
places” (Eph. 2:6) as “citizens of heaven” (Phil. 3:20),
but they still look forward in hope for the perfect and
unhindered experience of the heavenly homeland. Paul
wanted the Jerusalem Christians to reject all
solicitations to fight for the homeland of Palestine and
for the physical city of Jerusalem. These geographical
locations were not the “promised land.” The Hebrew
Christians of Jerusalem needed to endure in their faith,
unashamed of their pursuit of the presence of God, even
willing to die in the certainty of the eventual
substantiation (11:1) of the heavenly fatherland and
city of God.
11:17 This faith that
faces physical death with the hope of resurrection is
now illustrated in a subsequent event in the life of
Abraham. “By faith Abraham, being tested, had
offered up Isaac; and the one having received the
promises was offering his only-begotten (son);…”
The Old Testament account of Abraham’s binding and
offering of Isaac is located in Genesis 22:1-18. Though
James wrote that God “does not tempt any one” (James
1:13), the same word, peirazo, is used here for
God’s testing of Abraham, and is used of Jesus’ testing
of Philip (Jn. 6:6). The intent of the solicitation,
whether for evil or for good, is the criteria that must
be considered in the differentiation of “tempting” and
“testing.” God’s purpose in “testing” Abraham (Gen.
22:1) was for the good intent of allowing Abraham’s
faith to be put into action (James 2:21). Abraham, the
one who had received the divine promise of progeny and
descendancy (Gen. 12:7; 13:15,16; 15:5,18; 17:7,8), and
by faith saw this promise materialize physically in the
birth of his son, Isaac, then had his faith tested by
God’s command to sacrifice his “only son” (Gen. 22:2).
Yes, Abraham had another son, Ishmael, who was conceived
as “a logical alternative to faith” to assist God in the
keeping of His promise, but Isaac was the only son
begotten according to God’s promise and action.
Believing that God was faithful to act in accord with
His promise, Abraham obeyed despite the seeming
irrationality of the request, and “had offered up
Abraham” – an act of faith already completed in terms of
intent and willingness.
11:18 This was the very
son “concerning whom it was spoken that, “IN ISAAC
YOUR DESCENDANTS SHALL BE CALLED.” This previous
statement of God, recorded in Genesis 21:12, was God’s
declaration that the “son of promise” for progeny and
descendancy was to be fulfilled through Isaac, and not
Ishmael. God’s promise was “on the line.” Why, then,
would God ask Abraham to offer this son as a burnt
offering (Gen. 22:2)? To test whether Abraham would put
his faith in action.
11:19 Abraham’s faith was
perfected in action (James 2:21). “He was
reckoning that the power of God (could)
even raise out of death; from which he received him back
in a parable.” As Abraham took young Isaac up
the mountain, his faith was evident in his statements,
“we will worship and return” (Gen. 22:5), “God will
provide the lamb for the burnt offering” (Gen. 22:8).
Paul goes beyond the details of the text in Genesis and
indicates that Abraham was reckoning in faith that even
if Isaac, the “son of promise,” was killed the power of
God was able to raise him from the dead. Such faith in
the resurrection power of God to fulfill His promises
was the very kind of faith that Paul was encouraging the
Jerusalem Christians to have – faith that expects that
even if they were to die in the approaching war with the
Romans, they would see the fulfillment of God’s promise
of resurrection life in Jesus Christ.
Abraham received Isaac back,
figuratively from the dead, when God provided a ram for
the sacrifice on the mountain (Gen. 22:13). Paul
explained that this was a parable of faith, a story
“thrown alongside” (the meaning of the Greek word
parabole) to illustrate faith. This figurative
language should not be unduly pressed into allegorical
typology that projects Jesus as a child of promise, the
only-begotten son, whose life out of death in
resurrection was like unto that of Isaac. The birth,
death and resurrection of Jesus are singularly unique,
and to regard them as an antitype of the type of Isaac
is destructive to the incarnational, redemptive, and
restorational message of the gospel. It is Abraham’s
faith in the promises and power of God that is the issue
addressed in this passage.
11:20 Paul proceeds to
mention the forward-looking faith of the three immediate
generations of Abraham’s descendants – of his son,
Isaac; of his grandson, Jacob; and his great-grandson,
Joseph. “By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau
concerning things to come.” Esau and Jacob were
the fraternal twin sons of Abraham. Esau was the
firstborn son, and was to have the priority of parental
blessing according to Hebrew custom. Such parental
blessing of the firstborn son was linked to the lineage
of God’s promise of descendancy. Isaac’s wife, Rebekah,
conspired with Jacob to arrange for the aging and blind
Isaac to give the parental blessing of the firstborn to
Jacob (Gen. 27:5-29). A secondary blessing was
subsequently given to Esau (Gen. 27:39,40). This was all
in accord with God’s intent that “the older would serve
the younger” (Gen. 25:23; Rom. 9:12), and Jacob was to
be the one loved by God (Mal. 1:2,3; Rom. 9:10-13) in
order to serve in the line of inheritance and blessing
of the divine promises (Gen. 28:3,4) of “the things to
come” in the future in Christ.
11:21 Despite his deceit,
Jacob was a faithful man of God. “By faith Jacob,
as he was dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, and
worshipped (leaning) on the top of his
staff.” Jacob, who became Israel (Gen.
35:10-12), had twelve sons (Gen. 35:22-26), the paternal
heads of the twelve tribes of Israel (Gen. 49:28).
Joseph, the favored son of Jacob (Gen. 37:3), had two
sons, Manasseh and Ephraim. As Israel was dying, Joseph
came before him with his two sons (Gen. 48:8-11).
Although Manasseh was the firstborn, Jacob, the
grandfather, insisted on giving the foremost blessing to
Ephraim instead (Gen. 48:17-20). Quoting from the Greek
translation (LXX) of the Old Testament, Paul
noted that Jacob “worshipped while leaning on the top of
his staff” (Gen. 47:31). The Hebrew text indicates, “he
bowed at the head of the bed” (Gen. 47:31). What
accounts for this difference? The Hebrew consonants “mth”
could be supplied with differing vowels: mittah
meaning “bed”, or matteh meaning “staff”. The
reference to a “staff” corresponds with the idea of
sojourning, journeying, and pilgrimage that has been
emphasized in the foregoing theme of a faith that looks
forward to a promised land.
11:22 The context of the
foregoing reference to Jacob’s “worshipping on the head
of his staff” was Joseph’s swearing to bury the corpse
of Jacob outside of Egypt (Gen. 47:29,30). Paul connects
this faith in a promised land to Joseph’s own
forward-looking faith. “By faith Joseph, when he
was dying, mentioned the exodus of the sons of Israel,
and gave orders concerning his bones.” The final
verses of Genesis refer to Joseph’s dying words to his
descendants. To his dying day he still had faith that
looked forward, saying, “God will take care of you, and
bring you up to the land which He promised to Abraham,
to Isaac, and to Jacob” (Gen. 50:24), a statement that
Paul regarded as a prior mention of the Exodus. Joseph
made his sons and grandsons promise to take his bones
out of Egypt (Gen. 50:25), just as Jacob had requested.
Joseph’s bones were indeed taken out of Egypt (Exod.
13:19), and buried at Shechem (Josh. 24:32; Acts 7:16).
The descendants of Abraham continued to believe in a
“promised land”, recognizing Canaan as the physical
prefiguring of such. Paul wanted the first century
Hebrew Christians in Jerusalem, whose heritage was in
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, to have the same kind
of resolute faith as their forefathers, believing that
despite whatever transpired, even their own death, their
final resting place would be in the ultimate and eternal
land that God had promised to Abraham.
11:23 Paul’s review of the
faith of old covenant personages has been from the
narratives of Genesis up to this point. Now he begins to
draw from the narratives of Exodus, which had been
alluded to in the reference to Joseph in the previous
verse (22). Whereas Abraham was regarded as the father
of the Jewish peoples, Moses was held in high esteem as
the deliverer of the Hebrew nation.
“By faith Moses, having been
born, was hidden three months by his parents, because
they saw he was an attractive child; and they did not
fear the decree of the king.” This verse does
not refer to the faith of Moses directly, but to the
faith of his parents, Amram and Jochebed (Exod. 6:20),
who were Israelites enslaved in Egypt. When Moses was
born, he was hidden for three months in defiance of the
Pharaoh’s command that, “Every son who is born, you are
to cast into the Nile” (Exod. 1:22). The Hebrew text of
Exodus 2:2 indicates that this action of hiding the
child was undertaken by the mother, but the Greek text (LXX)
attributes the action to both parents jointly. The
explanation of the parent’s action of civil disobedience
was that they saw that their son was attractive,
beautiful, comely, or good-looking (Exod. 2:2). This was
surely more than just the common parental pride that
causes many parents to think that their child is the
most beautiful child ever born. In Stephen’s defense
before the Council, he explained that the infant Moses
“was lovely in the sight of God” (Acts 7:20), seeming to
imply that there was some visible sign of God’s favor
upon the child signifying that he was destined to be
used of God. In that case, Moses’ parents had a
forward-looking faith that expected the unseen (1,2,7)
purposes of God that were yet to transpire in the life
of their son. In addition, their faith and love (I Jn.
4:18) was unafraid of the consequences and reprisals
that might come from violating the edict of the Pharoah.
In faith, they chose to fear God (12:28) rather than the
Egyptian Pharaoh.
It was this kind of faith that Paul
was encouraging the Jerusalem Christians to exhibit.
They needed faith that would stand against what the
Jewish authorities were demanding in rebellious action
against Rome. The Christians in Jerusalem needed to
resist any fear of human reprisal, and be willing to
risk their lives for the destined purpose of God in
Jesus Christ.
11:24 The faith of Moses
himself is now referred to – a faithfulness previously
referred to in this epistle (3:2). “By faith
Moses, having become great, refused to be called the son
of Pharaoh’s daughter;…” The reference to Moses’
“having become great” could refer to Moses’ rise to
position and power in the royal household; “educated in
all the learning of the Egyptians, he was a man of power
in words and deeds” (Acts 7:22). On the other hand, it
might refer only to Moses’ having “grow up” (Exod. 2:11)
to be an adult man. Stephen explained that,
“when he was approaching the age
of forty, it entered his mind to visit his brethren,
the sons of Israel. And when he saw one of them
being treated unjustly, he defended him and took
vengeance for the oppressed by striking down the
Egyptian. And he supposed that his brethren
understood that God was granting them deliverance
through him; but they did not understand” (Acts
7:23-25).
The faith of Moses was put into
action in identification with the Israelite people of
God. Moses was willing to renounce the privilege and
power of being an adopted son of Pharaoh’s daughter
reared in the royal palace, and cast his lot with his
enslaved and oppressed ethnic Hebrew peoples, even
though they did not yet understand that he was destined
to be their deliverer.
11:25 By his act of faith,
Moses was “choosing rather to suffer
evil-treatment together with the people of God, than to
have enjoyment of sin for a time;…” Faith is a
choice, a choice to act in a particular manner because
one believes in the promises and power of God. Moses
knew the promises of God concerning the Jewish people
who were identified with God. Instead of selfishly
sitting back to enjoy the privilege and comfort of royal
advantage, Moses chose to identify with his Hebrew
people of God and suffer the persecution that they
endured at the hands of the Egyptian Pharaoh (his
step-grandfather). To have failed to make that
faith-choice would have allowed his temporary enjoyment
of royal privilege, but it would also have been a
sin-choice to reject and to “stand away from” God and
His people in apostasy. “Whatever is not of faith is
sin” (Rom. 14:23).
The Hebrew Christians of Jerusalem
who received this letter were faced with a very similar
choice. Would they take the “easy way out” and possibly
“save their own skins” in the self-serving apostasy of
standing against Christ and the Christian community – a
temporary enjoyment of sin, to be sure, given our
hindsight of the devastating decimation of Palestine and
its people in the war with the Roman army in 66-70 AD?
Or would they stand firm in their Christian faith and
continue to suffer mistreatment with the Christian
“people of God”?
11:26 Paul gives His
Christian commentary on Moses’ faith-choice to identify
with God and His people, and suffer the ill-treatment of
such identification. In Paul’s mind Moses’ faith looked
forward to the promised Messiah, who would identify with
mankind in the incarnation, and by His obedient
sufferings (2:9,10; 5:8) endure the hostility and shame
of the cross (12:2,3), becoming the real deliverer of
mankind, to establish a new “people of God” (8:10) with
an eternal heavenly reward (10:35; 11:6). In Paul’s
words, Moses was “considering the reproach of
Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt; for
he was looking toward the reward.” Though some
detect a reference to the Psalmist’s mention of
“reproach” (Ps. 69:8-21; 89:50,51), it is more likely
that Paul was linking all godly suffering with Christ’s
suffering, as he commonly did in his writings (cf. Rom.
8:17; 15:3; Phil. 3:10; Col. 1:24). Moses had no more
than a glimpse of the Messianic deliverer, but in his
faith-choice to be the deliverer of the Hebrew nation
and suffer the reproach of such action, his was a
faith-action that served as a prototype of the spiritual
exodus whereby Jesus Christ would identify with mankind,
suffer reproach and death, and deliver mankind from
slavery to sin. Paul viewed Moses’ faith-action as a
typological prefiguring of Jesus Christ. Moses deemed
identification and reproach with his people to be of
more value than all the royal wealth of Egypt available
to him, for he had a forward-looking faith that saw the
“yet unseen” (1,2,7) deliverance of the Israelites from
slavery in Egypt and their return to the prefigurative
“land of promise” in Canaan. The words of Jesus in the
Sermon on the Mount retroactively lay down the
foundation of Moses’ faith: “Blessed are those who have
been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for
theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:10). “Do not
lay up for yourselves treasures upon earth,…but lay up
for yourselves treasures in heaven,… for where you
treasure is there will your heart be also” (Matt.
6:19-21).
Paul’s commentary in this verse is
projecting the exemplary faith-action of Moses, along
with the faith-action of Jesus in enduring the shame of
the cross (12:2), to the need of the Hebrew Christians
in Judea to whom he was writing this terminal letter.
They needed to “bear the reproach of Christ” (13:13), to
be willing to participate in “the sufferings of Christ”
(II Cor. 1:5), recognizing the incomparable value of the
riches that were theirs in Christ (Eph. 1:7,18; 2:7),
and looking forward to the heavenly reward (10:35; 11:6)
of the eternal “promised land.”
11:27 Like Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob (9), Moses was a transient sojourner seeking
the heavenly homeland of the abiding presence of God. In
the context of this recitation of Moses’ faith-choices
to seek the greater good rather than the lesser personal
advantage, Paul wrote, “By faith he left Egypt,
not fearing the wrath of the king; for he kept on as
seeing the unseen (One).” The
departure of Moses from Egypt has been a subject of
debate. Does this refer to Moses’ departure from Egypt
to Midian (Exod. 2:15) after he realized that his murder
of an Egyptian taskmaster had become public knowledge?
In that situation it is recorded that “Moses was afraid”
(Exod. 2:14), which makes the phrase “not fearing the
anger of the king” problematic. Moses’ other departure
from Egypt was in the exodus, prior to which he
fearlessly confronted Pharaoh through the plagues (Exod.
5:1–13:16), and advised the Israelites as they
approached the sea, “Do not fear” (Exod. 14:13). The
exodus departure solves the problem of the “fear
factor,” but creates a non sequitur in the
subsequent reference to the Passover (28). The primary
emphasis of the verse, however, is on Moses’ enduring
vision of the unseen. In synchronous parallel with his
“looking toward the reward” (26), Moses had an enduring
faith that fixed his eyes (12:2) on God, the Unseen One
(Jn. 1:18; Rom. 1:20; Col. 1:15; I Tim. 1:17; I Jn.
4:12,20) and all that He would do in unseen (1,2,7)
future events. That was the kind of enduring faith that
the Jerusalem Christians needed – faith that was
fearless of the reprisals of the authorities, seeing
behind the visible threats the Invisible God at work as
they continued to believe in His promises and power.
11:28 In this verse we
begin to see the transitional shift from the faith of
particular persons to the faith of the nation of Israel
(29) and the events evidencing faith in the history of
Israel (30-38). “By faith he (Moses)
kept the Passover and the sprinkling of blood, in
order that the destroying one should not touch their
firstborns.” Prior to the exodus Moses
participated in the greatest of the evidences of the
Unseen God at work (Exod. 11:1–12:32), the plague of
death upon all firstborn children in Egypt, except for
the Hebrew families who sprinkled the blood of a lamb on
the doorposts and lintel of their homes (Exod. 12:7).
The Hebrews who sprinkled lamb’s blood on their doorways
were “passed over” (Exod. 12:13,23) when the firstborns
were killed. Although some verses in the Exodus
narrative seem to indicate that it was the Lord who was
destroying the firstborns (Exod. 12:12,13,27,29), others
indicate that God allowed or disallowed the “destroying
one” (Exod. 12:23) to inflict death on the firstborn.
The “destroying angel” (I Chron. 21:15) or “death angel”
is often identified as “the one having the power of
death, that is, the devil” (Heb. 2:14), the diabolic
“destroyer” who destroyed the disobedient in Israel (I
Cor. 10:10). Moses had faith that God would cause the
death-destroyer to “pass over” the Hebrew firstborns.
This became the basis for the Hebrew celebration of the
Passover feast (Exod. 12:14-20, 24-28, 42). Later the
Passover prefiguring found fulfillment in Jesus as the
paschal lamb (Jn. 1:29,36; I Cor. 5:7) whose death
allowed for God’s “passing over of sins” (Rom. 3:25).
11:29 After the death of
the firstborns, Pharaoh agreed to let the Israelite
people go (Exod. 12:31,33). “By faith they went
through the Red Sea as through dry (land);
the Egyptians attempting it were drowned.” In
their exodus from Egypt, it often seemed that the
Israelites did not have much faith, as they complained
about their circumstances and said, “Leave us alone that
we might serve the Egyptians. It would have been better
to serve the Egyptians than to die in the wilderness”
(Exod. 14:12). But when told to “go forward” (Exod.
14:15), they acted in faith and stepped toward the Sea
of Reeds (Exod. 15:4,22), and it became dry land (Exod.
14:16,21,22; Ps. 66:6; 106:9; Isa. 51:10). The Hebrew
reference to the “Sea of Reeds” (Exod. 13:18; 15:4,22;
23:31) was translated as “Red Sea” in the Greek text (LXX).
When the Egyptians changed their minds and attempted to
follow the Israelites into the sea, they were swallowed
up and drowned (Exod. 14:27,28; 15:4; Ps. 106:11).
What were the Jerusalem Christians to
learn from this? The Invisible (27) specializes in the
impossible! Though their situation may have seemed
impossible, they needed faith like the ancient
Israelites who stepped into the sea and it turned to dry
land. How might God act to protect and preserve them,
and take them to the “promised land”?
11:30 Having already
referred to the faithlessness of the wilderness
generation (3:16-19), Paul passes over the forty-year
period of wilderness wanderings and resumes with the
faith of the people of Israel as they prepared to enter
in to the prefigurative “promised land” at Jericho. In
so doing, he moves from the narrative of Exodus to that
of Joshua. “By faith the walls of Jericho fell,
having been encircled for seven days.” This is
another non sequitur, for Rahab’s cooperation
with the Israelites spies (31; Josh. 2:1-21) definitely
preceded the fall of the walls of Jericho (Josh.
6:1-21). Despite the seemingly illogical strategy of
marching around the walls of Jericho for seven days, the
Israelite children of the exodus generation acted in
faith at the Lord’s bidding (Josh. 6:2-5). It was not
the faith-action of the encircling marchers that caused
the walls of Jericho to fall. It was the divine action
of the God who was the object of their faith that caused
the massive walls of Jericho to fall, for He had
promised, “I will be with you; I will not fail you or
forsake you” (Josh. 1:5).
11:31 Prior to the
destruction of Jericho two Israelite spies were sent to
Jericho and received by a prostitute named Rahab. It is
phenomenal that in the patriarchal society of ancient
Palestine a woman should be held in high esteem for her
faith. In addition, this woman was not an Israelite, and
is specifically referred to as a prostitute (Josh. 2:1;
6:17,22,25; James 2:25). In fact, she is included in the
genealogy of Jesus Himself (Matt. 1:5).
“By faith Rahab the prostitute
did not perish with those disobeying, receiving the
spies with peace.” Her faith-action was
evidenced in concealing the two Israelite spies from the
authorities in Jericho who were searching for them
(Josh. 2:6,7). Her confession of faith was, “I know that
the Lord has given you the land” (Josh. 2:8). The reward
of her faith was that she and her family members (Josh.
2:12,13; 6:17,22-25) were preserved from harm and death
when Jericho was conquered.
Was there a lesson here for the
Jerusalem Christians? Perhaps it was that they needed
faith like Rahab that was willing to forsake the
security of a walled city (in their case Jerusalem,
instead of Jericho), and forsake even the religion of
their fathers, in order to find security only in the
living God and involvement with His people (8:10).
Perhaps they were to recognize that if a sinful
prostitute could be praised for forward-looking faith,
then they should continue to be faithful to Jesus
Christ, and not prostitute themselves in sinful
apostasy.
11:32 Paul could not
replay all of the Old Testament narratives of the people
of faith. So, beginning with a rhetorical question, he
asks, “What more can I say? For time would fail me
telling of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, and of David
and Samuel and the prophets.” There was not
enough time or parchment for Paul to tell all the
details of all the Hebrew heroes of faith, so it was
necessary to abbreviate and condense his review. The six
(6) persons mentioned are not in chronological order;
they appear to be in reversed couplets with the greater
figure of faith preceding the lesser.
Gideon (Judg. 6:11 – 8:35) had faith
that endured despite the “odds.” Not depending on
numerical advantage or majority, Gideon pared down his
army at God’s bidding to 300 men, and the small band
then routed the Midianites. It was a battle long
remembered in Hebrew history as representative of the
power of God (Ps. 83:9; Isa. 9:4; 10:26).
Barak (Judg. 4:1 – 5:31) was the army
general who served Deborah, the judge of Israel, but
demanded that she accompany him to war. By faith they
triumphed over the chariot army of Sisera.
Samson (Judg. 13:1 – 16:31) was a
strong man with a weakness for Philistine women. Despite
his temptation and failure, he had a faith that allowed
his weakness to be made strong (34) in the power of the
Lord, even unto death.
Jephthah (Judg. 11:1 – 12:7), the son
of a prostitute, rose out of his ostracism to become a
judge of Israel. By faith he defeated the sons of Ammon,
but in order to keep his rash vow, he was forced to
sacrifice his only daughter.
David (I Sam. 16:12 – II Sam. 24:5),
a man after God’s own heart, was the greatest king of
Israel. His faith was evidenced in conflict with
Goliath, with Saul, with foreign armies, and even with
his own son, Absalom. Through Nathan the prophet, God
said to David, “When your days are complete and you lie
down with your fathers (in death), I will raise up your
descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and
I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever” (II
Sam. 7:12,13). That descendant of David was, of course,
Jesus Christ (Matt. 1:1; Jn. 7:42; Rom. 1:3; II Tim.
2:8; Rev. 22:16), “King of Kings and Lord of Lords”
(Rev. 22:16).
Samuel (I Sam. 1:19 – 16:13) was
called of God to be a prophet, and became a judge of
Israel. He reluctantly appointed Saul to be king over
Israel, but had faith that the Lord would not abandon
His people (I Sam. 12:22).
Many additional prophets could have
been introduced as men of faith, including Elijah,
Elisha, Daniel, etc., but time and space did not allow
Paul to write of them all.
11:33,34 Paul’s
generalization of examples of faith moves from named
personages to actions of faith. There were untold people
“who by faith conquered kingdoms, administered
justice, obtained promises, stopped mouths of lions,
quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the
sword, became powerful out of weakness, became strong in
war, and made foreign armies yield.” Barak
(Judg. 4:23,24), Gideon (Judg. 8:12), Jephthah (Judg.
11:21,22), and David (II Sam. 8:1-14) all “conquered
kingdoms.” David, in particular, “administered justice”
(II Sam. 8:15; I Chron. 18:14; Ps. 15:2). Those who
“obtained promises” are too numerous to mention, but
Gideon (Judg. 7:7), Samson (Judg. 13:5), and David (II
Sam. 7:9) are noteworthy. Several are recorded who
“stopped the mouths of lions,” including Samson (Judg.
14:5,6), David (I Sam. 17:34,35), Benaiah (II Sam.
23:20), and Daniel (Dan. 6:22). Daniel’s friends,
Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego “quenched the power of
fire” (Dan. 3:24-27). David (I Sam. 18:11; 19:10)
“escaped the edge of the sword” on many occasion. Samson
(Judg. 17:28), David (I Sam. 17:42-46), and Judith
(Judith 13:1-10) were all examples of “becoming powerful
out of weakness.” The leaders of Israel who “became
strong in war, and made foreign armies yield” were
abundant.
11:35 There were
“women who received their dead out of resurrection.”
Elijah raised the son of the widow of Zarephath (I Kgs.
17:8-24). Elisha was used of God to raise the son of the
Shunammite woman (II Kgs. 4:18-37).
Paul switched from the successes of
faith (33-35a) to the sufferings of faith (35b-38); from
the triumphs of faith to the tragedies of faith; from
the might acts of faith to the martyrdom of faith.
“Others were tortured, not accepting their release
that they might obtain a better resurrection.”
Ancient torture tactics were severe and gruesome.
Victims were put in stocks or stretched on racks to be
beaten and flogged. The Greek word for “torture,”
tympanizomai, meant “to strike, beat, or pound,” and
is the etymological root for a tympan or kettledrum.
Despite such torture, there were men of faith who were
offered release if they would renounce their faith and
violate their conscience (II Macc. 6:21-30; 7:1-41), but
they chose eternal resurrection rather than temporal
reprieve.
11:36 “Others
received mockings and floggings, and even bonds and
imprisonment.” Jeremiah is a good example of a
man of faith who was mocked, ridiculed, verbally abused,
and made a laughingstock (Jere. 20:7,8; Lam. 3:14).
Those who were flogged, whipped, lashed, and scourged
for their faith were many, as were those who were bound
and imprisoned, including Joseph (Gen. 39:20), Jeremiah
(Jere. 20:2; 37:15) and Micaiah (I Kgs. 20:27).
11:37 “They were
stoned;…” like Zechariah (II Chron. 24:20-22).
“They were sawn in two;…” as tradition
asserted concerning the death of Isaiah upon the edict
of King Manasseh. “They were tempted;…” as
were most of the people of God. “They were put to
death by the sword;…” as were many of the
prophets (I Kgs. 19:10,14; Jere. 2:30; 26:23).
