God's Last Will and Testament?

Reading Scripture carefully leads to the discovery of really weird things. Every once in a while, you will read something, even something familiar, and discover something not only new, but bizarre. Like this statement the writer of Hebrews makes about the “covenant”:

For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives.

Hebrews 9:15-17 NASB (emphasis mine)

If you have ever read this before, did it ever strike you as odd that the first covenant was only valid once God died? It doesn’t say that? Read it again, look at what I’ve made bold. There was a covenant mediated by Moses, so there must, of necessity, be the death of the one who made it, right? So, how is it that the covenant of Moses wasn’t a “treaty” or “contract” between Yahweh and His people? How is it that this “covenant” was a “will”?

Well, for the covenant mediated by Moses to be a “will”, either God was the One who dies so the people can inherit, or the people die so God can inherit. The typical wording used throughout Scripture is that the people “inherit” the Promised Land, the land Yahweh promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. That would mean that God dies, under the Mosaic Covenant. I don’t remember that ever being a part of the covenant made at Sinai.

So, is that what Nicodemus is saying? Is that what the writer of Hebrews, this man who has already shaken comfortable understanding, exploded traditions, and dismantled paradigms, means by these verses? Is he saying that God died when He made the covenant at Sinai? Well, not literally, but figuratively in the sacrifices, did they represent the people or God?

All along, the writer of Hebrews has been focusing on the ministry of the priesthood, specifically, the high priesthood of the Mosaic Covenant. In that ministry, one of the odd elements is the amount of blood used over everything, including the priest. He wears these linen clothes, and then they are sprinkled with blood. Gold items used in the tabernacle, beautifully made, also sprinkled with blood. Nice new stiff white outfit, now with blood spatters all over it. Lovely.

It’s the blood. We say that about Jesus’ death, and how He purifies us from all unrighteousness. It’s the blood of Jesus that cleanses us from sin. And here, the writer of Hebrews is explaining why that is true.

Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “THIS IS THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT WHICH GOD COMMANDED YOU.” And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood.

Hebrews 9:18-21 NASB

When I’ve read Exodus 24 in the past, I’ve studied it at what I thought was a thorough level. But when I read that Moses had the people sacrifice peace offerings to God, and sprinkled the blood on the altars, the people, and the book (verses 3 through 8), it never occurred to me that it represented the death of God. I always assumed it represented the death of the people.

Basically, if the covenant at Sinai was a “will”, who dies, and who inherits? Since the references have been to the people inheriting the promised land (Ex. 32:13, 33:54), then doesn’t that mean that God dies for it to go into effect?

Don’t panic. I figured you might be by this time. Don’t. Remember what Nicodemus is doing here: he’s supporting an argument for the intercessory ministry of Jesus on our behalf with the Father. Nicodemus has supported his assertion by replacing the priestly sacrifices under the law of Moses with Jesus’ self-sacrifice. So, in his argument, God dies (i.e. Jesus dies, but is resurrected), and the (new) covenant is established through His death, like a “will”.

The confusion is arising because Nicodemus is also trying to connect sacrifices with the ratification of the covenant. And the covenant at Sinai was ratified with sacrifices, and blood was sprinkled over everything, just as he claims. So, how does the self-sacrifice of Jesus, once-for-all-time, relate to the sacrifices at the ratification? That was different from the sin offerings because it sanctified rather than justified (as in forgiveness).

On the other hand, you could say that there really isn’t much distinction between sanctification and justification because sin is what makes people “unholy” in the first place. So, my questions may be taking the connection further than Nicodemus may intend. That’s why I didn’t want you to panic. The truth remains that we have a relationship with our Creator through His efforts alone in the death of Jesus.

So, it may not change anything to ask whether the first covenant was a “will”, but it may be an interesting rabbit to chase. What would it mean if the sacrifices ratifying the first covenant with Moses represented God rather than the people. And before you get all hot and bothered about such thinking disrespecting God, read Genesis 15. God moving between the carcasses He is subjecting Himself to the promise, so the sacrifice represents Him, not Abraham. If He’s okay with it, don’t be afraid to walk the same path, but only do so to explore the depths of the love of our Creator for His creatures, you and everyone else.

Okay, my view through the knothole was really more questions than answers, but there you are. What’s your view through your knothole?