“They went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being
destitute, afflicted and ill-treated.” The most
primitive dress of sheepskins and goatskins indicated an
abject poverty so deplorable that such persons were
regarded as barely more than animals themselves. Elijah
the Tishbite was one who wore such attire (II Kgs. 1:8),
and was so destitute that he was fed by the ravens (I
Kgs. 17:1-7).
11:38 While the world
judges men of faith unworthy of their honor and praise,
Paul indicates that these were “men of whom the
world was not worthy.” Whereas the world cannot
appreciate faithful men, for they regard them as
irrational and unproductive, it is the fallen world that
is not worthy of having such men of God in their midst.
Once again (9,13) Paul emphasizes the
transient and migrant status of the faithful,
“wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and the
holes of the earth.” They have no place to call
“home” for they are pilgrims seeking the place and
presence of God. David certainly dwelt in such places (I
Sam. 22:1; 23:14; 24:3), as did the faithful during the
time of the Maccabees (I Macc. 2:29,38; II Macc. 5:27;
6:11; 10:6).
11:39 This is the
concluding statement of Paul’s extended excursus on
faith. “All of these,” i.e. all of the
persons mentioned in this chapter, and perhaps inclusive
of all of the “faithful” in the entire old covenant,
“having received witness through their faith,”
the commendation of God for the response of obedient
action to the revelation given to them, as attested in
Scripture (2,4,5), “did not receive what was
promised,…”. God attested to the faith of the
old covenant personages in the Old Testament scriptures,
indicating His witness of approval and commendation, and
Paul will proceed to note that these “faithful” now
serve as a “cloud of witnesses surrounding us” (12:1).
However, despite their forward-looking faith that sought
the promise and power of God, the old covenant
personages “did not receive what was promised.” As Paul
wrote earlier concerning Abraham and his descendants,
“All these died in faith, not having received the
promises, but seeing and welcoming them from afar, and
having confessed that they were strangers and sojourners
upon the earth” (13). The complete and ultimate
fulfillment of the promises of God to Abraham and all of
the old covenant personages was only made available in
Jesus Christ. “As many as may be the promises of God, in
Him (Jesus) they are yes (affirmed and fulfilled)” (II
Cor. 1:20). From the first Messianic promise to Adam and
Eve (Gen. 3:15), to the promises of God to Abraham (Gen.
12-17), to the Davidic promise (II Sam. 7:12,13), to the
promises of the prophets (Isa. 9:6,7; Jere. 31:33,34;
Micah 5:2), they were all fulfilled in God’s revelation
of Himself in the person of the Son, Jesus Christ.
Jesus, the “one mediator between God and man” (II Tim.
2:5), was the “last Adam who became life-giving Spirit”
(I Cor. 15:45), the eschatological fulfillment of “the
eternal inheritance” (9:15) that effects the salvation
and restoration of humanity. The old covenant faithful
did not receive the fulfillment of the divine promises
during their lifetime, for the historic enactment of
redemption and restoration had to be manifested “in the
fullness of time” (Gal. 4:4). Jesus Himself said, “Truly
I say to you, that many prophets and righteous men
desired to see what you see, and did not see it; and to
hear what you hear, and did not hear it” (Matt. 13:17).
11:40 Throughout the
epistle Paul has been reminding the Hebrew Christians of
Jerusalem of the “better things” that have been given to
Christians in Jesus Christ. Now he explains that the
promises of God remained unfulfilled during the lives of
the old covenant faithful, “God having foreseen
something better concerning us, in order that they
should not be perfected without us.” The
“something better” that God has provided personally and
historically for “us” (in contrast to those in the old
covenant) is, of course, Jesus Christ. Everything
provided prior to the historical Jesus was just
prefiguring picture, shadow, or type. All the spiritual
and theological benefits that Christians enjoy find
their essential reality in Jesus Christ. He is our
“eternal life” (Jn. 14:6; I Jn. 5:12,13), our
righteousness (I Cor. 1:30; II Cor. 5:21), our salvation
(II Tim. 2:10; Heb. 2:10), our perfection (Phil. 3:15;
Heb. 12:23). He is the King who constitutes God’s
kingdom reign (Lk. 17:20,21; Col. 1:13) now and forever.
It was Jesus that the old covenant faithful were seeking
as fulfillment to God’s promises. Since their faith was
directed toward the “yet not seen” (11:1) Jesus, and
they would not settle for the inadequate physical
prefigurings, they are now “made perfect” in solidarity
with all Christians. “By one offering He (Jesus)
perfected for all time those who are set apart unto
holiness” (10:14). All of God’s “faithful” are “in
Christ” together.
There is a contrast between
the unfulfilled promises (13,39) of the old covenant and
the fulfilled promises of the new covenant (9:15). Paul
wanted the Jerusalem Christians to realize that they had
received the better fulfillment of the promises of God
in the historical and eternal Person and work of Jesus
Christ. At the same time, Paul wanted the Christians in
Jerusalem to understand that their connection
with the Hebrew faithful of the old covenant was not in
the engagement of physical conflict to preserve and
maintain the physical city, temple, and religious
practices of Judaism against the Roman occupiers.
Rather, their connection with the faithful of the past
was in the solidarity and unity of participating in the
ultimate and perfect objective of God in Jesus Christ.
Paul was seeking to convince the brethren in
Judea that they needed a forward-looking and hopeful
faith like that exhibited by their Hebrew forefathers,
willing to endure even unto death.
Concluding Remarks
It is important to recall the context
of this lengthy review of faith, lest we lose sight of
the flow of Paul’s thought and argument.
Paul had quoted Habakkuk 2:4, “My
righteous ones shall live by faith” (10:38), and desired
that the Jerusalem Christians “have faith unto the
safekeeping of the soul” (10:39). To encourage such
faith, Paul presents a survey of the forward-looking
faith of the Hebrew faithful, beginning with a “working
definition” of faith: (1) faith looks forward to the
substantiation of things expected (2) faith seeks the
certainty of the fulfillment of events not yet seen (3)
faith draws near to God, believing that He is and that
He fulfills His promises. Such faith is not consistent
with escapism that “shrinks back to destruction”
(10:39). Rather, it is faith that faces death boldly,
willing to look beyond death to the eternal reward (6)
and inheritance (9:15) of God. Notice how frequently
faith and death are brought together in these verses
(4,13,19,21,22,35,37), and the references to belief in
resurrection to life beyond death (19,35). Paul was well
aware that the Jerusalem Christians were likely facing
physical death at the hands of the vicious Roman army
that was soon to attack the rebellious Jewish enclave in
Palestine (66-70 AD). The Jewish Christian recipients of
this letter needed to be prepared for this possibility.
The faith that Paul inculcated was for the purpose of
their “running with endurance the race set before them”
(12:1) – the prime example of such endurance of
suffering being Jesus Himself (12:2), and His
willingness to die on the cross. The Jerusalem
Christians would likely have to endure the discipline of
adversity (12:5-13), and definitely needed the faith
that expected God to provide all that He had promised in
Jesus Christ for eternity.
FOOTNOTES
1 Moltmann,
Jurgen, Theology of Hope. New York: Harper & Row,
Publishers. 1975.
2 Buchanan, George
Wesley, To the Hebrews. Series: The Anchor Bible.
Vol. 36, Garden City: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1981.
pg. 184.
3 Josephus, Flavius,
The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged. “The
Antiquities of the Jews”. Bk. 1, chpt. 3, para. 8, line
99. Hendrickson Publishers. 1996. pg. 34.
The extended excursus surveying the highlights of the
faithful people of God in the Old Testament (11:1-40)
concluded with the assertion of the failure of the old
covenant personages to find complete fulfillment of
their expectations of faith. “All of these, having
received witness through their faith, did not receive
what was promised” (11:39). Paul’s continuing discourse
to the Jerusalem Christians involves both a continuity
of the theme of faithful endurance, as well as a
comparative contrast of the superior objective of
Christian faith which was stated in the final verse of
the foregoing recitation: “God having foreseen something
better concerning us, in order that they should not be
perfected without us” (11:40).
Continuity is evident because the
theme of “faith” is still on Paul’s mind. The litany of
the examples of forward-looking, persevering faith among
the Old Testament faithful is now capped by the
surpassing supremacy of the ultimate expression of faith
in Jesus Christ. Jesus is set forth as the One to be
viewed (2) and considered (3) as the epitome and
ultimate “pioneer and perfecter of faith” (2). The
Jewish radicals inciting insurrection against Rome could
have cited the faith of the Old Testament faithful, and
used such as an incentive to encourage the Jewish
Christians to remain true to their Jewish heritage of
faith by joining the freedom fighters. But the Jewish
restorationists could not and would not have employed
Paul’s argument that Jesus Christ was the supreme
example and ultimate expression of faith in God. This is
Paul’s distinct argument to encourage the Hebrew
Christians of Palestine to refrain from joining the
Jewish fight against Rome, and instead have faith like
that exemplified by Jesus which “endured the hostility”
(3) and endured the humiliation” (2) to participate in
the exaltation and victory of all that God makes
available to humanity in His Son. The culminating
capstone of “faith” has been modeled in the life of
Jesus Christ, and the Christians of Jerusalem are
encouraged to participate in the better provision
(11:40) that is the object of Christian faith.
The Jewish faithful of the old
covenant “received witness” (11:2,4,5,39) of their
faithfulness to God in proceeding forward in accord with
the revelation given to them. They remain, Paul states,
as a “crowd of witnesses” (1) testifying to the
faithfulness of God. The contrast, however, between the
faith of the Jewish forefathers and those who follow in
the faith of Jesus Christ can be noted in the
contrasting pronouns of “they” and “us” in 11:40, and
the continuing emphasis on “we” and “us” in 12:1.
Transitioning from the Old Testament historical examples
(11:1-40), Paul returns to the direct personal
encouragement of the Christians in Judea (12:1–13:25)
that he had employed earlier (cf. 10:32-39). Paul
appeals to the Jerusalem Christians to exercise faith
like that of Jesus, who endured (2,3) the hardships to
overcome and enact the redemptive victory. Picking up
the previous theme of endurance (10:32,36), Paul adds
the element of accepting divine discipline
(5,6,7,8,10,11) in the process of faithful endurance
(7), thus encouraging his embattled Christian brethren
in Palestine to see Jesus as “the better example and
disciplinary agent of faithful endurance.”
This contextual paragraph (12:1-13)
is introductory to the concluding practical section of
this epistle (12:1 – 13:23). Precise sectional divisions
are difficult to ascertain and are necessarily
arbitrary, but we shall divide them as follows:
(1) The inevitable discipline of
God (12:1-13)
(2) The unshakable kingdom of God (12:14-29)
(3) The unchanging Christ (13:1-25)
Three subdivisions can be identified
in this initial contextual paragraph:
(a) The need to focus on Christ
in the midst of exertion unto endurance (1-3).
(b) The inevitable discipline that is part of the
process of developing endurance (4-11).
(c) The consequent responsibility for acting in
endurance (12,13).
12:1 Connecting with the
previous survey (11:1-40), Paul begins with the
conjunction, “Consequently” or
“therefore,” and emphasizes the “we also,”
identifying himself with the Christians in Jerusalem, as
contrasted with the Jewish faithful previously cited
(11:1-40). The encouragement to endurance is based on
the encircling witness of the old covenant faithful, and
the stripping off of extraneous entanglements.
Paul ties his Jewish Christian
readers to their Jewish heritage by reminding them of
their “...having so great a cloud of witnesses
surrounding us,...” The faithful of old are
regarded as presently serving as a quantitative and
qualitative “cloud of witnesses.” Both in the Hebrew and
Greek languages the word “cloud” was often used as a
metaphor for a “crowd” – for a host or multitude of
people. The faithful Jewish forebears “received witness”
(11:2,4,5,39) of their faithfulness, and are now
represented as an encompassing and encircling crowd
witnessing the actions of Christians who have the
privilege “in Christ” of participating in all that the
Jewish believers were expecting in faith. The question
might be asked: “Are these prior Jewish faithful
circumlocated around the Christians in an historical
sense, or in a spiritual and heavenly sense? Both,
though the latter better serves the figurative picture
that Paul seems to be drawing. The encompassing “crowd
of witnesses” has long been regarded as a metaphor for
spectators in a stadium, arena or amphitheater observing
an athletic race. As “witnesses” in the heavenly
grandstands cheering on the contestants, their “witness”
may be regarded as both passive observance, as well as
active attestation. As prior participants who have gone
before and actively persevered in faith, they now
observe and testify to the value of the goal, despite
the hardship of the race.
Continuing the metaphor of a race,
Paul advises, “putting off every weight, and the
clinging sin,...”. Athletes needed to “strip
off” all that might handicap, impede or hinder their
run. The “weight” that had to be “put off” may have been
excess body weight, but more likely referred to any
excess weight, such as training weights, that would
impede the runner. Paul is no doubt using “weight”
metaphorically, as did the Greek ethicists, to refer to
moral vices. Jesus used similar language: “Be on guard,
that your hearts may not be weighted down with
dissipation and drunkenness and the worries of life”
(Lk. 21:34). In previous letters Paul had advised the
“laying aside” of all “deeds of darkness” (Rom. 13:12),
such as “anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive
speech” (Col. 3:8). Peter (I Pet. 2:1) and James (James
1:21) used similar language. That Paul had such
behavioral encumbrances in mind is fortified by his
subsequent reference to “clinging sin.” First century
athletes had to strip off their clinging cloaks, robes
and togas in order to run freely. Paul is advising the
Hebrew Christians to lay aside their clinging sin
patterns – the distraction, diversions, preoccupations,
and concerns that “wrap up” and hinder Christian
progress. More specifically for the Christians of Judea,
this may have included the close-fitting pride of Jewish
nationalism, wealth and religion, or the binding concern
for self-preservation. The common interpretation of this
phrase to putting away “besetting sins” (cf. KJV) and
personal strongholds of sin is not illegitimate, but the
historical context of Paul’s admonition to the
Christians in Jerusalem to strip off the excess baggage
of closely-held and familiar clinging sin must be the
basis of all personal application.
With the incentive of the Jewish
forefathers cheering them on, and the laying aside of
the impediments of excessive weight and entangling sin,
“we should run with endurance the race lying
before us,...”, Paul exhorts the Christians in
Judea. This is not a forty yard speed sprint, but more
like a long-distance, cross-country marathon that
requires stamina, endurance, persistence and
perseverance. As noted earlier (10:36), the Greek word
for “endurance” is hupomene, meaning “to abide
under,” implying a need to abide under the pain, the
exhaustion, and the mental discouragement in maintaining
the pace of a faithful Christian life. The race, the
course, the contest, the conflict (Greek word agon,
the root of the English word “agony”) that confronted
the Christians in Jerusalem was no place for
foot-dragging sluggishness (cf. 5:11; 6:12), but
required the diligent endurance of forward-looking
faith. “Run in such a way that you may win” (I Cor.
9:24), Paul advised the Corinthians. “I run in such a
way, not without aim” (I Cor. 9:26). “I have finished
the course; I have kept the faith” (II Tim. 4:7), Paul
explained to Timothy. The agonizing struggle of the
course set before the Christians in Jerusalem would
require disentangling themselves from much of what they
had cloaked themselves in previously, and running with
endurance the course of Christian faithfulness.
12:2 The means by which
the Christians in Jerusalem would need to run the race
of faith would be by “looking away from
(everything else) unto Jesus, the pioneer and
perfecter of faith,...” The beleaguered
Christians in Jerusalem were not to concentrate on their
trials or their difficulties. They were not to set their
attention on the insurrectionists or the imminent
portent of war. These distractions would not facilitate
faithfulness. Instead, they were encouraged to focus on
Jesus – the ultimate model of faithful endurance. How
did Jesus live the life that He lived as man on earth?
He did so as a human choosing creature, responding to
God the Father in complete receptivity to God’s
activity, putting His “trust in Him” (2:13) and allowing
God the Father to speak (cf. John 5:30; 8:28; 12:49;
14:10) and act (Jn. 5:19,30; 14:10) at every moment in
time through Him. Jesus lived the life that He lived by
faith. His perfect exercise of faith established Him as
“the pioneer and perfecter of faith.” The superiority of
Jesus’ faith, compared to the old covenant faithful
(11:1-40), is beyond all qualitative comparison. Jesus
is the trail-blazer, the pioneer of faith. The Greek
word archegon (cf. 2:10) can mean “founder,
originator, initiator, leader,” etc. – the principal or
chief who leads the way. Jesus is the archetype of
Christian faith. He is the One who perfected the
“obedience of faith” (Rom. 1:5; 16:26) by being
“obedient unto death” (Phil. 2:8), and was perfected
thereby (2:10; 5:9; 7:28). He took human faith to the
end objective (Greek word teleiotes, derived from
telos, meaning “end”) that God intended,
finishing (Jn. 17:4; 19:30), accomplishing and achieving
God’s redemptive and restorative purpose. The believers
in Jerusalem were encouraged to focus on the faith
exemplified by Jesus, “the pioneer and perfecter of
faith,” the initiator and implementer of faith, the
founder and finisher of faith, the archetype and
achiever of faith. Jesus is indeed the “faithful
witness” (Rev. 1:5) revealing God’s intent for man to
respond and choose dependence upon Him. Of course, the
historical Jesus is also the living Lord Jesus of the
Spirit, and the call to focus on Jesus is not just a
call to view Jesus’ faith as an historical example, but
is inclusive of our gazing on the risen and ascended
Christ who empowers Christian action (Jn. 15:5) and
perfects us (cf. Phil. 1:6), but the emphasis in this
particular context is on Jesus’ historical exhibition of
faith, as the subsequent statements indicate. It must
also be noted that reference to Jesus as “the author and
finisher of faith” does not allow for the Calvinistic
concept that faith is given to the Christian or enacted
within the Christian by God, for consistent
interpretation of Scripture recognizes that faith is
man’s response to choose dependency upon and derivation
from God in “the receptivity of His activity.”
Paul documents how the historical
faith of “the man Christ Jesus” (Acts 2:22; I Tim. 2:5)
was the original and ultimate objective of God, by
explaining that Jesus, “who for the joy lying
before Him endured the cross, despising the shame,...”
Was “the joy lying before Him” the memory that Jesus had
of the pre-existent bliss and glory of heavenly
function? Was “the joy lying before Him” the expectancy
of exaltation sitting at the right hand of the throne of
God? Was “the joy lying before Him” the incentive of
redemptive efficacy that looked forward to the
restoration of functional humanity united with Him? Or,
since the Greek preposition anti (meaning
“against” or “opposed to”) is used, instead of the more
common preposition translated “for” or “because of”
(Greek gar), could this be a statement of
substitution? If he was employing the primary meaning of
anti, was Paul indicating that Jesus “instead of,
in place of, or against the joy lying before Him” of
avoiding the cross (cf. Matt. 26:38,39; Mk. 14:34-36;
Lk. 22:42; Heb. 5:7) “did not please Himself” (Rom.
15:3) by seeking the fame and accolades of man in the
world’s way of victory? Whether His action was based on
a memory, an expectancy, an incentive, or a
substitution, Jesus faithfully endured the cross,
voluntarily choosing the obedience, “even death on a
cross” (Phil. 2:8), to effect the “will of God” (Heb.
10:9) and God’s way of victory. This faithful endurance
of Jesus, even unto death, was the exemplary model (cf.
I Pet. 2:21-23) that Paul wanted his brethren in Judea
to focus on, for they could well be required to endure
and face death in the near future as the Romans
descended upon Palestine.
The particular death that Jesus
endured in faith, the horrendous execution of
crucifixion, was regarded as especially shameful,
degrading and contemptuous. This form of execution was
often reserved for slaves, foreigners, and the worst of
criminals. The public scorn of crucifixion was regarded
as despicable and ignominious by Roman citizens, while
the Jews regarded such a form of death as a curse (Gal.
3:13; Deut. 21:23). Jesus, however, was willing to
submit to such humiliation (Phil. 2:8), “despising the
shame,” disdaining the disgrace of such a death, for He
knew in faith that this was God’s means of victory over
sin and death. Paul is reminding his readers of how
Jesus “despised the shame” in the midst of faith
endurance that led to execution, because they, too, were
likely being subjected to public shame for not being
true and loyal to their Jewish heritage, and joining the
revolt against the Romans. In the midst of such scorn
and contempt, the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem needed
to disregard the shame and endure in their faith in
Jesus Christ, perhaps unto death. They needed a
forward-looking faith that looked beyond the present
humiliation to the heavenly exaltation.
The humiliating death of Jesus Christ
on the cross led to His being highly exalted (cf. Phil.
2:8-11) as the risen and ascended Lord and Saviour.
Having endured the cross, Jesus “has sat down at
the right hand of the throne of God.” Paul had
used this theme of the enthronement of the exalted Son
of God numerous times in this epistle (1:3,13; 8:1;
10:12). The seated posture represents the completion of
his work. He “accomplished the work which the Father
gave Him to do” (Jn. 17:4), having exclaimed from the
cross, “It is finished!” (Jn. 19:30). Permanent and
eternal victory was achieved in Jesus submitting to
death in order to overcome “the one having the power of
death, that is, the devil” (2:14). Jesus has assumed His
exalted place (7:26) of royal honor and authority “at
the right hand of the throne of God,” having become our
High Priestly intercessor (7:25) with “all authority
given to Him in heaven and on earth” (Matt. 28:18).
The assaulted Christians in Jerusalem
needed to look beyond all the present circumstances and
focus on Jesus, the ultimate exemplar of forward-looking
faith. They needed to run the race of life with faithful
endurance, willing to despise the disgrace and endure
even unto death, as Jesus did. Just as Jesus progressed
from humiliation to exaltation, Paul encourages these
Christians to accept and submit to God’s way of victory,
which often means that “the way to win is to lose”
(Matt. 10:39; 16:25). What appears to be loss or defeat
by the world’s standards is often the means of God’s
eternal victory.
12:3 As his readers were
in apparent danger of discouragement, disheartenment and
despair, Paul encourages his Hebrew brethren to
“Consider again the One having endured such hostility
under the sinners unto Himself,...” “Take
another long look at the enduring faith of Jesus,” Paul
is saying. Using a banking term, he encourages his
readers to “calculate” and “take inventory” of how Jesus
endured such an intensity of dispute (6:16; 7:7),
antagonism, cruelty, and violence under the hands of
sinners. Who were these “sinners” who mistreated Jesus
with hostile intent? For the most part the instigators
were His own Jewish people. Jesus had told His disciples
that “the Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of
sinners” (Matt. 26:45; Mk. 14:41) just prior to His
arrest by the Jewish chief priests and their henchmen.
Who was it that was engaging the Jerusalem Christians in
hostile opposition and “conflict of suffering”
(10:32-34)? Their own countrymen, the zealots of the
Jewish religion, were once again the “sinners”
countering and contradicting God’s action in His people.
The Christians of Jerusalem needed to see that they were
following in the footsteps of their Saviour, and needed
to endure such with the same kind of faithfulness as
Jesus did.
Although most modern translations
indicate that this “hostility under sinners” was
“against Himself” as the recipient of the antagonism,
some of the oldest Greek manuscripts indicate that the
hostility of the sinful persecutors was “against
themselves.” In this case, Jesus’ sinful oppressors were
acting to their own detriment, ruin and harm, in the
ironic situation of self-destruction (cf. Prov. 8:36;
Heb. 6:6).
The objective of Paul’s words
encouraging the Jerusalem Christians to “run with
endurance the race set before them by focusing and
reflecting on Jesus” was “in order that you should
not grow weary in your souls, being faint.” The
course or race (1) of the Christian life requires a
certain resolve and stamina to “go the distance.” The
terms that Paul employs are words that were used of
athletes who collapsed in exhaustion or fatigue and
could not finish the contest. Paul did not want the
struggling saints in Jerusalem to have a weakened
resolve or a breakdown in endurance. Such would indicate
that they had “given up,” relapsed, and apostatized. To
the Galatians, Paul had written, “Let us not lose heart
in doing good, for in due time we shall reap, if we do
not grow weary” (Gal. 6:9). The apostle John later
penned the words of Jesus to the church at Ephesus: “You
have perseverance and have endured for My name’s sake,
and have not grown weary” (Rev. 2:3). Paul was doing
everything he could to coach the Christians in Jerusalem
to continue in their faith without fainting.
12:4 Despite their having
endured hostile opposition (10:32-34; 13:3), Paul
reminds the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, “You
have not yet resisted to the point of blood shedding
(in your) struggling against sin.” They
had resisted the taunts and the ostracism of the Jewish
religionists and revolutionaries who regarded them as
traitors for having received Jesus as the Messiah, but
this resistance was not “until blood.” This phrase could
be a metaphor meaning “to the uttermost,” but even so,
the ultimate sacrifice would be resistance unto death.
Jesus “endured the cross” (2), execution by crucifixion,
in His faithful resistance, and the Jerusalem Christians
had not yet been called upon to resist to the point of
martyrdom. Compared to Jesus, their sufferings were not
yet as severe, and Paul is encouraging them to remain
faithful in their present situation which involved a
lesser degree of hostility than that of Jesus, at least
“to this point.” It must not be minimized, however, that
they were “struggling against sin.” Some have noted that
the athletic metaphor of a race (1-3) seems to have
changed to a different kind of contest (1), the
resistance and struggling of a pugilistic boxing match
(cf. I Cor. 9:26) or a wrestling contest. There is no
doubt that the recipients of this letter were involved
in the conflict of an antagonistic (the Greek word for
“struggling” is antagonizomenoi) fight against
determined opponents. Their “struggling against sin” was
not so much against personal “clinging sin” (1) as it
was against the “hostile sinners” (3), who were of that
same category of Jewish religionists who had crucified
Jesus.
12:5 In the midst of the
onslaught of religious “sinners” (3), while suffering
hostility (3) and shame (2), it is often difficult to
remember and recognize that God remains in sovereign
control of the situation, especially when those causing
the pain claim to be serving as God’s instruments. The
pain and unpleasantness of the conflict can be so
discouraging, distressing, disturbing, and unsettling.
There is always a temptation to question why God allows
such suffering, hardship and adversity. In theological
language, this is the issue of theodicy – the attempt to
determine an explanation for evil and suffering. We must
avoid a direct attribution of all affliction and
adversity upon God, for such can impinge upon His
character and be a denial of the fact that God “does not
tempt any one” to evil (James 1:13), for He cannot act
contrary to who He is – His own Being. Persecution and
suffering often have a primary cause in the hearts of,
and at the hands of, evil doers and “sinners” (3) who
act out of the character of the diabolic Evil One (cf.