Scripture quotations taken from the NASB. Copyright by The Lockman Foundation

Advertisement

Spiritual Truths

But what about “spiritual truths”? In the previous entry, “Revisiting the Knothole“, I explained why I believe my Master reveals more of Himself through others than He does through me personally. But that’s not the whole story, it can’t be. There’s a question I left hanging in the air that I intentionally avoided. If our Teacher is the Holy Spirit, then why do disciples of Jesus disagree so often about theological points?

I mentioned three systematic theological categories, ecclesiology, anthropology, and soteriology. I also mentioned that I differ from a lot of people in those categories. So, how is that possible? If the same Spirit teaching me is the same spirit teaching those who differ in how they define those categories, then who’s right? Think through that quote from Jeremiah again:

“FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL
AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD:
I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS,
AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS.
AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD,
AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE." 
Hebrews 8:10 (NASB, emphasis mine)

We make a lot of the fact that our Creator will “write” on our hearts, and “put” into our minds, but we don’t really think through what He writes and puts. His “law” is what He puts in our minds and writes on our hearts. As disciples of Jesus, we aren’t subject to the law, though. Well, we’re not subject to the old law as a means of righteousness, that’s true. But it seems that our Creator still has a set of standards for us as His disciples.

Notice what isn’t being written on our hearts: systematic theological categories. He doesn’t write on our hearts things like whether we can walk away from Jesus or not. He doesn’t write whether people have an extra-dimensional existence or not. He doesn’t write whether we can experience Him outside of a congregation of disciples or not. He’s not writing those things on our hearts. Instead, He inspired the vague answers we have in Scripture.

You see where I’m going with this? We know that we should be loving toward each other, because He has written that on our hearts. We know that we should serve one another, because He has written that on our hearts. And we know that He saves us from our failures in those areas because our Creator is merciful and forgiving. He is our Savior as well as Creator. That much we know from the presence of His Spirit. We are saved by grace through faith. And even that faith is a gift of the Spirit of our Savior.

Theological vagaries, these are not as important to our Creator. They can’t be. They’re simply areas where we live, walking about in His presence. And we do so together, each of us seeing a different aspect and truth of the same Creator and Savior, yet all consistent with the Spirit indwelling His disciples, and the Scripture He has inspired. Yet, this throng lives and moves, sharing partial views of this incomprehensible Person. And without the sharing, we limit our views of Him, for He is simply too vast for even Scripture (John 21:25).

Okay, that’s my view through the fence today. What do you see?

Scripture quotations taken from the NASB. Copyright by The Lockman Foundation

Revisiting the Knothole

The basic concept of this blog, and my personal theology, is that our Creator, the One having inspired Scripture, doesn’t limit His work to one person nor one perspective. I know that in my personal growth, others have played a major part because my Master has used them to reveal Himself in Scripture in some new, meaningful way. So, it’s a personal theology where I recognize that I am dependent upon others for a more complete view of what our Creator and Savior reveals of Himself through Scripture.

I have to also recognize that this may not be important for everyone. And that’s not easy for me to accept. I confess a tendency, sometimes a tenacity, to be independent. And my Master, recognizing that weakness in me, designed me with a requirement for others in order to know Him better. That means I learn in the context of others better than I learn by myself. Whatever I can come up with on my own is paltry compared to what comes out of a group of which I am a part.

This has affected my views of “church” (ecclesiology), “person-hood” (anthropology), and salvation (soteriology). And in these views, I probably differ from a lot of people because of my personal experience, mostly my failures. I am an introvert dependent upon others for my life with my Creator. It’s a paradox where I discover the best and worst of myself and others, and the absolute deepest, most vibrant beauty of our Savior.

Consider this, though: The writer of Hebrews wrote in a context of other disciples, and presented shockingly unique perspectives tailored to his audience. If it truly was a “letter”, then one congregation writes to another these shocking perspectives. If it’s a single sermon (very likely, considering the structure), then it was first spoken in the context of a collection of disciples. Either way, these bright, vibrant views of Jesus came out of the context of a group of disciples.

One of these truths, founded upon the previous precedents of the writer’s argument, has to do with a new covenant:

For finding fault with them, He says,

“BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD,
WHEN I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT
WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH;
NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS
ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND
TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT;
FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT,
AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD.
FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL
AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD:
I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS,
AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS.
AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD,
AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN,
AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, ‘KNOW THE LORD,’
FOR ALL WILL KNOW ME,
FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM.
FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES,
AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE.”