Jn. 8:44; I Jn. 3:8,12). The same situations of
suffering can, however, become positive disciplinary
training as God uses them as a means of good in the
lives of His people. “God causes all things to work
together for good to those who love God, to those who
are called according to His purpose” (Rom. 8:28). In
God’s sovereignty, those who inflict suffering on His
people cannot thwart His purposes. After all that Job
had suffered, he confessed, “I know that Thou canst do
all things, and that no purpose of Thine can be
thwarted” (Job 42:2). “Shall we accept good from God and
not accept adversity?” (Job 2:10), asked Job. We must
recognize that adversity has a purpose, that there is
significance in our sufferings. The unpleasant
experiences of our existence are not to be viewed as
random events of “bad luck” under which we have the
misfortune of being victims. God is a heavenly Father
who loves His children, and therefore He does not
protect them from all problems, but perfects them in the
midst of distressing situations, and brings them through
as “overcomers.” This is what Paul was encouraging the
Jerusalem Christians to understand.
“Have you forgotten the
encouragement He speaks to you as sons?”, Paul
asks. Though these words could be an indicative
statement of accusation (“You have forgotten...”), they
can also be translated as an interrogative question
(“Have you forgotten...?”). The latter of these
alternatives seems preferable. Paul is asking his
readers if they have forgotten the encouraging words of
exhortation that God spoke through the wisdom literature
of Scripture in Proverbs 3:11,12, which he then quotes.
He applies these words directly to the Jewish
Christians, indicating that they are addressed “to you
as sons.” In so doing, Paul is introducing the filial
family relationship which is the context for
understanding God’s disciplinary purposes in the
unsettling circumstances of life. Christians are “sons
of God through faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:26), and
the intent of God in Christ is to “bring many sons to
glory” (Heb. 2:10). The process of doing so means that
God loves us enough to seek our highest good through
disciplinary training by His grace.
Quoting from Proverbs 3:11, Paul
writes, “MY SON, DO NOT REGARD LIGHTLY THE
DISCIPLINE OF THE LORD, NOR FAINT WHEN YOU ARE BEING
REPROVED;...”. Paul had cautioned the Christians
in Jerusalem against “fainting” (3), and this was
undoubtedly the connection in Paul’s mind to the
admonition against fainting here in Proverbs 3:11. The
book of Proverbs is, in large part, a parental manual
advising fathers in the upbringing of their sons, and
thus provides a comparative connection to God’s Fatherly
concern for His Christian sons. In these particular
verses (Prov. 3:11,12), personified Father Wisdom is
advising the sons of God not to despise, disregard, or
“regard lightly” the Lord’s disciplinary action, by
failing to appreciate what God is doing in the
circumstances of life. The Jerusalem Christians, in the
midst of their persecutive trials, were apparently in
danger of “regarding lightly” and failing to appreciate
the discipline of the Lord.
When people hear or read the phrase
“the discipline of the Lord,” different meanings and
connotations come to their minds. Many people equate
discipline with punishment. Depending on their own
experiences as the recipients of parental discipline,
they may view discipline as primarily a punitive
process. There are several Greek words for “punishment”
(cf. dike, kolazomai, timoreo), but the word
“discipline” in these verses should not be interpreted
as “punishment.” The fact that the KJV uses the
translation of “chastisement” or “chastening,” meaning
“to punish, castigate, or censure,” does not facilitate
an accurate understanding of Paul’s intent. The word for
“discipline” (Greek paideia) in this passage
(5-11) is etymologically rooted in the word for “child”
(pais) or “little child” (paidion).
Discipline is the process of bringing up a child, the
nurturing (cf. Eph. 6:4) process of child-training (cf.
II Tim. 3:16). This process will involve corrective,
instructive, and directive action to bring the child to
the maturation of responsible adulthood. The English
word “discipline” is derived from the Latin
disciplina, meaning “teaching” or “learning.” From
the same Latin root of discipulus, meaning
“learner” or “follower,” we derive the English word
“disciple.” The Lord’s discipline in the new covenant
context is the process of developing a disciple of Jesus
Christ, the corrective, instructive and directive
process of training a “child of God” unto the mature
recognition of God’s sovereignty and the faithful
expression of His character.
The experiences and trials of life
are “common to man” (I Cor. 10:13). We have an extended
vocabulary of words to describe these circumstances:
problems, difficulties, troubles, tribulations, tragedy,
hardships, adversity, affliction, attacks, persecution,
pressures, pain, suffering, etc. on and on. Though God
is the essential cause of all things as the Sovereign
Creator God, He is not the blameworthy cause of evil
which is contrary to His character. We cannot,
therefore, claim that God purposes, causes, or
orchestrates all events, especially such evil-doing as
rape, murder, torture, or disease, without impinging on
God’s absolute character of goodness. What we can
indicate, though, is that God tests (Jn. 6:6; Heb.
11:17) and examines His people in the midst of all
situations, employing His corrective, instructive, and
directive purposes of discipline, and soliciting us to
allow His character of perfect godliness to be
manifested in our behavior in response to, and in the
midst of, the situation that confronts us. Moses
explained to the Israelites that during their forty
years of wandering in the wilderness, “The Lord was
disciplining you, just as a man disciplines a son”
(Deut. 8:5). Eliphas advised Job in the midst of his
sufferings, “Do not despise the discipline of the
Almighty” (Job 5:17). The Psalmist admits, “It was good
for me that I was afflicted, that I might learn Thy
statutes” (Ps. 119:71). The Lord Jesus Christ “learned
obedience” (Heb. 5:8) and was perfected (Heb. 2:10)
“through suffering.” In like manner, God’s children are
made perfect (cf. Phil. 1:6; Col. 1:28) in the
maturation of being “conformed to the image of the Son”
(Rom. 8:29). God the Father is committed to the
child-training and disciplining that develops persons
into the divine intent of evidencing and exhibiting His
character in their behavior to the glory of God. This
developmental process of “bringing many sons to glory”
(Heb. 2:10) may involve,
“if necessary, being distressed
by various trials, that the proof of your
faith...even though tested by fire, may be found to
result in praise and glory and honor at the
revelation of Jesus Christ; and...believing in Him,
you may rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of
glory, obtaining as the outcome of your faith the
salvation of your souls.” (I Pet. 1:6-9)
Understanding the positive purpose of
divine discipline in this way allows us to avoid
“regarding it lightly,” and rather to appreciate and
respect what God is doing in the midst of the
circumstances of life. Thus we do not “faint,” give up,
or relapse into unbelief even when God’s discipline
involves the corrective element of exposing our
weaknesses, inadequacies and inabilities; of convincing
and convicting us of our selfish preoccupation with
self-preservation; or of reproving or rebuking us for
thinking that we can solve all of our own problems by
employing self-discipline and self-control. As the risen
Lord Jesus says to the Laodiceans, “Those whom I love, I
reprove and discipline; be zealous therefore, and
repent” (Rev. 3:19). The reproving action of divine
discipline is necessary to negate the selfish tendencies
of personal action and reaction in order to allow the
positive expression of God’s character in the situation.
This corrective discipline of reproof is sometimes
represented as the refining and purifying (cf. Ps.
66:10; Isa. 48:10; Mal. 3:3) action of being “tested by
fire” (I Pet. 1:7) so that the dross (Isa. 1:25) of
imperfections can be removed, and the “gold” of Christ’s
character (Job 23:10; I Pet. 1:7) can be exhibited.
Corrective reproof is an essential part of being
“disciplined by the Lord, that we should not be
condemned along with the world” (I Cor. 11:32).
12:6 Paul continues to
cite the quotation from Proverbs 3:12 from the Greek
Septuagint translation (LXX); “FOR THOSE
WHOM THE LORD LOVES HE DISCIPLINES, AND HE SCOURGES
EVERY SON WHOM HE RECEIVES.” The motivational
context of God’s discipline is always His absolute
character of love. “God is love” (I Jn. 4:8,16). God’s
love always seeks the highest good of the other. In
order to do so, it must often be expressed as “tough
love” – love that cares enough to confront. God’s love
is not sentimental, indulgent permissiveness that allows
us to do as we selfishly please. Neither is His love a
heavy-handed coercive force that castigates until we
capitulate. God disciplines in love so that His children
may become disciples who will “listen under” Him in the
dependence of the “obedience of faith.” This often
involves the corrective element of exposing our
inadequacies and inabilities, and bringing us “to the
end of ourselves.” God’s love takes the risk that the
individual might blame Him for the problems and
pressures, doubt His love, reject Him altogether, and
rebel in sinful self-orientation. That is the risk God
takes in disciplining those He loves.
Proverbs 3:12 goes on to indicate
that “God scourges every son whom He receives.” In the
analogy with parental discipline, the word “scourge”
often refers to the corporeal discipline of spanking,
whipping, or flogging. As the root word of mastigoi
is masso, meaning “to squeeze,” a more general
interpretation might be that in the midst of His
discipline, God often “puts the squeeze on” or “puts the
pressure on” those who are His spiritual children. In
the new covenant God’s sons are those who have received
Jesus Christ and have become “sons of God through faith
in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:26). God has received such
persons into Himself, into union with Himself, into a
dynamic relationship with Himself as a son in the Family
of God. This is not a future reception into heaven, but
a present reception into relationalism with the Triune
God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In the midst of such
spiritual relationalism the Persons of the Trinity allow
the disciplinary pressures of life to prepare us for the
unique expression of divine life and character in us.
The Christians in Jerusalem may have
been at their wits end after years of harassment by
their Jewish brethren. The pressure to question the
Christian hope, to revert to their Jewish religious
heritage, and to espouse the cause of the Jewish
independence movement was no doubt intense. In the midst
of their trials, hardships and adversities they were
likely tempted to think that God had abandoned them –
that there did not seem to be any future in remaining a
minority remnant of believers in the seemingly forsaken
Jerusalem outpost of the Christian faith. Paul knew that
they needed to be reminded that God loved them and was
at work in the midst of their situation to mold them
into what He wanted them to be, and to prepare them for
what they were to encounter in the days to come.
12:7 Commenting on the
meanings of the words from Proverbs, Paul writes,
“Endure (in response) to discipline.”
The brevity of Paul’s three words in the Greek text
allow for different translations and meanings. The verb
can be understood as either an indicative statement
(“The response to discipline is to endure.”) or as an
imperative command (“Endure in response to
discipline.”). Another Greek manuscript variation (ei
instead of eis) allows for the reading, “If you
endure discipline,....” (KJV), but this is not the
better attested manuscript reading.
Throughout the epistle Paul has been
calling upon the embattled Jerusalem Christians to
“endure” (10:36,39; 12:1,2,3), to “abide under” the
trials and situations they were encountering. Now, he
encourages them not to capitulate, not to “cave in,” not
to attempt to escape their problems, but rather to
regard their trials as part of God’s child-training
process of divine discipline.
“God is dealing with you as
with sons,” Paul explains. Then he asks,
“For who is a son whom a father does not discipline?”
Divine discipline can only be properly understood in the
context of relationship. William Lane writes, “There is
a necessary and integral relationship between
disciplinary sufferings and sonship.”1
“Paternal discipline is an integral part of family
life.”2 In the Hebrew
culture, fathers were held responsible for parental
discipline that led to the child’s respect for and
obedience to God. Note these admonitions in the parental
manual of the Proverbs:
“He who loves his son disciplines
him diligently” (Prov. 13:24)
“Discipline your son while there is still hope.”
(Prov. 19:18)
“Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child;
the rod of discipline will remove it far from him.”
(Prov. 22:15)
“Do not hold back discipline from the child.” (Prov.
23:13)
“Correct your son, and he will give you comfort; he
will delight your soul.” (Prov. 29:17)
To the Ephesian Christians Paul had
advised that the fathers should “bring up their children
in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Eph.
6:4). Despite Dr. Spock’s disastrous doctrines of
permissive parenting that have resulted in “dead-beat
dads” who deny and shirk their responsibility of
parenting, God has always indicated that responsible
fathers will discipline their children. Paul’s argument
to the Christians in Jerusalem is that their
disciplinary difficulties are proof that God is their
Father, and that He is responsibly working in their
lives and dealing with them as sons.
12:8 Paul restates his
general principle of relational discipline in the
hypothetical negative. “But if you are without
discipline, of which you have all become partakers, then
you are illegitimate children and not sons.” The
absence of discipline would indicate parental rejection
and abandonment. The exercise of parental discipline,
however, evidences the legitimacy of relational sonship.
“That is why you can correctly surmise that you are
legitimate sons of God,” Paul is explaining to his
readers in Jerusalem. We have all, in common with all
legitimate Christians, become children of God (Jn.
1:12,13), and in the midst of that relationship “have
become partakers” and participants who share together in
the disciplinary child-training of our loving Father.
“As many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the
sons of God” (Rom. 8:14) The directive discipline of God
confirms our relational sonship.
Roman law (unfair as this might be to
the unmarried mothers and their children) placed
illegitimate children outside of any legal paternal
responsibility and protection. Illegitimate children,
“bastards” (KJV), were not required to (and usually did
not) receive the discipline of the one who fathered
them. They were not regarded as real or genuine sons of
the one who fathered them – just accidents that occurred
along the way, for whom the mothers were henceforth
responsible.
Paul’s concern, however, is to cast
this rationale of legitimacy and genuineness into the
relationalism that a Christian has with God the Father.
Christians and non-Christians alike encounter
experiential events of trial, adversity and suffering.
The unregenerate, who are not “sons of God through faith
in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:26), are unrelated to God (Gal.
4:8; Eph. 2:12;4:18; Col. 1:21), and must face the
circumstances of life in a non-relational context that
cannot experience and appreciate God’s disciplinary
child-training of His spiritual children, though this
does not imply that they are outside of His general
providential care. The problematic situations of life
are often viewed by the unregenerate as irritating and
frustrating obstacles which are attacked with blame and
anger toward the perpetuators (if there are such, and
they can be identified) or toward God. Reacting with
such fight (anger, blame), fright (fear, anxiety), and
flight (escape, compromise, take the easy way out),
those who are non-relational with God seek to regain
control of the situation (to whatever extent is
possible). The best explanatory “spin” they have for
such hardships is that they “build character” and “make
one stronger” for dealing with the next difficulty.
Christians, on the other hand, are
not exempt from the same kinds of trials and adversities
of life. These are “common to man” (I Cor. 10:13). In
the relational context of sonship, in connective union
with the Son, Jesus Christ, the Christian can view these
difficulties from the perspective of God’s loving,
disciplinary child-training. Christians take comfort in
the knowledge that God is in sovereign control of the
entire situation confronting them, as well as their
future destiny. Christians are encouraged in the
recognition that God is using the circumstances, however
difficult and painful, and “causing them to work
together for good to those who love Him and are called
according to His purpose” (Rom. 8:28). Accepting the
sufficiency of His grace in the midst of the situations,
Christians can remain faithfully receptive to His
activity and endure through the situation to experience
God’s outcome. James writes,
“Consider it all joy, my
brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing
that the testing of your faith produces endurance.
And let endurance have its perfect result, that you
may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.”
(James 1:2-4)
It is the relational context of God’s
corrective, instructive and directive disciplinary
action that assures Christians of the legitimacy and
genuineness of their relationship with God through
Christ. God is a loving Father, who will not reject or
abandon His children. Christians must trust God’s ways,
even though they may not be able to determine God’s
specific purposes and objectives in the particular
circumstances of life. “Since the Lord is directing our
steps, why try to understand everything that happens
along the way?” (Prov. 20:24 -LB). By faith, Christians
accept and endure the situations of life, assured that
God’s directive discipline evidences the legitimacy of
their sonship relationship with God in Christ.
12:9 Continuing to
connect physical paternal discipline with divine
discipline, Paul writes, “Furthermore, we had
fathers of the flesh as disciplinarians, and we
respected them,...” Paul presumes that his
Jewish Christian readers, with their Hebrew heritage,
had natural, human fathers who disciplined them, serving
as correctors, instructors, and directors of their lives
as children. As a result of such proper parental
discipline, children are taught to “honor their father
and mother” (Exod. 20:12; Eph. 6:2,3), and to respect
and submit to the authority of parents, other leaders,
and God. Some have questioned whether Paul’s assumptions
of parental discipline were more appropriate to his
ancient Hebrew culture than to modern Western culture.
Modern psychologies of parenting often oppose many forms
of direct discipline of a child on the misguided
premises that such methods of child-training result in a
self-image of shame, accompanied by a disrespect for
parents that blames them for abuse. Granted, there are
(and have always been) selfish, irresponsible, unjust,
unloving, and abusive parents that are hardly worthy of
respect, but the arranged order of the divinely ordained
parent/child relationship still demands that “children
be obedient to their parents” (Col. 3:20; Eph. 6:1;
Prov. 6:20), and respect their parents as the
God-ordained means of “training up a child” (Prov.
22:6).
Based on the basic familial principle
of children being subject to their parents, Paul then
transfers to divine discipline, asking, “...shall we not
much more be made subject to the Father of spirits, and
we will live?” In that we should have greater respect
for God’s authority than for parental authority, and
recognize that our spiritual benefit is of higher
importance than the physical benefits of child-rearing,
Paul challenges the Jerusalem Christians to accept their
subjection to divine discipline in the midst of their
trials.
Identifying God as “the Father of all
spirits” may refer to His spiritual authority over all
created beings, angelic and human, who are able to
relate to Him on a spiritual level. However, since God
is referred to as “the God of the spirits of all flesh”
(Numb. 16:22; 27:16), and humanity in particular are
those in whom God has “formed their spirit” (Zech. 12:1)
and breathed the spirit of His life (Gen. 2:7; Job
33:4), it is more likely that Paul has the divine/human
relationship in mind. Even more specifically, the
Jerusalem Christians, who have received God’s spiritual
life in Christ Jesus, are being encouraged to accept
disciplinary subjection under their spiritual Father in
order to experience the spiritual life that God intends
to its fullest. Jesus said, “I came that you might have
life, and have it more abundantly” (John 10:10. In the
midst of the pressures and problems of life it is often
difficult to see and appreciate the abundant fullness of
Christ’s indwelling life and sufficiency, but Paul
frames his question in such a way as to expect an
affirmative answer: “Yes, we should submit to, and
accept being made subject to, our spiritual Father in
order to “live by faith” (10:38), both now and forever.”
12:10 The comparison of
physical parental discipline and divine discipline
continues. “For they (“our fathers of the
flesh”) disciplined us for a limited period of
time according to what they deemed proper.” The
parental discipline of our physical fathers was for a
relatively short period of time, until we came of age
and achieved adulthood. The Greek text reads “a few
days,” figuratively indicating a brief and limited
period of time. Our earthly fathers administered their
discipline “according to what they deemed proper,”
‘according to their way of thinking,” “as seemed best to
them.” Many parents, fully cognizant that they were not
“perfect parents,” have found a sense of consolation in
these words of Paul. Parental perception and training is
fallible – full of uncertainties and often expressing
“the deeds of the flesh” (Gal. 5:19-21). Human parents
often discipline in exasperated “outbursts of anger,”
capricious unfairness, or rejective favoritism. Parents
will indeed be held accountable before God for the
character expressed in the disciplining of their
children, but Paul recognizes that conscientious parents
with the best of intentions still have to discipline
their children in accord with their best personal
discretion, which is still human and finite, rather than
divine and infinite. The translation of the Authorized
Version (KJV), that parents discipline “after their own
pleasure” must not be understood as “for their own
amusement.”
Paul draws the contrast to human
parenting by writing, “but He” (God the
Father) disciplines us (the verb and object are drawn
from the previous phrase) “for the ultimate
advantage, that we partake of His holiness.”
God’s love always seeks our highest good and acts for
our eternal benefit and profit. His disciplinary
purposes are always directed at the fulfillment of His
creative and redemptive objectives that mankind should
function by being receptive to the expression of His own
glorious character. The holy character of God sets Him
apart from all others. Mankind can never “possess” or
even “share” the holy character of God. He does not give
His glory to another (Isa. 42:8; 48:11). The only means
by which we can “be holy as He is holy” (I Pet. 1:15,16)
is to receive, partake of, and allow Him to manifest His
holy character in our behavior. Such participation in
the divine life of the Trinity sanctifies the Christian
and sets him apart to function as intended by allowing
the holy character of God to be expressed in Christian
behavior. This holy disciplinary objective of the Father
God supersedes the temporal discretionary discipline of
earthly parents for it is directed at the permanent and
eternal participatory expression of God’s holy character
in humanity.
12:11 Paul’s next words
form a truism that may have seemed like an extreme
understatement to the beleaguered Christians in
Jerusalem. “All discipline for the moment does not
seem to be joy, but grief;...” Although this
statement is true both of human and divine discipline,
it is surely the latter that was on the mind of Paul and
his readers. The surface evaluation of what was
transpiring in the lives of the Jerusalem saints could
not deem their persecution and harassment to be joyful.
Discipline usually impinges on our status quo and
infringes on our “comfort zone.” The circumstances are
often unpleasant, painful, grievous and sorrowful. Such
trials are not something we enjoy, but are called to
endure. James’ statement, “Consider it all joy when you
encounter various trials” (James 1:2) must be
interpreted within its context, which is not that we to
seek out and enjoy the trials and the discipline, but
rather to anticipate joyously the result of God’s
perfect and completing (James 1:4) work in our lives.
This result of God’s disciplinary
action is what Paul proceeds to refer to: “...but
later it (God’s discipline) gives back the
peaceful fruit of righteousness to those having been
trained through it (God’s discipline).”
In contrast to the momentary discomfort of the
difficulties, the resultant disciplinary benefits can
only be evaluated “later” from the perspective of 20/20
hindsight. God’s disciplinary activity allows the
Christian to “partake of His holy character” (10), and
it yields “the peaceful fruit of righteousness.”
Righteousness, along with holiness (10), is the
exclusive character of God. Paul is not referring here
to the forensic imputation of
justification/righteousness, but to God’s intent to
express His character of righteousness in Christian
behavior. Such righteousness cannot be generated or
produced by man (cf. Isa. 64:6; Phil. 3:9; Gal. 2:21),
but is exclusively the result of Jesus Christ, the
Righteous One (cf. Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14; I Jn. 2:1)
dwelling within the Christian and being allowed to
manifest His character fruit (Gal. 5:22,23) in the
behavior of the Christian by faith (Phil. 3:9). The
Christian bears the fruit of Christ’s character (Jn.
15:1-8), the “fruit of righteousness which comes through
Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God” (Phil.
1:11). “Walk as children of light,” Paul advises the
Ephesians, “for the fruit of light consists in all
goodness and righteousness and truth” (Eph. 5:8,9). The
resultant harvest of God’s discipling child-training in
the trials of life is the “fruit of righteousness” (cf.
James 3:18), as Christians participate in the kingdom
living of “righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy
Spirit” (Rom. 14:17).
God’s righteous character expressed
in man’s behavior, individually and collectively, is the
result of “having been trained through” God’s
discipline. Paul returns to the athletic metaphor of the
“training exercise” required for victory in the course
or context (1) of life. The Greek verb Paul uses for
“having been trained” (gumnazo - cf. I Tim. 4:7)
is the source of the English words “gymnasium” and
“gymnastics.” God’s discipline of the Christian is the
“training exercise,” the “time in the gym,” the process
that must be endured if we are to be the victors God’s
intends us to be. “No pain, no gain” is a common
training slogan, but we must remember that we do not
seek the pain, and the gain is not something acquired or
achieved through self-effort, but the gain of the
expression of His godly character in Christian behavior.
God puts us through the exercises, and God supplies the
results.
12:12 Verses 12 and 13
are transitional. They contain imperative verbs which
address a collective responsibility within the Christian
community, as is prevalent throughout the remainder of
the epistle. At the same time these verses are tied to
the foregoing verses by the connective and conclusive
conjunction “therefore...” The athletic metaphor of
God’s discipline as a “training exercise” seems to be
summed up in some final directions about preparing to
run the race. “Get ready, get set, go!” For this reason,
it seems best to maintain the connection of verses 12
and 13 with 1-11.
“Therefore, flex the hands
having become limp and the knees having become
loose,...” The imperative verbs indicate a
definite sense of responsibility on the part of the
Jerusalem Christians, not only to accept God’s
discipline, but to ready themselves for the race (1).
This preparation will involve flexing and “stretching”
limp and listless hands, as well as weak and wobbly
knees. These figures of atrophied attitude and droopy
discouragement again evidence the apparent sluggishness
(5:11; 6:12) of the readers. In accord with the prophet
Isaiah, Paul is attempting to “encourage the slack hands
and strengthen the tottering knees” (Isa. 35:3) so that
“the lame will leap like a deer” (Isa. 35:6) in the
fulfillment of the new covenant in Jesus Christ.
12:13 Using another
imperative verb, Paul admonishes the Jerusalem
Christians to “make straight paths for your
feet,...”. In that the shortest distance to the
goal is a straight line, Paul encourages his Christian
brethren to make straight-forward progress in the
Christian race, directly pursuing the goal of God’s
intent, the unique teleological objective in their
lives. There is no time for mindless meandering or
swerving off course. As the proverb says, “Turn not
aside to the right hand or to the left, but turn away
your foot from an evil way,...and He will make thy ways
straight, and will guide your steps in peace” (Prov.
4:26,27 - LXX).
Paul’s objective in admonishing the
Christians in Jerusalem to get ready and be prepared is
“in order that the lame should not be turned out,
but rather be healed.” Who are the “lame” that
Paul refers to? Are they particular persons in the
Jerusalem fellowship who are gimpy, limpy, crippled or
maimed, and not walking very well in their Christian
lives? Or, are all the Christians in Jerusalem
identified as “lame” due to their “sluggishness” (5:11;
6:12) and tendency to “drift away” (2:1)? Paul is
concerned that the lame not be “turned out.” Physically
this would mean that the legs of the lame should not be
dislocated or “put out of joint,” but Paul’s figurative
usage is to dissuade the Jerusalem Christians from
“turning out” in apostasy and rejection of Jesus Christ.
Paul's other usages of this same Greek verb pertain to
those who “turn aside to fruitless discussion” (I
Tim. 1:6), “turn aside to myths” (II Tim. 4:4),
and “turn aside to follow Satan” (I Tim. 5:15).
Paul’s deep concern for his brethren in Jerusalem is
that they should not “turn aside” and drop out of the
race, but rather be restored to a healthy Christian
walk. His desire was for their spiritual healing whereby
they would participate in the new covenant realities of
the “lame walking” (Matt. 11:5) and “leaping like a
deer” (Isa. 35:5) in the joy of reaching the goal of God
in their lives.
Concluding remarks:
We must keep in mind the sitz im
leben, the “setting in life,” of the Jewish
Christians of Judea to whom this letter was written.