Hebrews 8:8-12 NASB

Jeremiah, over 400 years before Jesus’ birth, spoke of a new covenant. Within the context of a “covenant people”, Jeremiah speaks of a new covenant. It had to be shocking for his audience then, contrary to their assumptions (as so many of his prophecies). But think through the elements of this new covenant:

1. “The days are coming…” It happens in the future. The consequences of the current covenant will still come upon the people.
2. It will be with Israel and Judah. The two nations will be reunified under one covenant, like they had been under the first.
3. It will be different, not like the one before, with Moses.
4. Under the new covenant:
   1. The law of God will be written in their minds and on their hearts
   2. He will be their God, they will be His people
   3. No teaching, they will all know Yahweh (spoiler alert! I’m returning to this)
   4. The knowledge of Yahweh will be based on His forgiveness and mercy

Now, for Christians (disciples of Jesus), we know this to be fulfilled in Jesus. But for Jeremiah, and for those who followed him, they could not imagine a covenant that did not include the Temple, sacrifices, and so on. They only saw that teachers would lose their jobs, not that the law itself would change, or go away. Yet, our writer of Hebrews has already pointed that out as he raised Jesus as our eternal High Priest in the order of Melchizedek.

Yet, notice the other element of this new covenant: We will all know Yahweh. The Spirit of God within us reveals to us the truths of God through Scripture. And we, in a sense, no longer need teachers. Not to say that the Spirit doesn’t gift some as teachers, He clearly does. But, the Spirit Himself is our teacher.

Here’s the thing though: That means we are to be students! The reality of our situation is that we (including me) too often want to be teachers, and spout our points of view as the point of view. But how can it be possible to have differing views if our Teacher is the same God? I believe the answer to that can be found in this question: How many times did Jesus use the exact same method to heal anyone? Every recorded healing is different from every other healing. In fact, where the same event is described in different Gospels, there are often slight differences even there.

If our Savior used different methods to do essentially the same thing, why would we expect that he would suddenly stop, and now use the same method with everyone? The same reason He used different methods to heal is the same reason He teaches people different things about Himself. We don’t all have the same needs, the same experiences, the same problems, or the same level of understanding.

If we were to learn the same things, why doesn’t He reverse Babel once we’re saved so we all understand the same language? That way there won’t be any differences in linguistic nuances. Let’s be honest, our Creator has never worked the same way with anyone. He worked with Moses different than Noah. He worked with Abraham different than David. Why? Because He created them different, and worked with them as He created them.

Therefore, how can we assume that what our Savior reveals to us must be the same as what He reveals to those around us? The main points are the same. In each instance Jesus healed. The end result was the same. It was the method that was different. So, too, with understanding Scripture, the end result is the same: our relationship with our Creator through our Savior. But the nuance in what He reveals about Himself through Scripture to each of us is nuanced to who He created us to be. And what you share with me reveals more to me about Him. THAT deepens my relationship with my Creator. And I believe THAT is His goal.

So, after all that, what’s your view through the knothole this morning?

Scripture quotations taken from the NASB. Copyright by The Lockman Foundation

Looking Under the Hood

If Hebrews can be boiled down to the “superiority of Jesus”, then we could be done by chapter 8. As it is, there are five more chapters after that, including the famous “Role Call of Faith” in chapter 11. So, while that is what much of Hebrews is about, there’s more to come, like, “What do we do with the knowledge of Jesus’ superiority?”

Yet, in chapter 8 we find a remarkable statement, “Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man.” (Hebrews 8:1-2 NASB) The main point, so far? Or the main point of the whole book?

There is some debate over whether the “main point” means the “central topic” or a “summary statement”. Regardless, as we progress through this first bit of chapter 8, we run into verse 6: “But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.” (Hebrews 8:6 NASB)

This is another of those statements we can zip right by without spending any time thinking through. But, seriously, think that through: Jesus has obtained a “more excellent ministry”; a ministry as more excellent as the covenant He mediates is “more excellent” than the previous covenant, a covenant based on more excellent promises.

So, we have a more excellent ministry, more excellent covenant, and more excellent promises. Ministry is a term referring to temple practice, or cultic practice. That is not to say that Jesus’ “ministry” looks like the priests practice in the Jerusalem temple. It’s different, and more excellent, superior to theirs, and it doesn’t require continual sacrifice of the blood of animals.

The covenant Jesus mediates is more excellent than the covenant mediated by the blood sacrifice of animals. And that is not to say that now Jesus offers Himself up continually as He makes intercession for us. He offered Himself once, for all, and for all time. His intercession is from where He is seated at the right hand of the Majesty. He can’t get any closer to the Father than He is.

The promises on which His covenant are based go back to the initial agreement God made with His human creatures. Jesus’ covenant restores the relationship lost in the Garden. The law never promises that. It alludes to it in the decorations of the temple, but it never promises it. At no time can everyone come into the presence of God through the law. Yet through Jesus, we all approach the throne of Jesus, and do so with confidence.

We have a better Intercessor, who mediates a covenant based His once-for-all self-sacrifice, which carries the promise of the restoration of the relationship we lost with our Creator in the Garden of Eden. So, the question is, “Do you want to walk with your Creator in His garden in the cool of the day?” Well, do you? I mean, who doesn’t?

Where are we headed? What is the point of all this mess here on earth? Why choose to believe this faith? Because this faith restores the purpose of the Creator of the universe when He made human beings. We become restored to the relationship we had with Him before a tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Jesus’ superiority has, as its core importance, the promise of eternal life with our Creator. That is the rest which the people failed to achieve, but we can. The rest of our Creator, on the seventh day, a Sabbath of our Creator, is the “promise” offered. This is the promise mediated, or “offered” by our Intercessor, Jesus, the Son of God, Yahweh, El-Elyon, our Savior. Do you see the central importance in this simple verse? Did you see it before?

Jesus mediates a better covenant through His intercession for you, so that you might obtain the promise of the eternal presence of your Creator. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the “Good News”, in a nutshell. The central theme of all Scripture is found in this tiny verse. It is the gospel in single sentence. You simply have to “look under the hood”. How often does that happen? Actually, a lot. You simply have to “look under the hood” more often.

So, what’s your view through your knothole this afternoon?

Scripture quotations taken from the NASB. Copyright by The Lockman Foundation

Perspective

The “letter” to the Hebrews is different from any other “letter” among the Christian Scriptures for many reasons. One of those reasons is its organization as a single topic. It is truly focused on one thing, the supremacy of Jesus, specifically of His intercession on behalf of His disciples. The book begins with this focus and continues to the end with that same focus.

Each segment of this book builds upon the previous segment, each premise dependent upon the previous premise. In order to claim that Jesus’ ministry on our behalf is superior, the writer must appropriate Jeremiah 31:32-34. But, before he can apply that passage and the “new covenant” as he needs to, he must first establish Jesus as a priest outside of the Levitical Priesthood. To do that, he uses Psalm 110, a “royal” or “enthronement” psalm.

But even before the writer can apply Psalm 110 to Jesus, he must first argue Jesus’ supremacy over angels, over Moses, and then, over the law itself. Only then can he apply Psalm 110, with its unexpected reference to the priestly order of Melchizedek, to Jesus. The reason this is so important, that it forms the hinge pin on which his claims of Jesus pivot, can be found within the Psalm itself.

Psalm 110 is supposed to be written by David, and we have no reason to think otherwise. So, imagine David, sitting in his palace, the tent with the Ark in view from a window or terrace, writing this poem about one of his eventual children on his throne:

The LORD says to my Lord:
“Sit at My right hand
Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”
The LORD will stretch forth Your strong scepter from Zion, saying,
“Rule in the midst of Your enemies.”
Your people will volunteer freely in the day of Your power;
In holy array, from the womb of the dawn,
Your youth are to You as the dew.

Psalms 110:1-3 NASB

It is not difficult to see the “royal” or “enthronement” quality in the first half of the psalm. You have Yahweh (The LORD) establishing a “Lord” beside Him, fighting for this Lord, establishing the rule of this Lord even in the midst of opposition, and sanctifying the people this Lord rules. This coincides well with the Gospels and writings of Paul, John, and Peter.

Jesus uses this Psalm to show that the Messiah can’t be David’s son, because David calls him “my Lord”. Which is an interesting element of this Psalm. Why would David write it that way? Because, under the inspiration of the Spirit, David writes of what Yahweh will do in the future: not just give David a son on the throne, but an epic Messiah, someone greater than himself. While that may surprise David, possibly humble him, what he writes next had to floor him:

The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind,
“You are a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek.”

Psalms 110:4

Yahweh utters an unalterable oath that He will establish this “Lord” as a priest, not just a king. Even as he writes those words, David knows that only Levites can be priests, right? He does have his sons function as priests, he himself has taken the ephod at times, and Samuel, who anointed David, functioned as a priest, though from the Tribe of Manasseh. Still, there is no order of priests other than those of Aaron’s line, or is there?