Having accepted Jesus as the expected Messiah, they were
ostracized and persecuted by their Jewish kinsmen. Some
of them had experienced the seizure of their property
(10:34). Some had been subjected to imprisonment (10:34;
13:3) and mistreatment (13:34), although none had
apparently experienced the death of martyrdom (12:4).
Their economic suppression was so severe that Paul had
sought contributions from among the Gentile Christians
for “the poor among the saints in Jerusalem” (Rom.
15:26; I Cor. 16:2,3). Paul himself was constantly
“dogged” by the Judaizers from Judea wherever he went,
and had asked for prayers that he “might be delivered
from those who are disobedient in Judea” (Rom. 15:31).
With the revolutionary uprising
against Rome coming to a fever pitch in the seventh
decade of the first century, the Judean Christians were
subjected to increased pressure to join the cause to
oust the Roman oppressors. Christians who would not
participate in the insurrection were regarded as
unpatriotic traitors unwilling to fight for what the
Jewish militants regarded as their God-given right to a
Jewish nation-state. They were already regarded as
irreligious for refusing to participate in the Jewish
temple practices, but when the Christians would not take
a stand for restoring the Judaic high priesthood, they
were despised as those who had divorced themselves from
their Jewish heritage.
The “cost of discipleship” was high
for the Christians in Jerusalem when this letter was
written. To recognize the divine discipline unto deeper
discipleship in the midst of their difficulties was not
an easy perception to develop. Yet Paul, who was very
familiar “with insults, with distresses, with
persecutions, with difficulties for Christ’s sake” (II
Cor. 12:10), having been “afflicted, ...perplexed,
...persecuted, ...struck down, ...and delivered over to
death for Jesus’ sake” (II Cor. 12:10), by being
“imprisoned, beaten, stoned,” etc. (II Cor. 11:22-27),
and while likely still imprisoned in Rome for his
Christian faith, writes to encourage the Christians in
Judea to endure in their faith. He lifts up Jesus as the
prime example of One who endured humiliation (2) and
hostility (3) as the “pioneer and perfecter of faith”
(2) to experience God’s ultimate exaltation. From the
Proverbs, Paul draws the analogy of a father’s
relational child-training of his sons, which must be
endured to achieve God’s intended results. To view their
tribulations as situations that God was using in His
disciplining process would not doubt have been difficult
for the hard-hit Christians in Jerusalem. The easy way
out would have been to seek a way of escape, rather than
the endurance of faith – to “drift away” (2:1), to
“shrink back” (10:39), to “fall away” (6:6). Paul uses
every argument he can think of to encourage his fellow
Jewish believers that they have “everything better” in
Jesus Christ. Here his argument is that Jesus is “the
better example and disciplinary agent of faithful
endurance.” This does not diminish the need, however,
for responsible action on the part of the Christians in
being receptive to God’s grace (15) in the process of
sanctification (14) unto holiness (10) and righteousness
(11), as Paul will proceed to address.
FOOTNOTES
1 Lane, William
L.,Word Biblical Commentary. Hebrews 9-13. Vol.
47B. Dallas, Tx: Word Books. 1991. pg. 407.
2 Ibid. pg.
422.
Consistent with his typical
epistolary style, Paul concludes this letter, like his
others, with practical admonitions and directives. In
the conclusive hortatory section (12:14–13:25), Paul
employs imperative statements to exhort the Jerusalem
Christians of their individual and collective
responsibility to recognize their new covenant blessings
(12:22-24), to respond with peace and holiness (12:14)
and the obedience of worship (12:28), and to refuse to
defect in apostasy (12:15-17, 25-27). The theme of
enduring in faith (12:1-3) via God’s discipline
(12:5-12), now gives way to the practicalities of living
holy lives in peaceful Christian community (14) while
listening to God in obedience (25) and engaging in
genuine kingdom worship (28).
Connection with the previous
paragraph is evident. The result of God’s discipline,
Paul had explained, would be “the peaceful fruit
of righteousness” (11) and “partaking of His holiness”
(10). The practical and necessary pursuit of communal
peace and holiness are Paul’s initial admonitions in
this paragraph (14).
Paul, the apostle of grace, begins
and ends this contextual section (14-29) of his letter
with mention of “grace” (15,28). The grace dynamic of
God’s action is required for peaceful and sanctified
behavior (14), as well as for listening to God in
worship (25-28).
Within this contextual section
(14-29) are three (3) subdivisions or paragraphs. The
first paragraph (14-17) connects to the previous section
(as noted above), and encourages the Hebrew Christians
to avoid apostasy by engaging in peaceful community and
personal holiness. The second paragraph (18-24) provides
the central foundations of Paul’s exhortations by
establishing the superiority of the new covenant over
the old covenant in the imagery of the unapproachability
and terror of Mt. Sinai (18-21) contrasted with the
immediate presence and festivity for Christians at Mt.
Zion (22-24). The summary of eschatological realities
provides the basis of the privileged status that the
Christian readers have in Jesus Christ. The third
paragraph (25-29) has a connective link to the second
paragraph in the privilege of listening to the voice of
God, and worshipping in the unshakeable kingdom of Jesus
Christ.
When summarized, Paul seems to be
advising the Christians in Jerusalem that “Jesus is the
better new covenant basis of holiness and worship.” The
new covenant realities of being drawn into the immediate
presence of God with angels and other Christians allows
the Christian to manifest the peaceful, faithful, and
holy character of God by His grace, rather than
attempting to be “holy” by law-based performance. New
covenant union with Christ allows the Christian to
listen to the voice of God without fear and terror, and
express the worth-ship of God’s character in worship,
rather than in law-based worship forms of prescribed
procedures in particular locations (such as the temple
that still stood in Jerusalem). Paul continues to
encourage the Jerusalem Christians that they have
“everything better” in Jesus Christ.
12:14 Perhaps Paul had
received word that there was dissension among the
Christians in the congregation at Jerusalem. His
imperative admonition is to “pursue peace with
all.” Paul is not advocating the pursuit of a
subjective peace of inner tranquility by withdrawal into
a cerebral or emotional spirituality. Rather, he is
encouraging a visible social harmony and community
solidarity in the local body of Christ in Jerusalem.
Although Paul advises the Romans, “If possible, …be at
peace with all men” (Rom. 12:18) universally, the “all”
referred to here seems contextually to be “all” the
saints in the Christian community. Later, in the context
of the interpersonal relationship of the kingdom, Paul
exhorted the Romans, “So then, let us pursue the things
which make for peace and the building up of one another”
(Rom. 14:19), which is more akin to what he was writing
to the Hebrews in this context. Paul’s pastoral advice
to Timothy was to “pursue righteousness, faith, love,
and peace, with those who call on the Lord from a pure
heart” (II Tim. 2:22). Both Paul and his readers, being
thoroughly grounded in the Old Testament Scriptures,
might have remembered the words of the Psalmist, “Seek
peace, and pursue it” (Ps. 34:14), but the particular
emphasis of this admonition to the Hebrew Christians was
to implement new covenant social interactions in their
local Body of Christ that were indicative of the
peaceful interrelations of the Triune God.
The same imperative verb provides the
admonishment of responsibility to “pursue” both peace,
“and the holiness without which no one will see
the Lord.” Paul had just explained that the
purpose of God’s discipline in the trials of life was
“for the ultimate advantage, that we partake of His
holiness” (10). The manifestation of God’s holy
character in the behavior of the Jerusalem Christians
would obviously facilitate the social implications of a
peaceful community. The sanctification or holiness that
Paul is demanding is not the objective or positional
imputation of being set apart and “sanctified through
the offering of the body of Jesus Christ (10:10; 13:12),
“through faith in Christ” (Acts 26:18), but is a command
that the sanctified saints of Jerusalem should allow for
the behavioral manifestation of the holy character of
God. Already regarded as “saints” (13:24) and “holy
ones” (3:1) by the presence of Jesus Christ, the Holy
One (Acts 3:14) in them, the Jerusalem Christians needed
to be involved in the process of expressing the holy
character of God in present-tense salvation. Such
sanctification holiness is not by ethical achievement or
external conformity, but by the process of deriving from
God’s holiness.
Such progressive holiness in
Christian behavior is imperative and indispensable, for
“without it no one will see the Lord.” Sanctification is
not a static experience or event in the life of a
Christian, but is the dynamic receipt and expression of
God’s holiness, initially and continually. The absence
of progress in Christian holiness is necessarily
regress, and Paul’s concern for the Hebrew Christians
was that such regress would result in apostasy. To the
Thessalonians, he had written, “This is the will of God,
your sanctification” (I Thess. 4:3). Paul wanted the
Christians in Jerusalem to understand the importance of
progress in the process of holy living, for only
holiness can come into the holy presence of God. His
concern for the Jerusalem saints was that the holy
character of God so permeate their being that they would
in no way be disqualified from the future and eternal
seeing of the Lord (cf. I Cor. 13:12; I Jn. 3:2; Rev.
22:14).
12:15 Using another
imperative verb, Paul exhorts, “See to it that no
one comes short of the grace of God;…” With a
vigilance that senses the true peril, Paul wants them to
“watch out” and “observe carefully” that none of their
fellow Christians should “come short of the grace of
God.” Earlier Paul had addressed his concern that they
not “come short” of entering God’s rest (4:1). To the
Romans, Paul had used the same word in writing of how
sin caused all to “come short of the glory of God” (Rom.
3:23). Paul’s concern was that the Christians in Judea
not renounce or repudiate the power of God’s grace to
preserve them, and thus fail to attain and forfeit all
that God had for them by “shrinking back to destruction”
(10:39) in apostasy (cf. 2:1-3; 3:12,15; 4:1; 6:4-6;
10:29-31,39). Previously Paul had mentioned the
possibility of “insulting the Spirit of grace” (10:29).
He intimated that some of the Galatians had “fallen from
grace” (Gal. 5:4), and urged the Corinthians “not to
receive the grace of God in vain” (II Cor. 6:1). The
preserving grace of God is the divine dynamic that
energizes and enables all Christian activity. “He who
began a good work in us will perfect it until the day of
Christ Jesus” (Phil. 1:6), so that we can “do all things
through Him who strengthens us” (Phil. 4:13). But we
must “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and
Savior Jesus Christ” (II Pet. 3:18), drawing on such
grace by faith, and must avoid despising, repudiating
and thus forfeiting the grace of God. We have a mutual
responsibility as Christians (cf. 3:12,13; 4:1;
10:24,25) to encourage one another to receive the grace
provision of God, rather than “coming short” by
disinterest or lack of faith.
Paul’s exhortation of the mutual
responsibility of “seeing to it” or “watching out” for
one another has several subordinate clauses: See to it
(1) that no one comes short of the grace of God, (2)
that no root of bitterness causes trouble, and (3) that
no one sells out their birthright, like Esau.
The second of the sequence of
admonished observations is to see to it “that no
root of bitterness springing up should cause trouble,
and through it many be defiled;…” There may have
been some within the Jerusalem fellowship who were
speaking despairingly of the Christian endeavor and of
the preserving power of God’s grace, perhaps even
advocating they should give up on being Christian
“hold-outs” and join the league of Jewish defense
against Rome. Paul uses the figure of a poisonous root
or shoot that produces bitter fruit and causes
corruption or defilement for those associated with it.
This was a figure that was used in the Old Testament
when the Israelites were in the wilderness at Moab, and
Moses warned them about the possibility of there being
“a man or woman, or family or tribe, whose heart turns
away from the Lord our God…; lest there be among you a
root bearing poisonous fruit and wormwood. …the anger of
the Lord and His jealousy shall burn against that man,
and every curse that is written in this book shall rest
on him, and the Lord shall blot out his name from under
heaven” (Deut. 29:18-20). In other letters Paul warned,
“a little leaven leavens the whole lump” (I Cor. 5:6;
Gal. 5:9). Today we might say, “A bad apple spoils the
whole bushel.” Whatever the metaphor, Paul is concerned
that the malignancy of a few might affect the health of
the whole Body. If there were some who had an “evil,
unbelieving heart” (3:12), and had already determined to
defect and apostatize from their Christian faith, their
vexation could become contagious and cause many others
to be corrupted and defiled by following their example
of defection. Paul warns the community of Christians in
Jerusalem that they have a mutual responsibility to
disallow this kind of pervasive damage from within the
Body.
12:16 The third of the
subordinate clauses is a warning to watch out
“that (there be) no mercenary or
desecrator, like Esau, who in the place of one meal gave
up his birthright.” Paul was inculcating the
mutual responsibility of the Christians in Jerusalem to
be on guard for those who might contemptuously despise
their spiritual birthright as a Christian and sell out
to other causes for temporal gratification. The
narrative concerning Jacob and Esau can be found in
Genesis 25:29-34. There is no reference in the narrative
of Esau being sexually immoral or a whoremonger, which
is the direct meaning of the Greek pornos (from
which we get English words like “pornography”) used
here. To avoid such undocumented reference to Esau, some
translations (ex. KJV and NIV) have added a comma after
pornos and made a separate and additional
subordinate clause warning “that there be no immoral
person” in their midst. Grammatically, it seems better
to retain the word as referent to Esau and interpret the
word in a figurative sense of a mercenary willingness to
pay for the services of self-gratification. Esau is also
represented as a coarse, profane and irreverent person
to whom God’s blessings meant little, and therefore he
was willing to contemptuously desecrate his inheritance
rights by selling his birthright privileges for the
temporal self-gratification of a solitary meal of bread
and stew in his moment of hunger. Paul is warning
against such persons who would “despise their
birthright” (Gen. 25:34) and sell out their spiritual
blessings and inheritance in Christ. “God has blessed us
with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in
Christ” (Eph. 1:3). Christians have “the promise of an
eternal inheritance” (Heb. 9:15), “an inheritance which
is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away,
reserved in heaven” (I Pet. 1:4). Any Christian who
would contemptuously despise the fullness of God’s
blessing and inheritance, and be willing to desecrate
such, willing to yield and hand it over, selling out for
the mercenary pleasures of temporal self-gratification,
is obviously apostate and must be cautioned against.
12:17 This statement may
be parenthetical, but serves nonetheless as a warning
comment on the consequence of such apostasy as that
represented by Esau. Concerning the contemptuous action
of Esau, Paul writes, “For you know that indeed
afterwards, desiring to inherit the blessing, he was
rejected, for he did not find a place of repentance,
though seeking it with tears.” Though he
despised his birthright (Gen. 25:34), Esau still wanted
to receive the paternal blessing of the first-born son
as his father was dying. His mercenary motives never
diminished. Since no one can “pull the wool over the
eyes” of God, and God knew that Esau had disqualified
himself from His covenant dealings, God had rejected him
(cf. Rom. 9:12,13). The narrative in Genesis 27:1-40
mentions nothing about any repentance on the part of
Esau, but only an attitude of murderous revenge against
his younger brother, Jacob. Paul does not indicate that
Esau was repentant either, only that “he did not find a
place of repentance,” meaning that there was no
possibility of repentance for Esau, having experienced
the irretrievable loss of having been rejected by God
after his apostasy. No change of mind by Esau could have
led to a change of action whereby God would work in Esau
again. This is entirely consistent with what Paul had
written earlier in 6:4-6:
“For those having been once
enlightened, those having once tasted of the
heavenly gift, those having been once made partakers
of the Holy Spirit, those having once tasted the
good word of God, those having once tasted the
powers of the coming age, and having fallen away, it
is impossible to renew them again to repentance,
since they recrucify again to themselves the Son of
God, and put Him to open shame.”
Again in 10:26,27 Paul wrote:
“For sinning deliberately after
receiving the full knowledge of the truth, there no
longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain
terrifying expectation of judgment, and ‘the zeal of
a fire which will consume the adversaries’.”
Repentance is not possible after a
willful rejection of God in apostasy. Though the Genesis
text indicates that Esau “cried out with an exceedingly
great and bitter cry” (Gen. 27:34), which appears to be
the anguish of failing to get what he wanted in his
mercenary drive, it does not refer to Esau’s seeking
anything “with tears.” What he sought in his anguish,
which may have included tears, was not repentance, and
certainly not God. He sought only the privilege of the
paternal blessing which was part of the old covenant
agreement, and this he could not have for he had
repudiated the covenant arrangement of God by despising
his birthright in apostasy, and was thereafter fixed in
his condition of being rejected by God. Paul’s intent in
including this commentary on Esau’s reaction was to warn
the Jerusalem Christians that there is a point in the
renouncing of God’s privileges beyond which there is no
possibility of repentance, but only a fixed state of
rejection by God. That is why they needed to “watch out”
(15) and take notice of their mutual responsibility to
“encourage one another” (10:25) in the avoidance of
selling out their Christian faith.
12:18 This central
paragraph (18-24) of the contextual passage (14-29)
provides the theological and eschatological foundation
for the imperative exhortations that precede and follow
it. In fact, this paragraph (18-24) can legitimately be
regarded as the eschatological climax of the entire
epistle to the Hebrews, summarizing, as it does, the
privileged eschatological blessings that Christians have
in Jesus Christ.
Paul provides a connective foundation
for the pursuits (14) and perusals (15-17) that he has
advised for his Hebrew brethren in Jerusalem. He does so
by contrasting the old covenant symbol of Mt. Sinai
(18-21) with the new covenant symbol of Mt. Zion
(22-24), and carrying over the judgment motif mentioned
in his comments about Esau (17). He reminds the
Jerusalem Christians, “For you have not come near
to (a mountain) being touched and having
been burned by fire, and to darkness and gloom and
tempest,…” The Hebrew Christian readers would
have known well the details of the inauguration of the
old covenant at Mt. Sinai (Exod. 19,20; Deut. 4,5).
Though the earliest Greek manuscripts of this epistle do
not include reference to “a mountain” in this sentence,
the mention of “mountain” in verse 20, and the contrast
of having “come to Mt. Zion” in verse 22, make it
obvious that this is the intent, and for this reason
some scribes inserted the word “mountain” in this verse
in later manuscripts. Moses ascended Mt. Sinai (Exod.
19:3) and came back to tell the Israelite people “not to
go up on the mountain or touch the border of it” (Exod.
19:12). In Paul’s mind the mountain and all that
occurred at that location were representative of the
inauguration and implementation of the old covenant. He
mentions seven features that were indicative of the
theophany of God at Mt. Sinai: (1) forbidden touch (2)
burning fire (3) darkness (4) gloom (5) tempest (6)
trumpet blast, and (7) sound of words. Together these
illustrate that the old covenant was a figure of
external sensory phenomena and observation, all of which
present God as a visual and auditory threat that made
Him unapproachable. When God did come down on Mt. Sinai
in fire (cf. Exod. 19:18; 20:18; Deut. 4:11,24;
5:22,23,25), and darkness (Deut. 5:23), and gloom (Deut.
5:22), and tempest (cf. Exod. 19:18), the reaction of
the people was fear and uncertainty that led to dread
and terror.
12:19 Continuing the list
of the sensory phenomena experienced by the Hebrew
people at the inauguration of the old covenant at Mt.
Sinai, Paul mentions, “and to a blast of a
trumpet, and to a sound of words, which those hearing
begged that not a word be added.” The trumpet
blast (cf. Exod. 19:16,19; 20:18) is common imagery to
announce the presence of God (cf. Matt. 24:31; I Thess.
4:16; Rev. 11:15). The “sound of words” was such that
the Hebrew people in the wilderness “saw no form, but
heard a voice” (Deut. 4:12) as God declared His covenant
in the Ten Commandments. God’s voice from the midst of
the darkness (Deut. 5:23) was a shuddering reverberation
of His awesome power, and the Israelites were afraid
that if they heard the voice any longer they would die
(Exod. 20:19; Deut. 5:25; 18:16). They begged and
pleaded with Moses to be the mediator who would listen
to God and then relay God’s message to them indirectly
(Exod. 10:19; Deut. 5:27). All of the external phenomena
associated with God’s presence at the beginning of the
old covenant caused the people to be terrified in fear
and repelled from God’s presence. They did not want to
draw near to God, but backed off to a distance of twelve
miles according to Jewish tradition, regarding God as
inaccessible and unapproachable.
12:20 “For they
could not bear being threatened, ‘IF EVEN A BEAST
TOUCHES THE MOUNTAIN, IT WILL BE STONED’.” The
narrative in Exodus 19:12,13 does not include the
explicit threat that Paul quotes, but it does record
that bounds were to be set, so that people did not go up
to the mountain or touch the border of it. In
consequence of such action, “whoever touches the
mountain shall surely be put to death” (Exod. 19:12).
The offender was not to be touched, but “he shall surely
be stoned or shot through; whether beast or man, he
shall not live” (Exod. 19:13). It is not difficult to
see why some later manuscripts of this epistle extended
the quotation to read, “or shot through with a dart” in
accordance with the Exodus text, which was followed in
the English translation of the Authorized Version (KJV).
The threat of possible execution for merely touching the
mountain where God was revealing His covenant was more
than the Israelite people could bear. God’s holy
character was so “set apart” from His people that they
were repelled by His annihilating judgment.
12:21 “And so
terrifying was the spectacle being displayed, Moses
said, ‘I AM EXCEEDINGLY FEARFUL AND TREMBLING’.”
The Exodus narrative records that the Israelite people
“trembled” (Exod. 19:16; 20:18), but there is no
reference in the Pentateuch to Moses being afraid and
trembling, other than his being afraid of God’s anger
concerning the golden calf (Deut. 9:19). Moses’ fear at
the inauguration of the old covenant at Mt. Sinai was
included in the literature of Jewish tradition, however,
and Paul may have been quoting from these sources.
Paul’s objective was to impress upon the Jerusalem
Christians, who were in danger of reverting back to
Judaism, the inadequacies of the entire old covenant as
inaugurated at Mt. Sinai. The law-based performance
standards of the old covenant necessarily produced a
fear-based religion, which bred dread and terror, gloom
and doom. God was regarded as inaccessible and
unapproachable (cf. 9:1-10; 10:1-2,11), distanced from
any real relationship with people.
12:22 In contrast to the
old covenant inaugurated at Mt. Sinai, Paul reminds the
Jerusalem Christians of the “better things” that are
theirs in Jesus Christ via the new covenant inaugurated
at Mt. Zion. “But you have come near to Mt. Zion,
even to the city of the living God, the heavenly
Jerusalem,…” Having mentioned seven features of
God’s presence at Mt. Sinai (18,19), Paul now identifies
seven features of the new covenant blessings associated
with Mt. Zion:
(1) Mt. Zion, city of the living
God, heavenly Jerusalem (22)
(2) myriads of angels in festive gathering (22)
(3) the church of the first-born ones having been
enrolled in heaven (23)
(4) God, the judge of all (23)
(5) the spirits of righteous ones made perfect (23)
(6) Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant (24)
(7) the sprinkled blood (24)
Together, these sum up the
inaugurated and realized eschatological hopes of the
people of God in the new covenant.
Whereas they had “not come near” (18)
to God at Mt. Sinai when the old covenant was
established, Paul now emphasizes in contrast that
Christians have “come near” to God and are able to
approach him in direct and immediate access through
Jesus Christ in the new covenant. They can “draw near”
(cf. 4:16; 7:19,25; 10:19,22) to God in the intimate
spiritual communion of immediate personal relationship.
Paul uses a perfect tense verb to indicate that the
Hebrew Christian readers have definitively “drawn near”
to God and the consequences of such closeness remain to
the present. The immediate access “already” enjoyed will
be balanced later with the “not yet” of the “lasting
city which is to come” (13:14).
In a triad of synonyms (cf. Ps.
48:1,2; 51:18; 102:21; Joel 2:32), Paul explains to the
Jerusalem Christians that they “have come near” to God
in “Mt. Zion, the city of the living God, the heavenly
Jerusalem.” The mountain “stronghold of Zion” was
originally conquered by David and used as the location
of his residence (II Sam. 5:7-10; I Chron. 11:5,7). When
Solomon constructed the temple there later, God was
identified as the One “who dwells in Zion” (Ps. 9:11).
The entire city of Jerusalem was often identified as
“Mt. Zion, the city of God, the holy mountain, the city
of the great King” (Ps. 48:1,2; 76:2). King David’s
mountain was prophesied to be the place where the
Messiah would be “installed as King upon Zion, the holy
mountain” (Ps. 2:6; 110:2). As the expected Messiah,
Jesus’ reign is figuratively (but no longer
geographically or topographically) located on Mt. Zion
(cf. Rev. 14:1), representing the presence and dwelling
place of God. This symbolic place is further identified
as “even the city of the living God,” which would be the
city that Abraham sought in faith, “the city having
foundations, of which the designer and builder is God”
(11:10). The “city of the living God” is the completed
community of God’s people who live in God’s presence
through Jesus Christ. The third designation identifies
this as “the heavenly Jerusalem.” This removed the “city
of peace” from all reference to a mound in Palestine, a
walled city, or a temple mount – from all external
tangibility and localized phenomena – for it is now
equivalent to the “heavenly fatherland” (11:16) that
Abraham sought. As “citizens of heaven” (Phil. 3:2),
“partakers of a heavenly calling” (Heb. 3:1), “seated in
heavenly places” (Eph. 2:6), Christians have come to the
place that Jesus prepared (Jn. 14:3), “near to the heart
of God.” “The Jerusalem above” (Gal. 4:26) is the city
of peace where Christians dwell with immediate access to
God, while at the same time looking forward to the
consummation in “the new Jerusalem” (Rev. 3:12; 21:2).
The Christians to whom Paul was
writing were residing in the earthly Jerusalem where the
Judaic religion had its centralized headquarters at the
temple. They were being pressured by their Jewish
kinsmen to militarily defend the physical Jerusalem with
their lives, having no idea that it was soon to be
destroyed by the superior Roman armies. Paul is advising
them to recognize and appreciate the spiritual presence
of God, the perfect heavenly place where Christians
dwell with the living God, in the heavenly Jerusalem.
The heavenly Jerusalem is far superior to the earthly
Jerusalem, and allows access to God wherever the
Christian might be at any time.
The second feature of the new
covenant blessings to which Christians have “drawn near”
is “to myriads of angels in festive gathering,…”
The presence of God is often represented as accompanied
and surrounded with angels (cf. Jude 14; Rev. 5:11).
Even at the inauguration of the old covenant at Mt.
Sinai angels were present (Deut. 33:2; Acts 7:38), and
Paul had previously compared “the word spoken through
angels” (Heb. 2:2) at Mt. Sinai with the Word revealed
in Jesus Christ (cf. Jn. 1:1). In the new covenant,
Christians have the privilege of approaching God
together with the angels, who serve as “ministering
spirits, rendering service to those who inherit
salvation” (1:14). These myriads (literally “ten
thousands,” but figuratively “countless” and
“innumerable” – cf. Dan. 7:10-14) of angels join with
Christians in “festive gathering.” This is the only
usage of this Greek word, panegurei, in the New
Testament, but in other Greek literature it referred to
a festive crowd or assembly gathered for joyful
celebration. Christians and angels celebrate all that
God has done in the triumph of His Son, Jesus Christ,
and the angels rejoice whenever a sinner repents (Lk.