David writes this poem in Jerusalem, which was once named Salem, before Jebusites took it over and renamed it. When it was Salem, it was ruled by a king who functioned also as a priest, Melchizedek. More likely than not, David knew the story, and was aware that he was in the very city where this priest-king ruled and ministered. And now, it was the place where the Ark now sat, the Ark of the same God this priest-king represented. The worship of Yahweh had returned, and a king who worshiped Yahweh now reigned. If you think about it, all the elements are there when David wrote this poem.

But it still had to be a weird thing for David to write. It had to be a strange impression for God to make on this man, so different than what others thought, what the priests taught, or the prophets spoke. Melchizedek remains a legendary figure for almost 1,000 years after David. Even the Qumran group think of Melchizedek as a super-human figure. And so he remains until, the writer of Hebrews finally explains the revelation given to David so many years ago.

The writer of Hebrews fastens on to this amazing revelation of God given to David. And for him it becomes the piece that God reveals as the connection to the “New Covenant” of Jeremiah 31. Prior to this, people just figured that the “new covenant” written on their hearts would be the “same song, different refrain”, basically the old covenant, but now doable. But for the writer of Hebrews, the new covenant changes everything. Now, there is no sacrificial system, no line of priests, no more blood of animals, no continual sacrifice requirement for sin any more. Jesus replaces all of it, even though He is of the line of Judah. It’s shocking.

So, is the penalty of sin removed? How can human creatures draw near to their Creator without an intermediary? How can we be justified before our Creator without the shedding of blood? What the writer of Hebrews does with the temple cultic practice is relocate the activity into heaven, make Jesus the permanent High Priest, and supersede all blood sacrifices with the one-time self-sacrifice of Jesus. This, in turn, releases people from the cultic practice of sacrificing animals, over and over. It was no longer necessary.

But there’s the end of the Psalm we haven’t looked at yet:

The Lord is at Your right hand;
He will shatter kings in the day of His wrath.
He will judge among the nations,
He will fill them with corpses,
He will shatter the chief men over a broad country.
He will drink from the brook by the wayside;
Therefore He will lift up His head.

Psalms 110:5-7 NASB

War is coming. This “Lord” David foresees, once established beside Yahweh, having gathered His holy people, once installed as both King and Priest of God Most High, will eventually go to war. Remember that Jesus didn’t come to bring peace, but war (Matthew 10:34, Luke 12:51), whether with the sword or division, He knew that there would be no peace on this planet until the end. And so it goes. So, what do we do now?

The rest of Hebrews, chapters 11 through 13, speaks of how we respond to the reality of our Heavenly Intercessor. Faith, perseverance, and love become the marks of our life. We participate in the war fought, and won, by Jesus when we live out faith, perseverance, and love. Our war remains a fight against the spiritual forces of darkness in the heavenly realms. Our tactics remain persistent prayer and loving service.

That’s my view through, well, through a large knothole this afternoon. Good grief. What’s your view like?

So, Let’s Review…

I’ve been very inconsistent, lately, in my blogging. I don’t know how many have noticed because my readership has been falling off of late. I was looking at my stats, and it was both confusing and depressing. I suppose, as a blogger, I’m not much of a success. And, while it’s nice when people read, like, and comment on my entries, I don’t blog for recognition. I can’t. It would make me nuts, and I’d eventually quit.

I blog because I think through things externally. It’s how my Master “wired” me. It helps me think through what He has inspired in Scripture, and that is truly my point in blogging. Essentially, those who visit get a peek at my thought process, such as it is. And they may or may not find my conclusions valuable. At least, in those entries where I actually come to a conclusion, they may find value.

As I have been going through the letter to the Hebrews, I have had a very difficult time finding conclusions. It always seems like I’m in the middle of some point or another, never at a conclusion. More than any other letter or book, Hebrews seems more cohesive and linear, something to be taken all at once, not piece-by-piece. It’s a singular argument made up of supporting elements which all lead back to the singular argument. It’s the most unified writing in Scripture that I’ve ever worked with. And that has also made it difficult.

The difficulty has been that this book does not lend itself to my usual pattern of study. What I normally do is find a point within a passage of Scripture (pericope). Hebrews doesn’t lend itself to this sort of study, I haven’t been able to do independent studies using various passages. And, therefore, it has been difficult to blog on various specific topics within chapters.

I have touched on some topics, like becoming “unsaved”, which have garnered some attention, albeit, not terribly positive. I’m not whining, because it was actually very helpful to be pushed to think through the topic more thoroughly. And, after all, that is really the point of my blogging anyway. So, it may not have been positive, but it was certainly helpful.