15:10) and joins the festivities. This celebratory
festivity is certainly antithetical to the terror
experienced at Mt. Sinai, and Paul wanted the Jerusalem
Christians to see the contrast. It was not that the
Jewish people did not enjoy festivals and feasts, but
all of the old covenant festivals pictorially pointed to
Jesus Christ, and their fulfillment is in the festive
gathering of joy that Christians and angels have in
Christ.
The grammatical variation of
different English translations is influenced by how one
translates the word for “festive gathering.” Some
translations miss the linguistic meaning, and translate
the word as “general assembly,” attaching it to the
third phrase of “the church of the first-borns” (cf.
KJV, NASB, NEB). Those translations (cf. RSV, NIV, LB)
that recognize the Greek usage as “festive gathering,”
also take into consideration that the conjunction kai
occurs at the beginning of the “church” phrase and not
prior to “festal gathering.” This latter punctuation and
translation is preferable.
12:23 The third
subordinate clause signifying the new covenant benefits
to which the Hebrew Christians “have come near” and
entered into is “the church of the first-born ones
having been enrolled in heaven,…” The church is
comprised of the “called out ones” (Greek ekklesia),
Christians who have been called out of their sin,
selfishness and individualism into the assembled
gathering of Christian community, the Body of Christ
(Col. 1:18,24). For this reason, they are not “to
forsake their assembling together, …but to encourage one
another” (10:25). The church is not an organization or
institutional entity, but is the Christian assembly of
the praising community wherein Christ sings God’s praise
in the midst of the congregation (2:12). The communal
oneness of the church of Jesus Christ was an
identification with community that was far deeper and
more lasting than the commitment to the Jewish community
that the Christians in Jerusalem were being pressured to
defend.
There is no apparent reference in the
designation of “first-borns” back to Esau (16,17) who
sought the blessing of the first-born son. Jesus,
however, is often referred to as “the first-born” (1:6),
and “the first-born from the dead” (Col. 1:18; Rev. 1:5)
by virtue of His resurrection. To the Romans, Paul
explained that Jesus was “the first-born among many
brethren” (Rom. 8:29), those who would be spiritually
“born again” (Jn. 3:3,6) and given divine life by the
indwelling of the Spirit of the living Lord Jesus. Being
“born again to a living hope through the resurrection of
Jesus Christ from the dead” (I Pet. 1:3), Christians
have the full blessing of His birthright and are
“fellow-heirs with Christ” (Rom. 8:17). To be a
first-born son physically was an important privilege and
blessing in Hebrew culture. Paul wanted the Jerusalem
Christians to recognize that they were all spiritual
“first-borns” in identification and union with Jesus
Christ, the “first-born.”
The “first-born ones” (note the
plural), the Christians who comprise the church of Jesus
Christ, “have been enrolled in heaven.” Having received
the heavenly life of God in Christ, “every spiritual
blessing in heavenly places” (Eph. 1:3, and become
“partakers of a heavenly calling” (3:1), Christians are
enrolled, recorded, and registered in heaven. Jesus told
the seventy to “rejoice that your names are recorded in
heaven” (Lk. 10:20), and there are numerous New
Testament references to Christians’ names being
inscribed in the book of life (cf. Phil. 4:3; Rev. 3:5;
13:8; 20:12; 21:27). Though the Christians in Jerusalem
were registered and enrolled as citizens of Judea, Paul
wants them to realize their superior “enrollment in
heaven” as “citizens of heaven” (Phil. 3:20), already
participating in “the heavenly Jerusalem” (22).
As the fourth feature of new covenant
privilege, Paul explains to the Christians in Jerusalem
that they have come near “to God, the Judge of
all,…” At Mt. Sinai, the Israelite people of the
old covenant did not draw near to God. They cowered in
fear and were repelled by the awesomeness of God’s
revealed presence, as well as what they perceived to be
the judgmental consequences of violating God’s commands.
At Mt. Zion, representing the new covenant, Christians
have drawn near to God in the direct access of personal
relationship. The new covenant concept of God as judge
is no longer that of a condemnatory magistrate in a
legal context meting out punishment for improper
performance. God as judge is the One who lovingly
ordained and predestined that divine approval would be
granted to all persons in Jesus Christ. All divine
determinations or judgments are made referent to and in
conjunction with Jesus Christ. That is why Jesus
explained, as recorded in John’s gospel:
“God did not send the Son into
the world to judge the world, but that the world
should be saved through Him. He who believes in Him
is not judged; he who does not believe has been
judged already, because he has not believed in the
name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is
the judgment, that the light has come into the
world, and men loved the darkness rather than the
light” (John 3:17-19).
God is “the judge of all” men
universally, because God determined to love the world of
mankind and send His only begotten Son, so that those
who believe in Him should not perish, but have eternal
life” (Jn. 3:16). Christians, who have received Jesus
Christ by faith, therefore need not have any fear of
being judged by God in the sense of being punished,
condemned, or damned. Acceptance (Rom. 15:7; Eph. 1:6 -
KJV) and approval (I Cor. 11:17) are the judgment of God
for all believers. Unbelief, however, including those
who apostatize, will bring the judgment of God’s
condemnation (2:3; 10:26-31). Paul wanted the Hebrew
Christians in Jerusalem to rest assured that God’s
judgment of all was historically enacted in Jesus
Christ, and those who receive Him by faith are approved
and secure in a dynamic relationship with Him. At the
same time, Paul warns them of the possibility of
apostatizing in unbelief.
Continuing his panorama of new
covenant benefits, Paul advises the Jerusalem Christians
that they have drawn near “to the spirits of
righteous ones having been made perfect,…”
Previously Paul referred to God as “the Father of
spirits” (12:9), and it was noted that God is “the God
of the spirits of all flesh” (Numb. 16:22; 27:16), with
particular reference to human persons capable of
receiving His Spirit in their spirit. The Hebrew
Christians of Jerusalem had been drawn into the
fellowship of the faithful of humanity. Despite the
opinions of many commentators who have attempted to
identify “the spirits of righteous ones made perfect” as
persons who have previously died, whether the Old
Testament faithful (11:3-38), or deceased Christians, or
Christian martyrs, there is no reason to limit or
confine this designation to the dead. Paul’s whole point
is to emphasize the involvement of Christians in the
divine dynamic of the eternal present. Christians have
been joined together with the entire community of
faithful people throughout all time. Human spirits have
become “righteous ones” through faith (cf. Hab. 2:4;
Rom. 1:17; Heb. 10:38). “Through the obedience of the
One (Jesus Christ), the many (who receive Him) are made
righteous” (Rom. 5:19), becoming “the righteousness of
God in Him” (II Cor. 5:21). The indwelling presence of
“the Righteous One” (Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14; I Jn. 2:1)
creates a spiritual identity of righteousness for all
Christians. They are also made perfect by the spiritual
presence of the Perfect One, Jesus Christ. Earlier in
this letter, Paul wrote that Jesus “has perfected unto
perpetuity those being sanctified” (10:14), and to the
Philippians he referred to Christians as those who “are
perfect” (Phil. 3:15). The Jerusalem Christians needed
to be aware that religious exercises of prescribed
“righteous actions” make no one righteous or perfect
(cf. Isa. 64:6; Phil. 3:6-8) in spiritual condition, but
as Christians they are drawn near in fellowship with
“the spirits of righteous ones having been made perfect”
in Jesus Christ.
12:24 All of the
realities that Paul identifies are encompassed in the
Jerusalem Christians having drawn near in intimate union
“to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant,…”
In eschatological fulfillment of the prophecies of old
(Jere. 31:31-34; Ezek. 37:26,27), Jesus came as “the one
mediator between God and man” (I Tim. 2:5), “the
mediator of a new covenant” (8:6; 9:15). The old
Sinaitic covenant, the Mosaic covenant, the law
covenant, kept people distanced and removed from God.
Through the intermediary action of Jesus Christ in His
death on the cross, the “eternal covenant” (13:20) was
enacted to draw Christians into intimate communion with
God, and provide every spiritual blessing in Christ (cf.
Eph. 1:3). Paul wanted to emphasize the superiority of
the new covenant arrangement of God and His people, for
he was aware that His Hebrew Christian brethren in Judea
were being tempted to revert back to the defense of the
old covenant religious expectations and practices, even
though the old covenant was obsolete, antiquated,
abrogated, and near to disappearing (8:13). (See
extensive comments on “covenant” in 8:1-13).
The “blood of the covenant” was
sprinkled on the people at the inauguration of the old
covenant (Exod. 24:8), but the blood of animals had only
a temporal effect for the people of God (Heb. 9:11-22).
Paul emphasizes again to the Christians in Jerusalem
that Jesus “through His own blood” (9:12), “offered
Himself without blemish” (9:14), as “the mediator of a
new covenant” (9:15), and “the blood of the covenant”
(10:29) has “sprinkled our hearts clean” (10:22). In the
seventh of the glorious eschatological realities of the
new covenant, Paul reminds the readers that they have
drawn near “to the sprinkled blood, speaking
better things that that of Abel.” The “sprinkled
blood” is a euphemism for the redemptive efficacy of the
sacrificial death of Jesus Christ on the cross at Mt.
Zion. No Hebrew Christian would have missed the
connection of the sprinkling of blood as the seal of the
old covenant, and how the death of Jesus by crucifixion
was the establishment and seal of the new covenant. The
Hebraic terminology of the Christian being “sprinkled
with His blood” (I Peter 1:2) was recognized as the
redemptive action of forgiveness whereby the Christian
could draw near to the presence of God “by the blood of
Jesus” (10:19). Christians remember such every time they
partake of the Lord’s Supper and hear Jesus’ words,
“this cup is the new covenant in My blood” (Matt. 26:28;
Lk. 22:20; I Cor. 11:25).
Paul adds a comment that “the blood
of Jesus speaks better than that of Abel.” This may
appear at first to be off the subject, but we must
attempt to discover how these were connected by contrast
in Paul’s mind. The account of Cain and Abel (Gen.
4:1-15) records how Cain murdered his brother Abel in
anger, and the Lord told Cain, “the voice of your
brother’s blood is crying to Me from the ground” (Gen.
4:10). Both the death of Abel and the death of Jesus
were the deaths of innocent persons. Abel’s blood cried
out for vengeance and justice. Jesus’ blood declares the
gospel message of forgiveness and reconciliation. Abel’s
blood led to the imposition of a curse (Gen. 4:11,12).
The blood of Jesus secures the redemptive blessing of
the new covenant. Abel’s blood testified only of death,
whereas the blood of Jesus testifies of divine life
restored because of the vicarious death of Jesus for all
men. It is not difficult to understand why Paul thought,
“the blood of Jesus speaks better than the blood of
Abel.” The thrust of Paul’s argument throughout this
letter is to emphasize to the Jerusalem Christians that
everything is “better” and more effective in Jesus
Christ.
It is important to note, however,
that Paul refers to the blood of Jesus “speaking” in a
present tense. The death of Jesus is more than just an
historical event or statement. Because Jesus died and
rose again, the crucified and risen Lord Jesus continues
by the Spirit to proclaim the “good news” that spiritual
death has been taken for all men in His death, in order
that His life might be restored to mankind when received
by faith. This eschatological message of the new
covenant restoration of humanity in Jesus Christ is
certainly a better message than that of Abel.
12:25 This third
paragraph (25-29) of this contextual passage (14-29) has
a connective link to the present tense “speaking” of
Jesus’ blood in the previous verse. “See to it
that you do not refuse the One speaking,” Paul
exhorts with another imperative verb. The One speaking
is God in Christ by the Spirit. God’s revelatory
“speaking” did not cease at the death, resurrection, or
ascension of Jesus, nor at the conclusion of writing or
the canonization of scripture. Such concepts of
“cessationism” set up various forms of deism with a
detached deity who can no longer interact and reveal
Himself to His creation. God in Christ “is speaking,”
and “those who are being led by the Spirit of God are
sons of God” (Rom. 8:14). Christian obedience is
“listening under” (Greek hupakouo) the speaking
and direction of God. Paul wanted the Jerusalem
Christians to recognize their ongoing responsibility of
listening to the voice of God in obedience. He did not
want them to disregard, reject, or refuse what God was
saying to their hearts. His warnings against rejecting
Jesus Christ in apostasy continue to reveal his heart of
concern for the brethren in Jerusalem.
In a comparative warning similar to
what he expressed earlier in 2:2,3, Paul cautions the
readers in Jerusalem: “For if those did not escape
having refused the One warning on the earth, much
rather, we (shall not escape), those
turning away (from the One speaking) from
heaven.” If, as was the case, the Israelites, as
the prefiguring people of God, refused, rejected, and
“begged off” (19) of having to face God, and distantly
“stood away” from God when He warned them through the
visual and auditory phenomena of His presence at Mt.
Sinai (18,19), and they did not escape the consequences
of their unbelief (3:19), then the greater blessing of
the new covenant implies a greater responsibility with
severer consequences. The same God spoke in both
covenants, but He spoke “on earth” in the old covenant,
while He speaks “from heaven” in the new covenant.
Christians have the superior privilege of God’s speaking
to them and revealing Himself to them “from heaven,” and
“for this reason we must pay much closer attention to
what we have heard, lest we drift away from it” (2:1).
Paul is making an argument from the lesser to the
greater. The “we” of the second phrase, signifying
Christians, is emphatically juxtapositioned against the
“they” of the first phrase, signifying the Israelites.
“If the word spoken through angels (to the Israelites)
proved unalterable, and every transgression and
disobedience received a just recompense, how shall we
escape so great a salvation?” (2:2,3). The divine voice
of God in Christ by the Spirit speaks to the hearts of
Christians, for as Jesus said, “My sheep hear My voice”
(Jn. 10:27; cf. 10:1-17). The superior revelation of God
to Christians demands a greater responsibility to be
faithful and avoid “turning away” from God in unbelief
and apostasy.
12:26 The contrast of old
covenant and new covenant continues: “His voice
shook the earth then,…” Paul explains, referring
to the inauguration of the old covenant at Mt. Sinai.
The Exodus narrative records, “the whole mountain quaked
violently” (Exod. 19:18). Reiterating the occasion,
Deborah and Barak lyrically recall, “the mountains
quaked at the presence of the Lord, this Sinai, at the
presence of the Lord, the God of Israel” (Judges 4:5).
The Psalmist, David, likewise explained in song, “The
earth quaked … Sinai itself quaked at the presence of
God, the God of Israel” (Ps. 68:8; cf. 77:18). The earth
was shaken when God revealed Himself at Mt. Sinai, and
the people recognized the awesome power of God.
Contrasting the “then” of the old
covenant with the “now” of the new covenant, Paul
writes, “But now He has promised, saying, ‘YET
ONCE I WILL SHAKE NOT ONLY THE EARTH, BUT ALSO THE
HEAVEN’.” Paul quotes from the prophecies of
Haggai (Hag. 2:6,21; cf. Isa. 13:13), which referred to
the coming eschatological shaking that was to occur at
the inauguration of the new covenant. Jewish
interpreters in the Talmud regarded these prophecies of
Haggai to be Messianic. The prophet Joel also foresaw
that “the earth shakes, the heavens tremble” (Joel
2:10), and there will be “wonders in the sky and on the
earth” (2:30-32), which Peter explicitly indicated were
figuratively fulfilled at Pentecost (Acts 2:16-21) in
the implementation of the new covenant. What was still
future at the time of Haggai and Joel was fulfilled in
the cosmic shaking of all things in the advent and work
of Jesus Christ, allowing for the unshakeable realities
of the new covenant for Christians “now.” The shaking of
the earth at the time of Jesus’ death and resurrection
(Matt. 27:51-54; 28:2) was but the preliminary to the
cataclysmic phenomena that affected heaven and earth at
the inauguration of the new covenant in Jesus Christ.
Other interpretations have been made
of Paul’s quotation of Haggai’s prophecy: (1) that Paul
was referring to the specific “now” of Jerusalem
Christians being “shaken” by their persecution and
suffering at the hands of their fellow Jewish
countrymen. (2) that Paul was referring to the “shaking”
that was soon to occur in AD 66-70 when the Roman armies
would destroy Jerusalem (cf. Matt. 24:29; Lk. 21:26).
(3) that Paul was referring to a yet future “shaking” of
earth and heaven that will result in a “new heaven and a
new earth” (II Pet. 3:10-13). The first two of these
interpretations fail to give adequate import to the
shaking of “heaven” as well as earth, and the third
fails to address the “now” contrast that Paul is drawing
with the old covenant. It is preferable, therefore, to
recognize that Paul is using Haggai’s prophecy to refer
to the metaphorical impact of the inauguration of the
new covenant.
12:27 Paul proceeds to
give his commentary on Haggai’s prophecy. “So the
(phrase) ‘YET ONCE,’ indicates the removal of
those things being shaken, those things having been
made,…” The word “yet” denotes a contrast with
the shaking at Mt. Sinai. “Once” indicates the
singularity and finality of Christ’s action. Paul has
used this word (Greek hapax) and its derivatives
throughout this epistle to explain the singularity and
completeness of the redemptive activity of Jesus Christ
(7:27; 9:12,28; 10:10) in the establishment of the new
covenant. Consistently, Paul refers to how the work of
Christ was the shaking of heaven and earth that removed
(cf. 11:5) and displaced the external, physical,
material, perishable, and temporal things that could be
shaken and removed. The externalities of the old
covenant community and its religious practices have been
shaken, have fallen, have been destroyed, and have been
removed in the sense of having any significance before
God. The physical city of Jerusalem and its temple were
still standing, but were soon to disappear (8:13).
The tangible and temporal things of
the old covenant were removed by the work of Christ,
“in order that the things not being shaken might
remain.” The contrast is between the physical
and created things of the old covenant which have been
shaken and removed, and the spiritual, heavenly, and
eternal realities of the new covenant which cannot be
shaken and remain forever. This coincides with the
contrast between perishing and permanency that Paul drew
from Ps. 102:25,26 in the introduction to this epistle
(1:10-12). The uncreated spiritual and heavenly
realities of the new covenant that find their substance
in the eternality of Christ Himself are unshakeable.
They remain and abide as unchangeable, permanent, and
eternal for they are comprised of God’s Being in action
in the living Lord Jesus. Jesus “abides forever, and
holds His priesthood permanently” (7:3,24), and that is
why Christians have the “abiding possession” (10:34) of
a heavenly inheritance in the “heavenly Jerusalem” (22).
Paul continues to emphasize to the
Christians in Jerusalem the necessity of recognizing all
that they have in Jesus Christ in the new covenant. Only
if they accept the permanency and sufficiency of the new
covenant grace of God in Jesus Christ will they respond
with fidelity and endurance. Paul does not want his
physical and spiritual brethren in Jerusalem to be
shaken by the Jewish and Roman hostilities, nor does he
want them to capitulate and stand against Jesus in
apostasy.
12:28 In consequence of
God’s having shaken heaven and earth in the
implementation of the new covenant, and removed the
externalities of the old covenant which were never meant
to be permanent – its religious practices, its physical
connections, its legal impositions, its political
kingdom, etc. – Paul concludes, “Therefore,
receiving an unshakeable kingdom, we may have grace,
through which we may serve God well-pleasingly, with
reverence and awe;…” The unshakeable realities
of the new covenant in Christ (27) are summed up in the
Christian’s receipt of and participation in an
unshakeable kingdom. This is a spiritual kingdom not
based on might and power (Zech 4:6; I Cor. 2:4), but on
the reign of the living Christ by the Spirit in
Christian individuals and the Christian community. Paul
uses a present participle to explain that Christians are
presently “receiving” this dynamic reign of Christ. The
unshakeable new covenant kingdom is a process that
involves the dialectic of “already” and “not yet.” God
has “delivered us from the domain of darkness, and
transferred us into the kingdom of His beloved Son”
(Col. 1:13). Jesus Himself said, “The kingdom of God is
within your midst” or “within you” (Lk. 17:21). The
kingdom reign of Christ as the indwelling Lord of His
people is already a reality. God has “made us to be a
kingdom, priests unto God” (Rev. 1:6; 5:10), but kingdom
is the dynamic reality of the Lordship reign of Christ
in His people and His church. God is presently “calling
us into the kingdom and glory of Himself” (I Thess.
2:12), and His kingdom involves “righteousness and peace
and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 14:17). All the while
Christians are looking forward to the ultimate and
unhindered expression of “the eternal kingdom” (II Pet.
1:11) at Christ’s appearing in the future (II Tim. 4:1).
The Zealot insurrectionists were
pressuring the Jerusalem Christians to join the fight to
restore the physical and political Jewish kingdom in
Palestine by ousting the hated Roman oppressors. Paul
was advising the Jerusalem Christians that the political
Jewish kingdom was one of those old covenant realities
that was shakable and had been removed – displaced and
replaced by the unshakeable spiritual kingdom wherein
Christ reigns as “Lord of Lords and King of Kings” (Rev.
19:16). The “heavenly kingdom” (II Tim. 4:18), the
“eternal kingdom” (II Pet. 1:11) is permanent and
unshakeable, and Christians “reign in life” (Rom. 5:17)
as Christ reigns as Lord in them.
Since Christians are receiving the
kingdom reign of Christ, “we may have grace, through
which we may serve God well-pleasingly, with reverence
and awe.” The grace-dynamic of God’s Being in action
expressing His character and activity is operative in
the Christian who is participating in the kingdom reign
of the risen Lord Jesus. Paul uses the same word (Greek
charis) that he used in verse 15 when he
cautioned the readers about “coming short of the
grace of God” (15). When this word is translated in
its primary sense, recognizing that “God is able to make
all grace abound to you, that always having all
sufficiency in everything, you may have an abundance for
every good deed” (II Cor. 9:8), then it follows that
through this grace-dynamic the Christian may worship God
acceptably. As Paul will later write, “God equips you in
every good thing to do His will, working in us that
which is well-pleasing in His sight through Jesus
Christ” (13:20,21). Paul had exhorted the Romans to
“present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice,
well-pleasing to God, which is your spiritual
service of worship” (Rom. 12:1). The word Paul uses for
“serving” God (Greek latreuo) was used by the
Jews to refer to temple service and worship (8:5;
9:1,6,9; 10:2; 13:10), but Paul transforms the word in
the new covenant to refer to the Christian’s “service of
worship” in the heavenly temple wherein Christ “cleansed
our consciences from dead works to serve the
living God” (9:14). It is only by the grace-dynamic of
God that Christians, in the priesthood of all believers,
can worship God acceptably and well-pleasingly,
reverently recognizing His good authority in awesome
fear, and expressing the worth-ship of His character. If
the word charis is translated with its secondary
meaning of “gratitude” (cf. Lk. 17:9; I Tim. 1:12; II
Tim. 1:3), then Christians “service of worship” is
prompted by thanksgiving (Greek eucharisteo – cf.
Eph. 5:20; Col. 3:17; I Thess. 5:18) that recognizes
God’s “good grace.” The danger of using the secondary
meaning, “gratitude,” instead of the primary meaning,
“grace,” is that is can be misunderstood as the grateful
and thankful incentive that causes Christians to attempt
by works of self-effort to offer acceptable service of
worship to God, while failing to recognize that genuine
Christian service of worship is only through, and by
means of, the grace-dynamic of God’s activity (cf.
Fowler,
Christocentric Worship). Hermeneutic principles
call for the primary meaning of the word charis
as the preferable choice of translation of this verse.
12:29 Although this
concluding phrase, “For indeed our God is a
consuming fire,” may seem abrupt, the
conjunctive “for” provides a connective link to the
service of worship that stands in awe and fearful
reverence at the character of God (28). Paul wanted to
advise the Hebrew Christians that God holds Christians
accountable for functioning in His kingdom by His grace
(15,28). Because He created mankind as choosing
creatures, they are responsible for the choices of
receptivity by which they live.
The God of the old covenant at Mt.
Sinai is the same God of the new covenant at Mt. Zion.
His character is not altered in the new arrangement of
the new covenant. At the inauguration of the old
covenant, “the appearance of the glory of the Lord was
like a consuming fire on the mountain top” (Exod.
24:17). Moses told the Israelites, “The Lord your God is
a consuming fire, a jealous God” (Deut. 4:24).
Paul repeats this figurative designation of God to
explain the accountability of Christians in the new
covenant to recognize that there are determinative
consequences to their choices: “For indeed our God is a
consuming fire.” The fire of God’s passion for
absolute purity must eventually consume all that is not
consistent with His character. It will be burned up like
“wood, hay, and straw” (I Cor. 3:12-15). God’s
absoluteness demands that everything that is not His
Being at work in His creation unto His glory be removed,
so that His perfect purity of Being can be expressed in
His eternality.
The difference between the old
covenant and the new covenant is that the Israelites
committed themselves (Exod. 24:7) to performance that
attempted to measure up to God’s character, and they
failed miserably because the endeavor was impossible
(Rom. 3:20; Gal. 2:16; 3:11). In the new covenant
Christians are responsible to believe in the performance
of the One God sent, His Son, and to be receptive in
faith to the grace of God whereby God will generate and
express His own character in sanctification (14) and
worship (28). The basis of God’s determinative judgment
is belief in Jesus Christ. “He who does not believe has
been judged already, because he has not believed in the
name of the only begotten Son of God” (Jn. 3:18). Those
who revert to unbelief in apostasy and rejection of
Jesus Christ are likewise judged by the single criteria
of belief in Jesus Christ. For this reason Paul
emphasizes to the Jerusalem Christians that “our God is
a consuming fire,” and “it is a terrifying thing to fall
into the hands of the living God” (10:31). The
determined consequences of God’s judgment referent to
belief in Jesus Christ are not inconsistent with God’s
love (I Jn. 4:8,16). The other side of God’s love is the
“tough love” that demands that man function as God
intended by deriving all from Him, or be accountable for
the consequences of God’s consuming fire.
Concluding remarks:
As Paul prepares to draw his epistle
to the Hebrew Christians to a close, he continues to
make repeated reference to their historical heritage. He
mentions Esau (Gen. 25:29-34; 27:1-40), the terrifying
fear at Mt. Sinai (Exod. 19,20; Deut. 4,5), and the
blood of Abel (Gen. 4:1-15). In addition, he alludes to
the shaking of the earth at the inauguration of the old
covenant (Exod. 19:18; Judges 4:5; Ps. 68:8), Haggai’s
prophecy of the shaking of earth and heaven (Hag.
2:6,21), and reiterates that “our God is a consuming
fire” (Deut. 4:24). The Jewish Christians in Jerusalem
were facing the militant Zealots who wanted them to join
the insurrection and revolt against Rome. They were
being accused of being traitors who were divorcing
themselves from their Jewish heritage. Paul, on the
other hand, emphasizes that they are intimately
connected with their Hebrew heritage, having received
the better and intended fulfillment of all the Hebrew
prefiguring in Jesus Christ. In the “better things” of
Christ Jesus, they have realized all of the
eschatological hopes of Israel.
Many of the major themes that Paul
has used throughout the epistle are drawn together in
this contextual passage (14-29). These include the
contrast of the old and new covenants (8:5-13; 9:11-23;
10:15-18), and the contrast between separation from God
and access to God (4:15,16; 9:1-14; 10:1-25). The danger
of “coming short” (2:1-3; 3:12-15; 4:1) is reiterated,
alongside the warning against apostasy (3:12; 6:4-8;
10:26-31), and God’s judgment (2:2,3; 6:8; 10:29-31).
Paul was very concerned that the
Christians in Jerusalem should not forfeit all they had
received in Jesus Christ. He wanted them to recognize
that in Jesus Christ they had “the better new covenant
basis of holiness and worship.” In the remainder of the
letter he provides practical admonishment of how this
Christian holiness and worship is worked out in the
situations of life.
This epistle has been predominantly
theological in content. Paul has been laying the
theological and eschatological foundations of the
supremacy of the new covenant realities in Jesus Christ.
His objective was to convince the Hebrew Christians in
Jerusalem that the spiritual relationship they had with
Jesus Christ was far better than the old covenant Judaic
religion that surrounded them, and to which they were
being pressured to revert. Even in the midst of Paul’s
theological arguments, his pastoral heart of concern for
his brethren causes him to intersperse his instruction
with practical behavioral admonitions. For example, he
has exhorted them to “encourage one another” (3:13), to
“enter God’s rest” (4:9-13), to be “diligent to realize
the full assurance of hope” (6:11), to “incite one
another unto love and good works” (10:24), to “not
forsake assembling together” (10:25), to “endure”
(10:36), to accept discipline (12:3-11), and to “pursue
peace and holiness” (12:14). Here at the end of this
epistle, Paul employs his typical style (cf. Eph. 5:1 –
6:9; I Thess. 4:1-12) of using imperative verbs
(1,2,3,7,9,17,18) to admonish practical behavioral
action. Paul understood that the theology and the theory
had to issue forth in the practicum of behavior
consistent with the character of Christ.
Some commentators have questioned the
coherence of this final chapter with the rest of the
epistle, regarding the content of these latter
admonitions to be a loose collection of brief ethical
exhortations disconnected from what precedes them. On
the contrary, it is not difficult to observe the natural
flow of theme and vocabulary that draws this final
section into the integral whole of the epistle at large.
Paul’s encouragement to “pursue the holiness without
which no man shall see the Lord” (12:14) is certainly
amplified in the practical situations of brotherly love,
hospitality, visiting prisoners, respecting marriage,
and avoiding materialism (13:1-6). This expression of
God’s holy character in Christian behavior is also
essential to the “well-pleasing service of
worship” that is to be evidenced in the unshakeable
kingdom of Christ” (12:28). “Well-pleasing
service of worship” finds practical expression,
therefore, in the entirety of the admonitions of chapter
13, but more specifically in verses 7-21 where the
Christian readers are advised to worship “outside the
camp” of religion (13), offering a sacrifice of praise
(15) and sacrifices of doing good and sharing with which
God is well-pleased (16), all of which God works
in the Christian and thus causes to be “well-pleasing
in His sight” (21). The “well-pleasing service of
worship” (12:28) involves the entirety of our lifestyle
and behavior as we allow God to work in us and express
the worth-ship of His character in every situation. Paul
was explaining to the Jerusalem Christians that “Jesus
is the better practical expression of God at work,”
expressing His character of holiness in a lifestyle of
worship – so much better than the rituals of religious
worship that were still taking place in the temple at
Jerusalem.
13:1
This first paragraph (1-6) addresses a particular
expressive feature of God’s holy character – love. “God
is love” (I Jn. 4:8,16). The practical expression of
God’s holy character in lifestyle worship will involve
seeking the highest good of others in love. Such love
will be expressed to the brethren of the Christian
community (1), to strangers in hospitality (2), to
prisoners and those mistreated (3), as well as in
respect for marriage (4), but not toward material things
(5,6). God’s love through us (cf. Rom. 5:5) is toward
people, not things! Let it be noted that in Paul’s
thought the practicum of Christianity does not allow for
a sacred vs. secular dichotomy. When Christ is our life
(Col. 3:4), everything in life is invested with the
sacredness of His character expression. All of life is
to be marked with holiness and worship, and in
particular the practical areas that Paul proceeds to
mention.
“Let love of
the brethren continue.” Apparently the
Jerusalem Christians had a healthy community of love.
Earlier Paul had mentioned “the love which you have
shown toward His name, in having ministered and in still
ministering to the saints” (6:10), and urged them to
“pursue peace with all” their brethren (12:14). This
brotherly love (Greek philadelphia, from which
the “City of Brotherly Love” is named – cf. Rev. 3:7-13)
for the “brethren” (cf. 3:1,12; 10:19; 13:22) of the
Christian community is encouraged and commended
throughout the New Testament writings (cf. Matt. 23:8;
Jn. 13:35; 15:12,17; Rom. 12:10; I Thess. 4:9; I Pet.
1:22; I Jn. 4:14-17). “Love of the brethren,” our
spiritual brothers and sisters in the family of God, is
more than a polite handshake on Sunday morning, with a
standardized questioning, “How are you?” and the token
response, “Fine!” Rather, “love of the brethren” is
based on the deeper spiritual commonality of Christians
whereby they are interdependent upon one another in the
Body of Christ (cf. I Cor. 12:12-26). Christians are
integrally linked and united because the living Christ
dwells in each Christian, and they are thereby invested
in each other’s lives. The conception of a “lone-ranger”
Christian “doing his own thing” without connection to
the Body is alien to Christian thought. Paul was
encouraging and exhorting the Christians in Jerusalem to
abide, remain, and continue in their expression of God’s
love for one another in the Christian community.
13:2
Expressing God’s love to those in our local
Christian community is expanded to include strangers.
“Do not neglect to show
hospitality to strangers, for through this some have
entertained angels unknowingly.” As a
practical expression of God’s worthy character of
holiness and love, Paul exhorts the Jerusalem Christian
to “not neglect, forget, or disregard” showing
hospitality to strangers. Who are these “strangers” or
“foreigners” (Greek philoxenias – “love of
strangers”) that Paul mentions? The context of the “love
of the brethren” in the previous sentence (1) makes it
likely that Paul is referring to Christian brethren who
were outside of their fellowship, and from another city.
Practicing this kind of hospitality by receiving
Christians from others places as guests in their homes
was an important expression of love among Christians in
the first century. Paul had encouraged the Roman
Christians to “practice hospitality” (Rom. 12:13), and
suggested that it be a criteria for elders of the church
(I Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:8). Peter also advised Christians
to “be hospitable to one another without complaint” (I
Pet. 4:8,9). In the Didache, a collection of
early Christian teachings, it is written, “Let everyone
who comes in the name of the Lord be received. If he
comes as a traveler, help him as much as you can” (Didache
12:1,2).1
The Roman Emperor, Julian, is reported to have objected
that the Christians’ kindness toward strangers was a
chief means of propagating their atheism. (Christians
were often charged with “atheism” because they did not
have a god who was identified with a particular temple,
with a particular person, such as the emperor, or with a
particular idol object.) The importance of Christian
hospitality in the early church was based largely on the
unavailability of acceptable lodging facilities. The
inns that were available were notoriously immoral, akin
to brothels. Loving hospitality to strangers became an
identifying practice of Christians who wanted to
maintain a holy expression of the character of Christ.
Paul recommended persons for hospitable reception:
Phoebe (Rom. 16:1,2), Timothy and Epaphroditus (Phil.
2:19-30, and sought such for himself (Philemon 22).
Either as incentive or explanation,
Paul notes that through the practice of hospitality to
strangers, “some have entertained angels unknowingly.”
Old Testament examples of receiving angelic messengers
from God includes Abraham and Sarah’s reception of three
messengers (Gen. 18:1-15), the two angels who visited
Lot in Sodom (Gen. 19:1-26), and the angel who came to
Gideon (Judges 6:11-24). Jesus’ comments to His
disciples expands the concept of entertaining angels to
entertaining the Lord Jesus Himself,
“’For I was hungry and you gave
Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me
drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in;
naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you
visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’
The righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when
did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and
give You drink? And when did we see You a stranger,
and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? And
when did we see You sick or in prison and come to
You?’ And the King will answer and say to them,
‘Truly, I say to you, to the extent that you did it
to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of
them, you did it unto Me’” (Matt. 25:35-40)
In the hospitable reception and
entertaining of strangers we are often unaware of what
God is doing. God often ministers through the
messengers, and many a host has declared that they
received the greater blessing than the visitor.
In contemporary society there are an
abundance of motels and hotels for lodging. Christians
are often wary of strangers, protective of their
personal privacy, and isolationistic about their homes.
The legitimacy of Paul’s admonition remains, however,
for Christian love takes the risk to open our doors to
our Christian brethren.
13:3
“Love of the brethren” will also “remember” or
“Be mindful of the prisoners as
having been bound together with them,…” These
prisoners (literally “bound ones”) that Paul refers to
were probably fellow-Christians who were imprisoned for
their faith. Paul had previously commended the Hebrew
Christians for “sharing sympathy to the prisoners”
(10:34), and is now encouraging them to continue this
practical expression of holy love. The issue of
remembering the prisoners was particularly close to
Paul’s heart, for he was frequently imprisoned for his
Christian faith, and may have been imprisoned in Rome
while he was writing this epistle. “Remember my
imprisonment” (Col. 4:18), he wrote to the Colossians.
Later in this chapter he will tell the Hebrew Christians
to “take notice that our brother Timothy has been
released” (13:23) from prison. Incarceration in Roman
prisons often involved harsh and brutal conditions of
being chained within dungeons and caverns. The meals
provided were meager and not nutritional. Christian
prisoners often depended on their brethren for food,
fellowship, and personal needs, even though the guards
often expected bribes to allow such visitations.
Paul’s exhortation to “remember” or
“be mindful” of the prisoners is not simply a call for
cognitive recollection of cerebral memory, but is an
admonishment to let love be put into action in the
expression of God’s holy character for others. This will
include not only prayer, but also active visitation and
provision for needs. “What kind of faith is that,” asked
James, “if a brother or sister is without clothing and
in need of daily food, and one of you says, ‘Go in
peace, be warmed and be filled,’ and yet you do not give
them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?
Faith, if it has no works, is dead” (James 2:14-17).
Faith and love are never passive, but always active!
Paul’s rationale for his call to
“remember the prisoners” is “as having been bound
together with them.” Some have interpreted this as a
hypothetical identification “as if you were
fellow-prisoners” or “as though you were in
prison with them.” A more meaningful interpretation is
to recognize this as an actual solidarity wherein
Christians are bound together in Christ, and thus bound
with one another in the unity of the Body of Christ.
Such spiritual solidarity and oneness includes being
bound together in hardship. To the Corinthians, Paul
wrote, “If one member suffers, all the members suffer
with it” (I Cor. 12:26). Jesus’ words can again be
quoted, “When I was in prison you came to Me… When did
we see you in prison and come to You? …To the extent
that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even
the least of them, you did it to Me.” The union
solidarity of every Christian with Christ and all other
Christians seems to be the primary incentive of Paul’s
admonition.
Attaching another subordinate phrase
to the imperative verb, Paul wrote,
“and (be mindful of)
those being mistreated, as also
yourselves being in the body.” Though most
who were imprisoned were also ill-treated and often
injured, this phrase does broaden the practical
admonition to love all those who are abused, treated
cruelly, persecuted with violence, etc.
Paul’s explanation is again more than
just a hypothetical identification, “as if you
yourselves were in their body.” Instead, the explanatory
phrase, “as also yourselves being in the body,” may
refer to the shared vulnerability that all Christians
have, liable and subject to such mistreatment as long as
they remain in their physical bodies. Previously Paul
had referred to the “defamation and tribulation”
experienced by the Hebrew Christians, and how they “had
become sharers with those being so treated” (10:33). The
solidarity of suffering (I Cor. 12:26) that Christians
experience with one another involves feeling the pain of
another in a form of empathy that goes far beyond
emotional identification, but becomes a genuine
spiritual participation in the pathos of another. That
is what Jesus did for us “in the body,” when He partook
of humanity, temptation, and death (cf. Heb.
2:14,17,18), participating in our human pathos of
mistreatment to counter it all with His redemption.
Jesus continues to participate and experience the
mistreatment of mankind, for “inasmuch as you have done
it unto the least of these, you have done it unto Me”
(Matt. 25:40). Though some commentators have interpreted
the word “body” in this phrase to refer to the Body of
Christ (Col. 1:18,24), the context of physical
mistreatment and suffering seems to indicate that Paul
was referring to the physical body.
13:4
Practical expression of faithful marital love is
another important expression of God’s holy character.
Whether Paul’s inclusion of this particular area of
practical Christian behavior was a reactive response to
a problem of immortality in first century Hebrew society
(as some have suggested), we do not know. Whatever his
motivational intent, Paul makes a clear call for the
honor and sanctity of marriage.
In the absence of a verb to dictate
the action, some translators have made this into a
statement, “Marriage (is) honorable in all” (KJV). The
context of practical imperative exhortations
(1,2,3,5,7,9) suggests that these phrases should also be
understood in an imperative sense.
“(Let)
marriage (be held)
honorable in all.”
Jesus spoke concerning marriage,
“He who created them from the
beginning ‘made them male and female’ (Gen. 1:27),
and said, ‘For this cause a man shall leave his
father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and
the two shall become one flesh’ (Gen. 2:24).
Consequently, they are no more two, but one flesh.
What therefore God has joined together, let no man
separate” (Matt. 19:4-6).
Early in church history there were
some who disparaged marriage as an inferior state,
prompting Paul to mention those false teachers who
“forbid marriage…, which God has created to be
gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the
truth” (I Tim. 4:3). Some think that Paul himself had an
adverse view of marriage also (cf. I Cor. 7:1-17). The
new covenant scriptures do not exalt celibacy as a
higher form of spirituality, either for church leaders
or for Christians in general. “Let marriage be held
honorable in all,” Paul writes. The covenant union of
one man and one woman (the only form of marriage union
the Bible allows) is honorable and to be respected.
Marriage is to be regarded as a precious (Greek word
timios – cf. I Pet. 1:19; Rev. 18:12,16,21)
treasure, the highest and most glorious relationship
between persons here on earth, and likened by analogy to
the intimacy of union between Christ and the Christian
(Eph. 5:23-33). Such a marriage relationship should be
honorable “in all,” states Paul, which can be
interpreted as “in all respects,” or “in all persons” or
“among everyone,” all of which are legitimate.
Paul continues the theme of marriage
in another phrase that has no verb, but should probably
also be translated as an imperative,
“and (let)
the (marriage)
bed (be)
undefiled;…” The
“marriage bed” is a euphemism for sexual activity (Rom.
13:13) that may lead to conception (Rom. 9:10). The
Greek word is koite from which we get the English
word “coitus” meaning “sexual intercourse.” The Bible is
very explicit about human sexuality, and has more
references to sex than to prayer. God created human
beings “male and female” (Gen. 1:27). The Latin word
sexus, the origin of the English word “sex,” meant
“to divide” between male and female. The sexual
expression of husband and wife in marriage is in accord
with God’s creative intent. One entire book of the
Bible, the Song of Solomon, deals with the theme
of sexual expression in marriage.
Only as God’s holy character of
unity, purity, and fidelity is expressed in the marriage
act of sexual intercourse is the sanctity, honor, and
preciousness of God’s intent for marriage preserved.
Otherwise, marital sexual expression is defiled (cf.
Gen. 49:4; 35:22) or contaminated, which is what Paul
goes on to warn his readers about. How can the sexual
intimacy of marriage be defiled? On a physical level,
the sexuality of marriage can be defiled by “being
joined” (cf. I Cor. 6:16) in sexual relations with
another person other than one’s husband or wife, which
is the reason Paul goes on to address the infidelity,
immorality, and adultery that God will judge. Defilement
of the sexual act might also occur on a psychological
level. Paul explained to Titus, “To the pure all things
are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving,
nothing is pure, but both their minds and their
consciences are defiled” (Titus 1:15). The “marriage
bed” can be defiled by selfishness that fails to express
love for the other person without thought of
self-concern. The sexual expression of husband and wife
can be defiled by deep-seated bitterness and resentment
that wrongfully uses sexual intercourse as a bargaining
chip, a means of manipulation, a method of bribery, or a
form of punishment. The “act of marriage” can be defiled
when marriage partners fail to focus on one another in
love, and are fantasizing or visualizing impure
involvement with someone else. Marital sexual activity
can be defiled when the emphasis is placed on quantity
or frequency, procedures or positions, rather than on
the quality of love expression between husband and wife.
In consequence of the defilement of
the purity of marital sexuality, Paul explains,
“but sexually immoral persons and
adulterers God will judge.” The word Paul
used for “sexually immoral persons” is the Greek word
pornous from which we get the English prefix and
subsequent noun “porn” (as in “pornography” or “porn
star”). Although the word has often been translated as
“fornicators,” and applied to those who engaged in
premarital sexual activity, more recent linguistic
scholarship has recognized that the word includes all
sexual activity outside of the loving context of
marriage that God intended. “Sexually immoral persons”
is thus the better English translation (cf. I Cor. 5:1;
6:18; Eph. 5:5; I Tim. 1:10). The word “adulterers”
refers to those who are unfaithful to their vows of
marriage in sexual infidelity, and serves as a
synonymous parallel to “sexually immoral persons” in
this context. The seventh commandment stated explicitly,
“You shall not commit adultery” (Exod. 20:14; Deut.
5:18), and was based on the recognition of the faithful
character of God that was to be exhibited in the
behavior of His people. Violation of God’s character of
faithfulness in the act of adultery merited the extreme
punitive judgment of death in the old covenant (Lev.
20:10; Deut. 22:20-23). In the new covenant there are
still consequences, both present and future, for
violating God’s character of holiness, and for failing
to be receptive in faith to God’s character of fidelity
and purity. The difference in the new covenant judgment
of God is that God has determined all things in
reference to man’s believing reception of Jesus Christ
in faith (cf. 12:23). When Christians are receptive to
Christ’s manifestation of His character of love and
purity and fidelity in their marriages, they will not
defile the beauty of God-ordained marriage in sexual
immorality and adultery, and God’s judgment will be,
“Well done, good and faithful servant” (Matt. 25:21,23).
13:5 Perhaps Paul’s
mind flowed in typical Hebrew fashion from the seventh
commandment, “You shall not commit adultery,” to the
eighth commandment, “You shall not steal,” or the tenth
commandment, “You shall not covet.” Whatever his train
of thought, Paul follows his admonitions for brotherly
love toward strangers, prisoners, and the mistreated,
and his exhortation to the honor of a faithful and
loving marriage, with a call to resist the “love of
money” and materialistic greed. The imperative verb must
again be supplied, “(Let
your) manner of life
(have) no love of money, being
content with the things being present;…” The
manner and means of conducting your life (Greek
tropos, origin of English word “trope”) should not
be characterized by greed and avarice for the
acquisition and accumulation of money. Money is not an
evil in itself, for it is but a medium of exchange,
serving as legal tender for the purchase of items or
payment for services rendered. But when a person
develops an inordinate desire and concern for money and
the material things it can buy, such personal aspiration
(cf. I Jn. 2:16) can become a selfish greed that amounts
to idolatry (cf. Col. 3:5). In the Sermon on the Mount,
Jesus said,
“Do not lay up for yourselves
treasures upon earth, where moth and rust destroy,
and where thieves break in and steal. But lay up for
yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth
nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in
and steal. … No one can serve two masters, for
either he will hate the one and love the other, or
he will hold to the one, and despise the other. You
cannot serve God and mammon (riches)” (Matt.
6:20-24).
Luke’s gospel adds that the Pharisees
scoffed at Jesus when He spoke those words, because they
were “lovers of money” (Lk. 16:14). When Paul wrote to
Timothy, he addressed this same theme,
“If we have food and covering,
with these we should be content. But those who want
to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and
many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men
into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is
a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for
it have wandered away from the faith, and pierced
themselves with many a pang” (I Tim. 6:8-10).
Paul also advised that the elders of
the church should be “free from the love of money” (I
Tim. 3:3), and warned that “in the last days…men will be
lovers of self and lovers of money” (II Tim. 3:2). When
the focus of a person’s life is on the acquisition of
money and material things there will be an inevitable
discontent. How much is enough? “Just a little more than
I presently have,” was the response of John D.
Rockefeller. The materialist is never content with what
he has.
Paul warned the Jerusalem Christians
to avoid coveting and to be content with their present
resources. F.F. Bruce wrote, “The greedy man can never
be a happy man; but the opposite of covetousness is
contentment.”2
Contentment and satisfaction with the sufficiency of
what we have is not necessarily a resignation to the
status quo. Paul is dealing with the issue of inordinate
focus and improper priority toward material things that
allows them to become an idolatrous pursuit that can
never produce contentment. To the Philippians, Paul
wrote, “I do not speak from want; for I have learned to
be content in whatever situation I am” (Phil.
4:11). To Timothy he advised, “Godliness is a means of
great gain, when accompanied by contentment. For
we have brought nothing into the world, so we cannot
take anything out of it either. And if we have food and
covering, with these we should be content” (I
Tim. 6:6-8). Failure to find contentment in what God has
provided, and seeking to find security in material
things, leads only to anxiety. Trust in wealth evidences
distrust in God’s care and provision.
The security of trusting in God’s
ever-present provision is what Paul proceeds to
document, explaining, “for He
has said, ‘I WILL NEVER ABANDON YOU, NOR WILL I EVER
FORSAKE YOU’,…” This was a particularly
important reminder to the Hebrew Christians in
Jerusalem, for God’s promise of provisional care was
constantly reiterated throughout the old covenant
literature. Moses’ final counsel to the people of God
was, “The Lord your God is the One who goes with you. He
will not fail you or forsake you” (Deut. 31:6,8). When
Joshua assumed leadership after Moses, God said, “Just
as I have been with Moses, I will be with you; I will
not fail you or forsake you” (Josh. 1:5). The Jewish
Christians in Jerusalem needed to remember God’s promise
of His unfailing presence and provision. Jesus had
reiterated the promise that God would take care of every
need, saying,
“Do not be anxious for your life,
as to what you shall eat, or what you shall drink;
nor for your body, as to what you shall put on.
…Your heavenly Father knows that you need all these
things. Seek first His kingdom and His
righteousness, and all these things shall be added
to you” (Matt. 6:25-33).
In his letter to Timothy, Paul had
advised, “Instruct those who are rich in this present
world, not to be conceited or to fix their hope on the
uncertainty or riches, but on God who richly supplies us
with all things to enjoy” (I Tim. 6:17). The “riches of
His grace” (Eph. 1:7; 2:7) are sufficient, and we need
not fear that He will abandon or forsake us, even if the
bottom drops out of the economic system that our society
operates by and relies on.
It should be noted that this verse,
with its citation of the Old Testament promise of God,
has often been wrested from its context and used as a
proof-text to bolster a particular theological system of
salvation security, i.e. the doctrine of eternal
security. This is entirely illegitimate, for the text
within its context deals with the security and
contentment of God’s provision of necessary physical and
material provisions, and not with the permanency or
security of a static concept of salvation.
13:6
As a consequence of God’s promise of adequate
provision, the Christian can respond in faith.
“So that we may confidently say,
‘THE LORD IS MY HELPER, I WILL NOT BE AFRAID. WHAT SHALL
MAN DO TO ME?’” The quotation Paul uses is
likely from the Passover Psalm 118, “The Lord is for me;
I will not fear. What can man do to me?” (Ps. 118:6). It
is similar to another, “In God I have put my trust, I
shall not be afraid. What can man do to me?” (Ps.
56:11). When our trust and confidence is in God, we need
not fear the outward circumstances (economical or
otherwise), or what men might do to us by way of
deprivation, injustice, litigation, etc. All such
circumstances of economic decline, lowered standard of
living, job loss, theft, unfair laws, or litigated
deprivation, are of no consequence when considered in
reference to the eternal life that the Christian has in
Jesus Christ (cf. Matt. 10:28-33). If we are tempted to
be fearful, we need only remember that the antidote to
fear is faith (cf. Matt. 14:27; Mk. 5:36; Lk. 8:50). “If
God is for us, who (of any consequence) can be against
us? (Rom. 8:31).
Some have objected to the idea of viewing God as our
“Helper.” Humanistic concepts such as “God helps those
who help themselves,” and “Do your best, and God will
help you do the rest,” have polluted the proper Biblical
concept of God as Helper. There is no hint here of God’s
assisting our performance and works to meet His
expectations by some form of “infused grace”
booster-shot. On the other hand, the recognition of God
as Helper by His grace maintains the necessary
distinction of God and man that avoids a pantheistic
overemphasis on immanence and oneness.
13:7 The second
paragraph (7-17) of this final section of the epistle
begins and ends with references to the leaders of the
church fellowship in Jerusalem (7,17). In between these
leadership references Paul reverts to his theological
mindset to differentiate the old covenant and new
covenant realities again (10-14).
With another imperative admonition,
Paul writes, “Remember those
leading you, who have spoken the word of God to you;…”
Many commentators assume that Paul is referring to
leaders of the church who had previously died, which
would include James, the brother of the Lord, who had
been the leader of the Jerusalem church (Acts 12:17;
21:18; Gal. 1:19; 2:12), and had been stoned to death.
There is no compelling reason, however, to regard these
leaders in the historical past. Paul exhorts the
Jerusalem Christians to remember “those leading you,”
using a present participle. “Those leading you” (the
same present leaders referred to in 17 and 24) are those
who “have spoken the word of God to you.” The aorist
tense “have spoken” indicates previous teaching,
preaching, and proclamation by the present leaders.
These leaders are identified quite generally (cf. Lk.
22:26; Acts 15:22), without any allusion to a particular
title, position, or office in the church. They may, or
may not, have been elders who engaged in teaching and
preaching (I Tim. 5:17). The content of their verbal
sharing was “the word of God.” This was not just Bible
information, but must be understood Christologically.
The gospel message of salvation (cf. 2:3) is not a
collection of static information to be assented to as a
belief-system, but is the sharing of the dynamic life of
Jesus Christ, who as the risen Lord functions
continually as Savior and Lord in Christians.
Being mindful of the present leaders
was for the purpose of
“observing the outcome of their conduct,” and
subsequently to “imitate their
faith.” Although elders are exhorted to be
“examples to the flock” (I Pet. 5:3), Paul is not simply
encouraging the Jerusalem Christians to imitate the
exemplary behavior of their leaders. He advises the
Hebrew Christians to observe, behold, or examine the
outcome or “out-walking” of the conduct (cf. 13:18) and
behavior of their leaders. Such observation should allow
them to perceive and discern that the “walking out” of
the leaders’ behavior was the manifestation of the life
of Jesus Christ, as they were receptive to the activity
of the living Lord Jesus in them. The command to
“imitate their faith,” was not a call to emulate the
behavioral example of the leaders. Christians are not
called to mimic the external actions of others, not even
the behavioral activity of Jesus, Himself, by attempting
to be “like Jesus” or to question, “What would Jesus
do?”. The Christian life is not an imitation, but the
manifestation of the life of the living Lord Jesus (II
Cor. 4:10,11). Paul’s exhortation to “imitate the faith”
of the leaders is not a call to reproduce their
behavior, but to function in like manner as the leaders
were functioning (cf. 6:12), by the faith-receptivity of
the activity of Christ Himself. The imperative is to
“imitate their faith,” not their behavior!
13:8
Having instructed the Jerusalem Christians to
function by the same faith as their leaders, allowing
for the receptivity of the activity of the life of Jesus
Christ in them, Paul proceeds to write,
“Jesus Christ (is)
the same yesterday, and today, and forever.”
There is a constancy and consistency of divine character
whenever Jesus Christ manifests Himself, whether in His
historical ministry on earth or in the lives of prior
saints in the past, in present manifestation of
Christian behavior, or “unto the ages.” The past,
present, and future expression of Christ’s life will
evidence the absolute and timeless character of God.
This does not mean that there will be an identical
behavior expression in every Christian, but the
character of Christ exemplified in the “fruit of the
Spirit” (Gal. 5:22,23) will be consistent when the life
of Christ is lived out uniquely in each Christian.
An alternative interpretation
suggested by some commentators is that human leaders
come and go, and their conduct may vary, even in the
expression of failures, misrepresentations, and sin, but
Jesus Christ is the ultimate and supreme leader of the
church, who will always be present, yesterday, today,
and forever, and will never fail. Another interpretation
regards this verse as a statement of the
unchangeableness of the gospel message, the fixed
doctrine and theology of Christology, the “word of God”
spoke by the leaders (7), which must not be varied, for
it is “the same yesterday, today, and forever.” Those
seeking to justify charismatic manifestations have
misused this verse in their attempt to explain that
Jesus functions in the same way, “yesterday, today, and
forever,” in the performing of miracles, healings, and
speaking in tongues.
Perhaps the greatest misuse of these
words has been when they are extracted from their
context and made a proof-text for the doctrine of God’s
immutability or changelessness. God does declare to
Malachi, “I, the Lord, do not change” (Mal. 3:6), and
this is in the context of His response to sinful
oppression. Earlier in this epistle to the Hebrews, Paul
quoted the Psalmist, “Thou art the same” (Heb. 1:12; Ps.
102:27). There is truth in the recognition that God is
not capricious and fickle. His character never changes.
But we must not assume that God’s modus operandi
never changes. Some theologians seem to think that they
have God and His ways of action figured out, despite the
fact that “His ways are past finding out” (Rom. 11:33).
This is particularly evident in Reformed theological
thought, as they stress a restrictive continuity of
God’s immutable action. Attempting to fit God into
man-made patterns of how He has acted and must continue
to act is a prescriptive form of handcuffing God, tying
His hands, and putting Him into a performance
straightjacket. It is an attempt to put God in an
ideological box wherein He must act with a static and
identical mode of operation throughout all historical
time. God cannot be thus restricted. God’s mode of
action changed from the old covenant to the new
covenant, when the actuating incentive changed from law
to grace. The Scripture narrative indicates that God
changed His mind; He “repented” (Gen. 6:6; I Sam. 15:35;
Amos 7:3,6; Jonah 3:10). God’s character never changes,
but His actions are unlimited in scope and variance as
they remain consistent with His character and over-all
purposes. God always does what He does
because He is Who He is.
Paul was not advocating a doctrine of
immutably prescribed divine action when He wrote, “Jesus
Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and forever.”
Having mentioned the Christocentric proclamation of the
“word of God” (7a), and the conduct of the out-lived
manifestation of the life of Jesus in the leaders, and
the faith that is the receptivity of Christ’s activity,
Paul logically asserts the constancy and consistency of
Christ’s character in all of His manifestations, past,
present, and future.
13:9
With another imperative verb, Paul urges the
Jerusalem Christians, “Do not
be carried away by various and strange teachings, for
(it is) good to be
sustained by grace, not by foods, by which those walking
have not been benefited.” Whether Paul was
intending to contrast “various and strange teachings”
with the “word of God spoken by the leaders” (7) is
questionable. There is no doubt, though, that Paul
remained concerned about the steadfastness of the Hebrew
Christians in Jerusalem, concerned that they might
“drift away” (2:1), “fall away” (3:12), “come short”
(4:1), and “throw away their confidence” (10:35) by an
apostatizing reversion to Judaism. Paul had urged a
maturity for the Ephesian Christians to avoid being “carried
away by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of
men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming” (Eph. 4:14).
Here he uses the same word to exhort the Jerusalem
Christian “not to be carried away by varied,
divergent, strange teachings which are alien to new
covenant teaching.” In this context it is not novelty
that marks these teachings, but the attached traditions
of Judaism concerning various food laws. Paul did not
want the Christians in Jerusalem to revert back to
putting their faith in, and seeking God’s blessing
through, the Judaic teachings about food. They were, no
doubt, being pressured by their Hebrew kinsmen to keep
all the ceremonial and customary food laws of Judaism.
The rabbinic interpretations were many and varied
concerning what was or was not permissible or kosher.
Jewish religion had always focused on food, with strict
dietary regulations (cf. Lev. 11), and food being
central to their festivities. How they prepared and ate
their food was regarded as having value in their
relationship with God.
The Psalmist wrote, “Wine makes man’s
heart glad, …and food sustains man’s heart” (Ps.
104:15). This verse had become a standard statement of
blessing before every Jewish meal. Jewish people ate and
drank to make them happy and to praise God. Paul
responds by writing, “It is good for the heart to be
sustained by grace, not by foods,…” He is countering the
inordinate emphasis that Judaism placed on food by
noting that such teachings are alien to the new covenant
understanding of God’s grace. Previously in the epistle,
Paul had mentioned “food and drink and various washings,
regulations for the body until a time of reformation”
(9:10), emphasizing the temporary and preliminary nature
of all Jewish food regulations. In a very different
context Paul had issued a general statement, “The
kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but
righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit”
(Rom. 14:17). Similarly, he had written, “food will not
commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not
eat, nor the better if we do eat” (I Cor. 8:8). Under
very different circumstances, but with correlative
instruction, Paul wrote,
“Therefore, let no one act as
your judge in regard to food or drink, …things which
are a shadow…; but the substance belongs to Christ.
…If you have died with Christ, …why do you submit to
decrees, such as, ‘Do not handle, do not taste, do
not touch?’ …These are matters which have, to be
sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion
and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body,
but are of no value against fleshly indulgence”
(Col. 2:16-23).
Though the historical contexts
differ, Paul was consistent in his insistence that the
externalities of religious food laws were of no
spiritual benefit for new covenant Christians. That
Paul’s comment here in the epistle to the Hebrew
Christians is contra Judaic food laws (rather than
eucharistic abuses or Gentile dietary regulations as
some have suggested) seems to be verified by The
Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians written late
in the first century or early in the second century,
which seems to provide an interpretation of this verse,
“Be not deceived with strange
teachings, nor with old fables, which are
unprofitable. If we go on observing Judaism, we
acknowledge that we never received grace.”3
Foods may enervate and provide energy
to the “outer man,” to the physical body of man, but
they do not have spiritual benefit. It serves God’s good
purposes, Paul explains, “for the heart” of man, the
“inner man” (II Cor. 4:16), the spirit and soul of a
person, to be sustained, strengthened, and supported by
the grace of God. God’s grace is the divine dynamic of
His activity through Jesus Christ, for “grace and truth
were realized through Jesus Christ” (Jn. 1:17). In the
new covenant the heart of the Christian is sustained by
the Christic grace of God, and “renewed day by day” (II
Cor. 4:16).
To further dissuade the Jerusalem
Christians from going back to the external legalism of
the Jewish food laws, Paul explains that those
“walking,” following the Jewish course of action, and
conducting their lives by the Jewish meal customs, have
not been benefited or profited in their relationship
with God by so doing. Just as “the word the Israelites
heard did not profit them” (4:2), neither did their
meticulous dietary concerns. “It is the Spirit who gives
life; the flesh profits nothing” (Jn. 6:63), Jesus said.
Paul wanted the Christians in Jerusalem to understand
that there was no benefit before God in reverting to the
varied Jewish customs and traditions concerning food.
Gladness and joy are not found in food, but in Jesus.
The heart of a Christian is not sustained by food, but
by the grace of God in Jesus Christ.
13:10
Despite Paul’s pastoral concerns for practical
expressions of the Christian life, his mental
orientation was theological. In verses 10-13 he reverts
to the foundational contrast between the old covenant
and the new covenant, between Judaism and the Christian
faith, the theme that he has been emphasizing to the
Hebrew Christians of Jerusalem throughout this epistle.
The connective link of thought was the mention of the
Jewish food laws in verse 9. From the idea of ‘foods”
(9), Paul proceeds to address that which Christians
“eat” that those associated with Judaism cannot “eat.”
“We have an
altar, from which those serving the tent do not have
authority to eat.” Notice the contrast: “We
have … they do not have.” Paul has repeatedly
emphasized the “better things” that “we have” as
Christians. “We have hope as an anchor for the
soul” (6:19). “We have a high priest who has
passed through the heavens” (4:14), who is “seated with
the Majesty in the heavens” (8:1), and who allows us to
draw near to God (10:19-22). Now Paul asserts, “we
have an altar…” Jewish religion had a sacrificial
altar in their worship center of the tabernacle and the
temple. What does Paul mean in declaring that Christians
have an altar? Early Christians were charged with being
“atheists” and not having a “real religion” because they
did not have a visible, tangible, material sacred sites
or objects – no temples, altars, idols, or priests.
Paul’s statement, “we have an altar,” must obviously be
interpreted figuratively, for the early Christians did
not have a physical structure of an altar made of wood
or stones. This would also preclude any reference in
this text to a Eucharistic altar of the Lord’s Supper
table, or an altar rail at the front of the sanctuary or
auditorium. Historically, the cross is where Jesus made
the sacrificial offering of His own life for mankind.
Based on that historical sacrifice, Paul has argued that
we have direct and immediate access into the heavenly
sanctuary of the Holy of Holies of God’s presence (9:24;
10:19-21) where the living Lord Jesus serves as High
Priest. The Christian altar, then, is best understood
metaphorically as the spiritual altar in the heavenly
sanctuary of God’s presence, where Christians are
“seated in the heavenlies” with Christ (Eph. 1:20; 2:6),
offering up “sacrifices of praise to God” (15), while
being “sustained by grace” (9).
From such a heavenly altar, “those
serving the tent have no authority to eat.” Those
“serving the tent,” the old covenant worship place of
tabernacle and temple, includes not only the Judaic
priests, but by extension all Jewish participants who
sought to worship God in that place via the cultic
rituals of that religion. Thinking that they were
sustained in their relationship with God by food laws,
they have no right to partake from the heavenly altar
where Christians are “sustained by grace” (9), having
partaken of Jesus Christ. The Jews were aghast when
Jesus said,
“Unless you eat the flesh of the
Son of Man, and drink His blood, you have no life in
yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood
has eternal life; and I will raise him up on the
last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is
true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood
abides in Me, and I in him.” (John 6:53-56)
With their meticulous food
regulations and literalistic legalisms, the Jews would
never consider eating human flesh or blood, but they
failed to recognize that Jesus was speaking figuratively
of partaking of Himself. Likewise, Paul speaks
figuratively when he refers to Christians having “tasted
the good word of God” (6:5), and of Jewish adherents
having no right to “eat” from the heavenly altar. Judaic
participants, who still placed their faith in Jewish
food laws, instead of Jesus Christ alone, could not
partake (“eat”) and be “sustained by the grace” of God
in Jesus Christ at the heavenly altar. Those who
persisted in the “shadows” (cf. Col. 2:17; Heb. 8:5;
10:1) of old covenant rituals were precluded from
participation in the new covenant substance and
spiritual reality of Jesus Christ. To the Corinthians,
Paul wrote, “Those who eat the sacrifices are sharers in
the altar” (I Cor. 10:18), indicating that participation
involves identification. In this letter Paul is advising
the Hebrew Christians of Jerusalem that participation in
Jewish practices identifies them with the Jewish altar
rather than the heavenly Christian altar, where
Christians partake of Christ and are “sustained by
grace.” There is a complete antithesis between the two,
an either/or dichotomy that allows no merging or mixing
of Judaism and Christianity. Paul was warning the
Jerusalem Christians that to revert and seek solace or
security in the Jewish practices of worship or food
regulations was to forfeit Christian identification and
participation in the new covenant relationship with God
in Christ. The truism, “What you take, takes you,” is
valid nutritionally and in spiritual metaphor.
13:11
Paul returns again to the parallels and contrasts
of Christ’s sacrifice with the sacrifices that were made
on the Day of Atonement in Judaism.
“For the bodies of those living
animals whose blood is brought into the holy place by
the high priests concerning sin, those are burned
outside the camp.” Every Hebrew person was
thoroughly indoctrinated with the details of what
transpired on the Day of Atonement. Drawing from
Leviticus 16:1-28, Paul summarizes how the blood of a
bull and a goat (not the scapegoat) were placed on the
altar in the Holy of Holies of the tabernacle or temple
as a sin-offering for the priest and the Israelite
people. These annual animal sacrifices signified the
covering of the people’s sins for the year. The
carcasses of these animals were afterwards taken
“outside the camp” (Lev. 16:27) and burned. They were
not allowed to be eaten, as were some of the other
Jewish sacrifices. The regulations for the disposal of
the carcasses of these sacrificed animals “outside the
camp” illustrated the traditional practice of removing
things and people regarded to be impure, unclean,
polluted, profane, sinful or unacceptable outside of the
boundaries of the camp or city where God’s people lived
and worshipped. The Day of Atonement was still being
enacted at the temple in Jerusalem when Paul wrote this
letter. Note that he uses present tense verbs: “the
blood of those animals is brought into the holy
place,” and “the bodies are burned outside the
camp.” In the practice of first century Judaism, the
bodies of the sin-offering animals were taken outside of
the gates and walls of the city of Jerusalem to be
burned on the Day of Atonement.
13:12
Comparing the old covenant animal sacrifices with
the new covenant atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, Paul
explains, “Therefore Jesus
also, in order that He might sanctify the people through
His own blood, suffered outside the gate.”
The death of Jesus on the cross was the once and for all
sacrifice that removed sin permanently for the people of
faith, and set them apart unto God’s holy purposes.
“Through His own blood” (cf. 9:12,14,22), signifying the
sacrificial death that Jesus suffered (cf. 2:10; 9:26)
on the cross, Jesus fulfilled the type of the High
Priest (7:27; 8:1-3; 9:11-15,24-26; 10:9-11), making His
sin-offering of His own life in the Holy of Holies of
God’s heavenly presence. In so doing, He “sanctified the
people” (cf. 10:10,14), setting them apart for direct
and intimate access to the Holy God, that He might
indwell them and make them “holy ones” (Rom. 1:7; I Cor.
1:2; Eph. 1:1; 4:12; Heb. 6:10) who would express His
holy character behaviorally within His creation. In his
letter to Titus, Paul wrote, “Christ Jesus…gave Himself
for us…that He might…purify for Himself a people for His
own possession, zealous for good deeds” (Titus 2:14).
There is both parallelism and
contrast as Paul compares the animal sacrifices of the
old covenant with the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ.
As the High Priest and the sin-offering, Jesus fulfills
the prefiguring prototype of the old covenant atonement
sacrifices, providing a connective association and
junction of the new with the old. At the same time, His
execution by crucifixion “outside the gate” of the city
reveals a fracturing of the old covenant prototypical
picture, creating a disconnection, disassociation, and
disjuncture with Judaism.
Jesus “suffered” death on the cross,
“despising the shame” (12:2) of being crucified as a
common criminal “outside the gate” of the city of
Jerusalem. Golgotha, “the place of the skull” (Matt.
27:33; Mk. 15:22; Lk. 23:33; Jn. 19:17), was “near the
city” (Jn. 19:20) of Jerusalem, but “outside the gate.”
The Jewish leaders regarded Jesus as profane and
contrary to all their Messianic expectations. They
wanted Him removed, expelled, cast out – killed in a
most unacceptable manner, by crucifixion, regarded as a
“curse” (Gal. 3:13). His execution on a cross “outside
the gate” of their sacrosanct temple and city
represented their attempt to get rid of the carcass of
the troublesome Jesus. In the process of their rejection
and repudiation of Jesus, and the facilitation of His
death in consort with the Romans, there was enacted a
complete rupture and dichotomy with Judaism. In the same
events of Jesus’ death there was both a fulfillment of
old covenant prefiguring as well as a complete
fracturing that forever separated Judaism and
Christianity.
13:13 “So
then,” as a consequence of Jesus’ suffering
“outside the gate” (12), “let
us go out towards Him outside the camp, bearing His
reproach.” Paul calls on the Jerusalem
Christians to act in identification with Jesus and to go
where He is “outside the camp.” Jesus is obviously
“outside the camp” of Judaism, the religion of
unbelieving Israel, so Paul is encouraging the Hebrew
Christians of Jerusalem to make a clean break from the
Judaic religion, disassociating with the religious
culture and practices that they were being pressured to
adopt. This has been a major thrust of his counsel to
the Jerusalem Christians throughout this epistle. But
there may be more import in the advice that Paul gives
to his readers. The call to “go outside the camp” is
certainly [1] an urging to go outside the strictures of
Judaism with all its prefiguring shadows and legalistic
regulations, and to seek the new covenant substance of
Jesus Christ Himself, being “sustained by grace” (9). By
extension [2], this could be understood as an admonition
to “go outside the camp” of all religion which binds
people in devotion and ritual. Another alternative
interpretation [3] is that Paul is advising them to “go
outside of the camp” of earthly attachments of the here
and now (14), such as food (9) and money (5) and the
security of physical families; to “go out of the camp”
as Abraham went out (11:8), seeking the intangible
unknown of the heavenly altar (10). This should not be
construed, however, as escapism or withdrawal from the
world, for Jesus made it clear that Christians are “in
the world” (Jn. 17:11,18), but “not of the world” (Jn.
17:14,16). There may be [4] a somewhat cryptic or
prophetic encouragement that Paul is delivering to the
Christians of Jerusalem, advising them to “go outside
the camp” of the city of Jerusalem. Sensing that the old
covenant and everything associated with it was “near to
disappearing” (8:13), and knowing that the Jewish
resistance movement was no match for the powerful and
ruthless Roman army, Paul might have subtly indicated
that the Christians in Jerusalem should “get out of
town.” This interpretation has textual validity since
“outside the camp” (11) meant “outside the city gates”
(12) in the Jewish practice of the first century, and
Paul proceeds immediately to indicate that Christians do
not have a lasting, abiding, geographical city (14). All
of these interpretations, the theological, religious,
sociological, and geographical, may have some validity,
but they must be understood in correlation with Paul’s
contextual words that to “go outside the camp” is to “go
towards Jesus,…bearing His reproach.”
It has been noted that when the old
covenant people of God rejected God in the golden calf
incident (Exod. 32:1-20), Moses called the people out of
the camp (Exod. 32:26) and pitched the tabernacled
presence of God “outside of the camp”. “Everyone who
sought the Lord would go out to the tent of meeting
which was outside the camp” (Exod. 33:7). In like
manner, the Jewish people had rejected God’s Messiah,
Jesus Christ, and Paul may have been indicating that
God’s presence was no longer in the camp of Judaism and
in the city of Jerusalem, but “outside the camp,” to be
approached through Jesus alone at the heavenly altar
(10). To choose to stay inside the Judaic religion with
its temple altar and legalistic ritual, and to choose
earthly attachments of family and heritage inside the
city of Jerusalem, would be to lose everything,
spiritually and physically. To go “outside the camp”
where Jesus went to His death (Jn. 19:20), and where
Jesus continues to be in His heavenly ministry, was to
participate in the heavenly realities of Christ’s high
priesthood in the presence of God at the heavenly altar
(10) in the heavenly Jerusalem (12:22) where Christians
rest (4:1-11) in their sanctification (2:11; 10:10,14;
12:14) and are “sustained by grace” (9).
To do so, however, would involve the
identification of “bearing His reproach.” As Jesus was
condemned to an accursed death (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13)
of disgrace (12:2) outside of the city (Jn. 19:20), in
correspondence with Jewish contempt for the carcasses of
sacrificial animals (11), so the Jerusalem Christians
were to follow Him out of the camp of Judaism and
religion, and out of the doomed city of Jerusalem (Matt.
24:2), willing to “bear His reproach.” The Hebrew
Christians in Jerusalem had already borne His reproach
in ostracism, persecution, denunciation, and humiliation
(10:33). But if they were to denounce Judaism entirely
and leave Jerusalem at this very time when they were
being solicited to fight the Romans, they would not
doubt “bear His reproach” in increasing contempt and
hostility, suffering reviling defamation and the
alienating stigma of being cowardly traitors who were
repudiating their heritage and religion. The price of
being “sustained by grace” (9) is to suffer the disgrace
of religious repudiation and contempt. Jesus made the
cost clear when He said,
“ If anyone wishes to come after
Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and
follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life shall
lose it; and whoever loses his life for My sake and
the gospel’s shall save it. For what does it profit
a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?
For what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this
adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man
will also be ashamed of him when he comes in the
glory of His Father…” (Mk. 8:34-38; cf. Lk. 14:27).
Jesus also forewarned, “In this world
you will have tribulation” (Jn. 16:33). “You will be
hated by all on account of My name” (Matt. 10:16-42).
13:14
To provide the rationale and motivation for “going
outside the camp” of Judaism and Jerusalem, Paul
continues, “For here we do not
have an abiding city, but we seek that which is coming.”
“Here,” in this world on earth, we, as new covenant
Christians, do not have an abiding, enduring, lasting
city in which we might settle down and make our abode,
and practice Christian religion. Many religions have
sacred cities with permanent precincts and tangible
temples for religious rituals. The sacred city of
Judaism was Jerusalem where the recipients of this
letter resided, and where they were tempted to adapt to
the Jewish religious regulations and rituals. Paul is
advising them not to put their trust in physical
Jerusalem, and everything associated with it. Even
Jerusalem, representing the whole of Judaism, was not a
permanent city, for it was doomed (Matt. 24:2) to be
destroyed in a few years, in A.D. 70.
Christians do not have a temporal, tangible,
geographical city to settle down and make their abode
in. Rather, Paul explains, “we seek that (city) which is
coming.” This is not necessarily a reference to a future
residence that is yet to come. Paul does not use a
future tense verb, “will come,” but a present
participle, “is coming,” which indicates that this is in
the process of being realized. The dialectic of
“already” and “not yet” must be maintained. In the
progressive pilgrimage of the Christian life, we seek,
as Abraham sought (11:14), a “heavenly country” (11:16),
a “fatherland” (11:14), “the city whose architect and
builder is God” (11:10). This “age to come” (6:5) has
already been inaugurated and realized for Christians who
“have come…to the city of the living God, the heavenly
Jerusalem” (12:22), and “are receiving an unshakeable
kingdom” (12:28). Christians recognize that their
“citizenship is in heaven” (Phil. 3:20) already
as they await the complete fulfillment of the promise of
the “holy city, Jerusalem, which is coming down out of
heaven from God” (Rev. 22:10-27; cf. 21:2) and not
yet realized in full.
The spiritual and heavenly
intangibility of Christianity is often difficult for
Christians who still exist in the space/time context of
this world, and tend to think in more concrete spatial
and temporal terms. The church of Jesus Christ is a
spiritual society “called out” to live and worship in a
transcendent heavenly city. The sacred space and place
(cf. Jn. 14:2) where the Christian lives is in the Holy
Place of God’s presence, “near to the heart of God.”
This is the permanent polis of eternal security,
which the Jerusalem Christians would never find by
reverting to participation in the religious practices of
Jewish Jerusalem.
13:15
Having gone “outside the camp” (13), seeking all
that is coming (14), “Through
Him then, let us offer through all things a sacrifice of
praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips confessing His
name.” Advising the Jerusalem Christians to
“go outside of the camp” of Judaism and “towards Jesus”
(13), “through Him then” they are challenged to offer
continuously, unceasingly, and in all circumstances “a
sacrifice of praise to God.” It is not through the old
covenant sacrifices of the Jewish priests at the temple
that they are to offer their praise to God. Neither is
praise offered only in gratitude for the sacrificial
death of Jesus on the cross. Rather, through the living
Lord Jesus, on the basis of the dynamic of His
resurrected life, Christians offer their sacrifice of
praise to God. Every manifestation of the Christian life
is “through Him,” for the behavior and worship of the
Christian life is the living Jesus in action. Jesus is
the pray-er, the worshipper, the Christian life.
Historically, Jesus offered His own
life as the once and for all (9:26,28; 10:10) death
sacrifice for the sins of the human race, acting as High
Priest in the Holy of Holies of God’s presence, that we
might have access to God (10:19,20) in the holy place.
It is there that “we have an altar” (10) with unlimited
opportunity (not just annually on the Day of Atonement)
to offer to God an acceptable and well-pleasing service
of worship (12:28). Christian sacrifice is not the
sacrifice of animals, but the presentation of praise to
God in adulation and adoration of His person and work.
This should never be reversed in such a way that praise
to God becomes a “law” or a “force” that causes God to
act, as if a so-called “power of praise” could become a
mantra that leverages God’s action. Christian sacrifice
is an availability to be the useful vessels through
which God is praised. Writing to the Romans, Paul urged
the brethren “by the mercies of God, to present their
bodies as a living and holy sacrifice, well-pleasing
to God, as their spiritual service of worship”
(Romans 12:1). Peter explained that Christians
collectively are “living stones, being built up as a
spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up
spiritual sacrifices well-pleasing to God
through Jesus Christ” (I Peter 2:5).
Paul provides an interpretive comment
to explain “a sacrifice of praise to God,” “that is, the
fruit of lips confessing to His name.” The phrase “fruit
of our lips” is used in Isa. 57:19 and Hosea 14:2 (LXX).
It is a figurative expression that refers to the
manifestation of verbal or auditory speech. Christian
worship will involve confessing, agreeing, and
concurring that God is who He has revealed Himself to
be. His “name” is an expression of His character, as
names were so often employed in Hebraic culture. Such
confessing and praising God for who He is is always
“through Jesus,” for Paul quoted earlier from Psalm
22:22 indicating that Jesus “proclaims God’s name to His
brethren, and in the midst of the congregation sings
God’s praise” (2:12).
13:16
Continuing to explain the worship sacrifices that
God desires of Christians, Paul writes,
“But do not neglect doing good and
sharing, for with such sacrifices God is well-pleased.”
The verbal “sacrifice of praise” must be translated into
practical behavior. It is not enough to sit around with
our hands in the air praising God, and fail to act in
loving ways toward those in need. When this happens we
are like those whom God spoke of through Isaiah, “This
people draw near with their words, and honor Me with
their lip-service, but they remove their hearts far from
Me” (Isa. 29:13). Not only are we to “love the Lord,”
but also we are to “love our neighbor as ourselves”
(Matt. 22:37-40; Mk. 12:30-33; Lk. 10:27; Rom. 13:8-10;
Gal. 5:14; James 2:8). Our love must be expressed “in
word and deed” (Col. 3:17; I John 3:16-18). Paul,
therefore, advises the Jerusalem Christians to not
forget, disregard, or neglect “doing good and sharing.”
Jesus “went about doing good” (Acts 10:38), and what
would we expect as He now lives in us, but that God
would “equip us with every good thing to do His
will, working in us that which is well-pleasing
in His sight, through Jesus Christ” (13:21)? The
general expression of “doing good” is particularized in
the admonition to share and contribute generously with
those who are in need (cf. Acts 4:32-34). God is
well-pleased (12:28; 13:21; cf. Rom. 12:1; Eph. 5:10;
Phil. 4:18) with the Christian sacrifice of practical
worship that expresses the worth-ship of His character
in Christian behavior.
13:17
Another expression of Christian worship in holiness
is to “Have confidence in those
leading you, and defer (to them);
for they are vigilant on behalf of
your souls, as those who will give an account. They
should do this with joy and not groaning, for this would
be disadvantageous to you.” Just as Paul
began this section (7) with reference to “those
presently leading” the Christians in the church at
Jerusalem, he again mentions the necessity to be
persuaded of the advisability of respecting and
cooperating with those leading them. Similarly, Paul
encouraged the Thessalonians to “appreciate those who
diligently labor among you, and have charge over you in
the Lord and give you instruction” (I Thess. 5:12). Holy
Christian behavior will defer, yield, adapt, and submit
to those designated as leaders, willing to work together
with them in compliant cooperation. Paul is not
advocating a mandated subordination or subjugation to a
hierarchical structure of authoritarian leadership.
Jesus said, “All authority has been given to Me in
heaven and on earth” (Matt. 28:18), and Christians must
beware of those who would claim “spiritual authority” or
“pastoral authority” to “lord it over” (I Peter 5:3)
others as false shepherds with dictatorial control. Paul
is simply advising the Jerusalem Christians to respect
and have confidence in their leaders, willing to
lovingly interact in collective cooperation, without
engaging in critical challenge or antagonistic
rebellion.
Those given the responsibility of
leadership, Paul explained, “are vigilant on behalf of
your souls, as those who will give an account.” The word
“vigilant” is translated from a Greek word that
etymologically meant, “to not sleep,” but linguistically
referred to vigilance and alertness in “keeping watch.”
Paul had told the elders of the church in Ephesus to “be
on the alert” (a variation of the same word used here),
as those who “shepherd the church of God” (Acts
20:28-31). Those who are entrusted to lead in the church
must be diligent (Rom. 12:8), as they are accountable to
God for their leadership service, having a “stricter
accountability” (James 3:1) because of their influence
over the souls of God’s people.
Leaders should be able to do this
service of vigilant leadership with the joy of serving
as God’s selected vessels, rather than with the groaning
and sighing of a burdensome grief of having to battle
uncooperative and unruly people. It is most unfortunate
when Christian leaders are challenged, criticized, and
second-guessed, losing sleep in anguish and frustration
over the souls entrusted to their care. “This is
disadvantageous and unprofitable for you,” Paul advises
the Jerusalem Christians. The purpose of the leadership
of the church is that the body might be “built up in
love” and “grow in all respects into Him, who is the
head, even Christ” (Eph. 4:11-16). When Christians are
uncooperative and recalcitrant with their leaders, this
does not serve God’s end objective to manifest His holy
and loving character by allowing the Christ-life to be
lived out in Christian behavior within a loving
community that is to represent the Triune interaction of
the Godhead.
The Jerusalem Christians, whether
within Jerusalem or outside of Jerusalem, were to
worship God at the heavenly altar (10) with a verbal
“sacrifice of praise” (15), in practical sharing with
those in need (16), and by deference to their leaders
(17). In such holy behavior (12:14) and worship, God
would be well-pleased (12:28; 13:16,21). Paul wanted the
Hebrew Christians in Jerusalem to understand that
Christian worship was not constituted by the ritual and
regulations of the Jewish religion, but by a practical
lifestyle of worship that expressed the worth-ship of
God’s character in all situations.
13:18
Within the final contextual section (18-25), Paul
shares some personal concluding comments that reveal his
heart-felt affection for his Hebrew kinsmen in
Jerusalem. He solicits their prayers for himself and his
colleagues (18,19), expresses a prayer for the readers
(20,21), encourages the readers to accept what he has
written as intended (22), advises them of Timothy’s
release and his desire to visit them (23), exchanges
greetings (24), and concludes by entrusting them to
God’s grace (25).
“Pray for
us, for we are persuaded that we have a good conscience,
desiring to conduct (ourselves)
well in all things.”
Paul was not too proud to solicit the prayers of others.
He often requests prayer in his epistles (Rom. 15:30,31;
Eph. 6:19; Col. 4:3,4; I Thess. 5:25; II Thess. 3:1).
The present tense verb can be translated, “Keep praying
for us,” indicating an awareness or assurance that the
Christians in Jerusalem were already doing so. The
plural pronouns, “us” and “we,” could be editorial
accommodation, but probably refer to Paul and his
colleagues in Rome. Some have interpreted this to mean
Paul’s inclusion of himself with other apostles or other
leaders (17) of the church.
Paul considered himself and his
colleagues as worthy of the supportive prayers of his
readers in Jerusalem, being “persuaded” and “convinced”
that they have done what God willed in their lives, by
being and doing what God wanted to be and do in them.
Previously in this letter Paul had mentioned the
cleansing of the conscience at regeneration (9:9,14;
10:2,22), but here he appeals to the inner perception of
peace in having been faithfully and behaviorally
available to do what God wanted. On several occasions in
his writings Paul expressed his assurance of integrity
based on a good conscience. In Jerusalem before the
Jewish Council, Paul stated, “I have lived my life with
a perfectly good conscience before God up to this
day” (Acts 23:1). Before Felix, Paul said, “I do my best
to maintain always a blameless conscience before
God and before men” (Acts 24:16). These statements were
made just prior to his state-sponsored transport to Rome
(Acts 27:1). Writings to the Corinthians, Paul
explained, “I am conscious of nothing against
myself, but the One who examines me is the Lord” (I Cor.
4:4), and later, “For our confidence is this, the
testimony of our conscience, that in holiness and
godly sincerity, not in fleshly wisdom but in the grace
of God, we have conducted ourselves in the world, and
especially toward you” (II Cor. 1:12). The apostle John
wrote, “If our heart does not condemn us, we have
confidence before God” (I Jn. 3:21).
Continuing to include his colleagues,
Paul indicated that they were “desiring to conduct
themselves well in all things.” They wanted their
behavior to be good and exemplary, a faultless and
irreproachable (cf. I Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:6) expression of
God’s holiness (12:14) in all situations and among all
people.
Many commentators have speculated
that Paul was attempting to justify his own behavior in
explaining why he was worthy of the readers’ prayers.
Was there resentment or alienation between Paul and the
Jerusalem Christians? Paul, as the “Apostle to the
Gentiles” (cf. Acts 26:17), may well have been regarded
with some suspicion and skepticism by the Hebrew
Christians.4
Perhaps Paul feared that this letter, this “word of
exhortation” (22) might not be well received by the
Jerusalem Christians since he advocated such a
definitive dichotomy between the old covenant and the
new covenant, between Judaism and Christianity, with a
rejection, repudiation, and severance from all Judaic
religious traditions in order to participate in the
“better things” in Jesus Christ.
13:19
There does not seem to be any apparent alienation
in Paul’s continued urging of the Jerusalem Christians
to pray for him. “And I entreat
you especially to do this, that I may be reunited with
you sooner.” Paul appeals to the Jerusalem
Christians, beseeching, entreating, and encouraging them
to pray for him. The word he uses can also be translated
as “exhort” (22) or “counsel,” but these have more of a
demanding connotation. Paul wanted them to pray
“especially” (cf. II Cor. 1:12; 2:4) and more
specifically, that he might be reunited with them in a
personal visit very soon. His desired reunion with the
Jerusalem Christians can be understood as both the
content of the prayer that he encourages, as well as
the consequence of such prayer. Paul had been
with the Jerusalem church on several occasions
previously (Acts 9:26-30; 15:1-29; 21:15–23:22), and
wanted to be with them again as soon as possible,
“before long” (I Tim. 3:14), shortly, in order to speak
with them face-to-face. The question that must be asked
is: Was Paul hindered from such a reunion visit because
he was incarcerated in Rome, and would have to be
released from custody in order to return? There is
inadequate information to answer that question, but in
another epistle written from prison in Rome, Paul
stated, “I hope that through your prayers I shall be
given up to you” (Philemon 22).
13:20
Having sought their prayers, Paul turns around and
expresses in writing a benedictory and doxological
prayer for the Jerusalem Christians. Paul’s prayer is
heavily weighted theologically, but what would we expect
from one whose mind was so oriented to theological
intricacies?
“Now the God
of peace, the One having brought out of a corpse the
great Shepherd of the sheep in the blood of the eternal
covenant, (even)
Jesus our Lord…” These words simply establish
the subject of the sentence, and the One to whom the
prayer is addressed. The designation of God as “the God
of peace” was a common way to refer to God, and one that
Paul used often (Rom. 15:33; 16:20; Ii Cor. 13:11; Phil.
4:9; I Thess. 5:23). God is the source of inner and
outer peace – spiritual peace, psychological peace, and
social peace.
The Son of God, the “Prince of Peace”
(Isa. 9:6), is “the great Shepherd of the sheep.” Jesus
identified Himself as the “good shepherd who lays His
life down for the sheep” (Jn. 10:11,14), indicating that
the Shepherd would be struck down (Matt. 26:31). Peter
referred to Jesus as “the Shepherd and Guardian of our
souls” (I Peter 2:25), the “Chief Shepherd” (I Peter
5:4) of the church. The “great Shepherd” is the “great
High Priest” (4:14; 10:21). The Shepherd gave His
life for the sheep. The High Priest offered Himself as
the sacrifice for sin.
“Through the blood” (13:12) of the
sacrificial death of Jesus on the cross, the “eternal
covenant” was established extending “eternal salvation”
(5:9), “eternal redemption” (9:12), and “eternal
inheritance” (9:15) to those united with Him. The
prophets had foretold of this new “eternal covenant”
(Isa. 55:3; 61:8; Jere. 31:33; 32:40; 50:5; Ezek. 16:60;
37:26). Whereas the old covenant was designed as
provisional and temporary with planned obsolescence
(13:8), the new covenant in Jesus Christ would be final
and permanent, never to be superseded. At the Last
Supper, Jesus spoke to His disciples, “This is the blood
of the covenant, which is to be shed on behalf of many"
(Matt. 26:28) for the sins of all time (10:12),
establishing the eternal new covenant for all ages
between God and mankind.
God the Father “brought up” the
crucified Jesus “out of a corpse,” raising Him from the
dead to be the “great Shepherd of the sheep” and the
Lord of the church. The implications of the resurrection
of Jesus were (and are) the foremost message of the
Christian gospel. We are “born again to a living hope
through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the
dead” (I Pet. 1:3). Christians are “those who believe in
Him who raised Jesus from the dead” (Rom. 4:24; I
Peter 1:21). Paul advised the Colossian Christians, “You
were raised up with Him through faith in the working of
God, who raised Him from the dead” (Col. 2:12). The
dynamic of the Christian life is the indwelling
resurrection-life of Jesus. “If the Spirit of Him who
raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who
raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give
life to your mortal bodies through His spirit who
indwells you” (Rom. 8:11). Paul prayed for the Ephesians
that they would “know the surpassing greatness of His
power…in accordance with the working of the strength of
His might which He brought about in Christ, when He
raised Him from the dead” (Eph. 1:19,20). The divine
dynamic of the Christian life is the grace provision of
the resurrection-life of Jesus by the activity of the
Holy Spirit. In the midst of that “newness of life”
(Rom. 6:4) wherein we are “united in the likeness of His
resurrection” (Rom. 6:5), we anticipate that “He who
raised Jesus from the dead will raise us also with
Jesus” (II Cor. 4:14) in the future bodily resurrection
(cf. I Cor. 15:12-28).
Jesus “was declared the Son of God
with power by the resurrection from the dead,
according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our
Lord” (Rom. 1:4). The resurrection of Jesus is the
empowering basis of the Lordship of Jesus Christ,
reigning and ruling in the lives of individual
Christians and collectively in the church. The simplest
affirmation of the early Christians, and Christians
through the ages, has been, “Jesus is Lord” (I Cor.
12:3). Christians are to “set apart Christ as Lord in
their hearts, …and keep a good conscience so that…those
who revile their good behavior may be put to shame” (I
Pet. 3:15,16).
13:21
Paul’s prayer first established the subject, “the
God of peace,” and explained His historical action
through His Son of crucifixion, resurrection, and the
establishment of the eternal covenant community wherein
the living Christ serves as “the great Shepherd of the
sheep” and the Lord of the church (20). Having stated in
prayer what God has done, he then prays for God’s
continuing action in the lives of the Jerusalem
Christians. Paul’s prayer is that God will
“equip you in everything good to
do His will, doing in us that which is well-pleasing in
His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory
unto the ages. Amen.” Of all the new covenant
writers of scripture, Paul seems to be most clearly
cognizant that the Christian life can only be lived by
the grace of God. He prays that God will prepare (cf.
10:5; 11:3), equip, and supply the Jerusalem Christians
to be complete (II Cor. 13:11) and perfect (I Pet. 5:10)
by His provision of grace, in order to be functionally
operative to manifest His goodness in accordance with
His will. The Christian life is the “supplied life”
5
wherein the Christian is fully equipped by the dynamic
power of God’s grace for all good. Some manuscripts and
translations read, “in every good work,” whereas the
oldest manuscript (P46)
simply refers to being equipped “in good.” The “fruit of
the Spirit” includes “goodness” (Gal. 5:22,23), and the
apostle John explained that “the one doing good
derives what he does out of God” (III Jn. 11). God
equips the Christian to express His character of
goodness in every good expression and good deed of the
Christian life. “We are His workmanship, created in
Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared
beforehand that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10).
“God is able to make all grace abound to you, that
always having all sufficiency in everything, you may
have an abundance for every good deed” (II Cor.
9:8).
Equipped by His grace to express His
goodness, we are prepared “to do His will.” As Paul
wrote to the Philippians, ‘I can do all things
through Him who strengthens me” (Phil. 4:13). We can “do
the will of God” only because He is the cause of His own
character expression. That which God wills, He works!
That which God desires, He does! Earlier Paul had put
the words of the Psalmist (Ps. 40:7,8) into the mouth of
Jesus, “I have come to do Thy will, O God” (Heb.
10:7,9). Jesus accomplished the will of God as “the
Father abiding in Him did His works” (Jn. 14:10), and we
“do the will of God” (cf. 10:36) as the indwelling
Christ expresses His life and character in and through
us. Expressed succinctly, we can state that “the will of
God is Jesus” expressing Himself in our behavior.
The “God of peace” is “doing in us
that which is well-pleasing in His sight, through Jesus
Christ…” God is the dynamic of His own demands, the
cause of His own effects, the working of His own will.
Nothing in the Christian life is generated or produced
by human effort or “works,” but it is all accomplished
by God’s grace. Paul’s duplication of verbs is not
always apparent in English translations, for Paul prays
that, “God equip you to do His will, doing in
us what is pleasing in His sight.” This is similar
to Paul’s words to the Philippians, advising them to “work
out your own salvation, for God is at work in
you to work for His good pleasure” (Phil.
2:12,13). Based on His having “put His laws into our
minds, and written them upon our hearts” (8:10; 10:16;
cf. Jere. 31:33), by the indwelling presence of Jesus
(cf. Jn. 14:20; 17:23; Rom. 8:9,10; II Cor. 13:5; Gal.
2:20; Eph. 3:17; Col. 1:27; Heb. 3:14), God’s internal
dynamic of grace in the living Lord Jesus supplies
everything necessary to live a Christian life pleasing
to God. During His incarnation on earth, Jesus “always
did the things that were pleasing to the Father” (Jn.
8:29). It is only “through Jesus Christ” (cf. 15), His
life expressed through us, that our behavior can be
well-pleasing in His sight” (cf. 12:28; 13:16).
Every legitimate expression of the Christian life is
“through Jesus Christ” (cf. Phil. 4:13). Christianity is
Christ.6
God is glorified unto the ages by His
own action, by His own all-glorious character expressed
within His creation. Therefore, Paul’s prayer is that as
God equips the Christians in goodness to do His will,
and does in the Christians what is pleasing in His
sight, through Jesus Christ, the “God of peace” (and by
extension, Jesus Christ as God) “might be glorified unto
the ages” (cf. Gal. 1:5; Ii Tim. 4:18). God created all
things (cf. Ps. 19:1) and all persons (cf. Isa. 43:7)
for His own glory, but He “does not give His glory to
another” (Isa. 42:8; 48:11). God’s glory is in His own
Self-expression through His Son, Jesus Christ, for
godliness is exclusively the expression of God’s own
character, and God is glorified only by the
manifestation of His own absolute and all-glorious
character in the manifestation of the life of Jesus
Christ. The extended phrase, “unto the ages of the
ages,” or “forever and ever,” is an apparent
addition not contained in the earliest manuscripts.
“So be it,” “let it be,” “Amen,” Paul
concludes his written prayer. He prays, believing that
God will accomplish what he has prayed for.
13:22
Some have regarded the remaining words of this
epistle to be an addendum or an attached postscript, but
they seem to be an integral part of Paul’s personal
conclusion. “But I exhort you,
brothers, bear with this word of exhortation, for I have
written to you through a few words.” Paul
urges (cf. Rom. 12:1; 15:30; 16:17), entreats,
beseeches, appeals, counsels, encourages, or exhorts the
Hebrew Christians of Jerusalem to give due consideration
to this letter he has written to them. The same word was
translated “entreat” in verse 19, but to make the Greek
word-play more obvious we have here translated it, “I
exhort you…to bear with this word of exhortation…”
This may overstate a sense of demanding harshness not
intended by Paul, but he is certainly appealing to the
Christians in Jerusalem to “bear with” (cf. Eph. 4:2;
Col. 3:13), endure (II Tim. 4:3), or to “hold on to” the
“word of exhortation” (cf. Acts 13:15) supplied by this
epistle, which was meant to be a “word of encouragement”
(10:25) of the “better things” that Christians have in
Jesus Christ. Some commentators have speculated that
Paul was making a courteous apology for the forthright
and direct manner of his expressing the dichotomy
between Judaism and Christianity, thereby attempt to
soften the blow for the Hebrew Christian readers. Paul
was surely unapologetic about the stand he had taken in
the content of this letter, and was more likely urging
them to cling tightly to the message of all “better
things” provided in Jesus Christ alone. The only apology
may have been for the length of the epistle, since he
proceeds to explain, “I have written to you through a
few words.” This may be a classic example of
understatement, as Paul recognized that the epistle was
rather lengthy. On several occasions throughout the
letter Paul indicated that he had “much to say” (5:11;
11:32) and could not “go into detail” (9:5) on every
point, but given the breadth of the subject of comparing
the old covenant with the new covenant, he had indeed
written briefly “through a few words.”
13:23
Concerning his understudy and colleague, Paul
wrote, “Be advised that brother
Timothy has been released, with whom, if he comes soon,
I will see you.” Timothy was Paul’s student
and traveling companion (cf. II Cor. 1:1; Phil. 1:1;
Col. 1:1; I Thess. 1:1; II Thess. 1:1; I Tim. 1:2; II
Tim. 1:2), and the Christians in Jerusalem would have
been well aware of that relationship. On Paul’s last
trip to Jerusalem, Timothy was accompanying him (Acts
20:4), and likely visited the church in Jerusalem at
that time. Timothy’s “release” probably refers to his
being set free from custody or incarceration in prison,
even though we do not have any direct scriptural
statement of his being imprisoned. We do know that
Timothy was with Paul in Rome when Paul wrote some of
his prison epistles (Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:1; Philemon 1:1).
Paul informs the Jerusalem Christians to “be advised,
take notice, know” that Timothy has been released –
information they would surely be glad to hear.
The briefly stated travel plans are
rather ambiguous. Did Paul expect Timothy to come to
Rome so they could travel together to Jerusalem,
provided Paul was free to go? Or did Paul expect Timothy
to travel to Jerusalem where Paul anticipated that he
could see and visit with Timothy and the Jerusalem
Christians? We do not know the details of the projected
travel plans, but Paul obviously hoped to visit with the
Christians in Jerusalem and with Timothy.
13:24
As was customary in ancient letters (cf. Phil.
4:21; I Thess. 5:26; III Jn. 14), Paul sends concluding
greetings. “Greet all those
leading you and all the saints.” There may
have been several house churches in Jerusalem, each
having leaders. If so, the “saints” and their leaders
probably kept touch with the other church groups in a
network of contact. The exhortation was to convey Paul’s
greetings to all the present leaders (7,14) and all the
Christian saints.
In addition to his own conveyance of
greetings, Paul adds, “Those
from Italy greet you.” The likely meaning of
these words is that the Christians with whom Paul
associated in Italy also sent their greetings to the
Christians in Jerusalem. Several early sources and
manuscripts of this epistle indicate that this letter
was written by Paul “from Rome,” so Paul was expressing
greetings on behalf of his fellow saints in Italy. Many
speculations have been proffered whether this phrase
refers to displaced or non-resident Italians living at
either the place of origin or the destination of the
epistle, but such adumbrations lead to no substantial
conclusions.
13:25
In typical Pauline form (Phil. 4:23; Col. 4:18; I
Thess. 5:28; II Thess. 3:18; I Tim. 6:21; II Tim. 4:22;
Titus 3:15), Paul, the “Apostle of Grace,” concludes the
letter, “Grace be with you
all.” This is more than a casual and
customary sign-off. Throughout this epistle Paul has
returned to reference to God’s grace. “Let us draw near
with confidence to the throne of grace” (4:16). “See to
it that no one comes short of the grace of God” (12:15).
“It is good for the heart to be sustained by grace”
(13:9). In Paul’s mind, grace was the divine dynamic by
which the entirety of Christian life was expressed, the
free-flow of God’s activity consistent with His
character manifested by the risen Lord Jesus. Paul’s
final words to the Christians in Jerusalem were to
express His desire that they live by God’s grace,
received by faith.
Concluding Remarks:
Despite his propensity for definitive
theological precision and documentation, Paul concludes
this letter to the Hebrew Christians in Jerusalem with a
personal touch of pastoral concern. He allows his loving
heart to be expressed through his pen in exhorting the
readers to practical loving interactions. He seeks the
prayers of his Jewish Christian brethren, and expresses
his desire and intent to visit them soon.
The first paragraph (1-6) of this
final section (13:1-25) is a series of imperatival
exhortation to allow for the manifestation of God’s love
toward one another (1), strangers (2), prisoners (3),
the mistreated (3), and toward their spouses in the
sexual intimacy of marriage (4). Money and material
things, on the other hand, are not to be loved, but
Christians are to rest in the security of God’s
sufficient provision (5,6).
The practicum of love is carried over
into the second paragraph (7-17) in the admonition to
respect and cooperate with present church leaders
(7,17,24). Sandwiched between these references to
leaders, Paul reverts to a theological argument of how
Christians are “sustained by grace” (9) because they
partake (“eat”) from a heavenly altar (10) that is
“outside the camp” (11,12,13) in a heavenly city (14),
where they worship God in verbal praise (15), in
generous sharing with others (16), and by deference for
their leaders (17).
In his concluding comments (18-25),
Paul solicits the prayers of his readers (18,19), and
inscribes a prayer for them (20,21) that expects God to
provide the sufficiency of His grace action by the
indwelling presence of the Spirit of Christ in order to
do God’s will and glorify Him. Exhorting them to endure
his exhortation (22), Paul then advises them of
Timothy’s release (23), explains his intent to visit
them in Jerusalem (23), sends greeting to all, including
greetings from those with him in Italy (24), and bids
them to live in God’s grace (25).
This final section (13:1-25)
continues the theme of the “better things” in Christ
Jesus, by emphasizing that the risen and living Lord
Jesus provides the “Better Practical Expression of God
at Work,” in love and worship and prayer. As this may be
the last extant epistle of the Pauline corpus of
literature, it is most fitting and consistent that Paul
should conclude by emphasizing the divine dynamic of
God’s grace as He energizes and enacts all that is
Christian. God is “doing in us that which is pleasing in
His sight, through Jesus Christ” (21).
FOOTNOTES
1
Goodspeed, Edgar J., The Apostolic Fathers, An
American Translation. New York:
Harper and Brothers. 1950. pg. 17.
2
Bruce, F.F., The Epistle to the Hebrews.
Series: The New International Commentary on the
New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Pub. Co., 1972. pg. 394.
3
Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, The
Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings
of the Fathers down to AD 325. Vol. I. Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985. pg. 62.
4
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History. VI,1,2.
A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers
of the Christian Church. Second Series.
Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub Co. 1982. pg. 261.
5
Freeman, Bill, The Supplied Life: A Daily
Devotional. Scottsdale: Ministry Publications. 1995.
6
Fowler, James A., Christianity is Christ.
Fallbrook: CIY Publishing. 1996.
|