Okay, but still, what’s the point? The title of this entry claims that this entry is a review, and I’ve claimed in this entry that Hebrews is a singular linear argument. Therefore there should be a singular point, right? I have a previous entry, called “The Main Thing“, in which I claim that the main point of Hebrews, according to the author, is that Jesus’ High Priestly ministry in the heavenly temple is superior to the ministry of the Aaronic High Priesthood in the earthly tabernacle/temple.

Two things make that highly probable as the focus of the entire letter. First, and most obvious, the author says so. The second is that this statement of the author occurs in the middle of the letter. Putting the main point in the very middle is “hebraic” method of structuring an argument, especially in poetry. Then the supporting points move out from it concentrically. So, the points build toward in from the beginning. And, then work out from it in corresponding elements toward the end. It’s called a “chiastic” structure after the Greek letter X (chai).

Since I’ve only made it halfway through, I don’t know that Nicodemus builds the back-end of the structure. So, I don’t truly know if we actually have a chiastic structure or not. It’s also possible that he has structured his argument after the fashion of Philo of Alexandria. This connection is so strong that most commentators accept that the writer of Hebrews is from Alexandria, Egypt. Philo used more the structures of Greek philosophy, especially Plato (rhetoric), which is typically building to an ending main point. So, this reference in the middle is a bit out of place.

The way the reference could make sense is if Nicodemus builds his point to here, and then unpacks the meaning from here on. Again, I don’t know if that’s what happens or not, but I don’t think so. Here’s the “map” to chapter 8 (chapters 1 through 7):

1. Jesus is superior:
   1. To Angels (chapters 1 & 2)
   2. To Moses (chapters 3 & 4)
   1. To the Aaronic Priesthood (chapters 5 through 7)

All along, Nicodemus has pointed out the effects of each of these contrasts with Jesus. And the effect of His superiority to Aaron’s Priesthood begins in chapter 8 and continues on through 10 (I think – I have only worked on chapter 8 so far). So, that’s the review up to chapter 8.

The point of Jesus’ superiority has built up to the discussion of Jesus’ ministry as High Priest. There is something that Nicodemus sees as the main need of his audience, something that necessitated this letter to them. He is solving a problem with this letter, and by examination of his solution, we can, hopefully, divine the problem he is trying to solve. That’s the message. That’s what we can transmit forward to our day, the solution-problem connection.

We probably face the same problem, and, therefore, need this solution. It’s too easy to play down what we read because we are probably not Jewish believers. We can dismiss the arguments because we don’t see the connection between ourselves and the audience. But we need to. The reality we skip is that this letter was inspired not just written “for fun”, or for some other lowly purpose. There is a reason our Savior has in it, not just the writer. There is a message for us today. I’m just not yet clear on what it is because I’m not yet completely through the linear argument. But it will build, and I will post more as it becomes clearer to me. But this is where I am so far.

The Main Thing

Anything written or said should have a main, central, point. It would be nice if it had some sort of connection with the listeners/readers, but it must have a point. Stories should have a point, and the plot should support the point. Speeches should have a main point, and each element should support the main point (this includes sermons, unfortunately more in theory than in practice).

In the convoluted complex set of arguments that Nicodemus (my new name for the writer of Hebrews) has so far, all have a “main point”. If you don’t believe me, read this:

Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man.

Hebrews 8:1-2 NASB

And it literally has, “main point” in the text. The Greek word, “kephalaion“, is very common outside of religious writings, and only used twice in the New Testament. For the Greek philosophers, it means, “main point”, or “head of the topic”. And they probably extended the meaning from a more common meaning of “principal” (as opposed to “interest”) as in loaned amounts.

This should tell us something really important, and something merely interesting. First, Nicodemus is truly focused on the ministry of Jesus as our High Priest. To this point, he has demonstrated the superiority of Jesus over all the other pretenders to devotion, angels, Moses, even the law. Yet, the point of Jesus’ superiority is to demonstrate how His ministry is, therefore, superior to all other religious practice. The other pretenders all had to do with religious practice to some degree. Jesus and His ministry is superior to all.

So what? It all sounds very Jewish, and it is, which is why the letter is called “Hebrews”. But there is a massive meaning for us, church-going, Bible-believing, disciples of Jesus today.

How many fights, divisions, arguments, bitterness, and strife within church has come over “practice”? Which songs, what sort of songs, drums or no drums, decorations, lighting, traditional-versus-contemporary, all these things have divided our churches and congregations, sometimes virulently. And there are some who have taken their hurt, anger, and bitterness to their graves, and therefore to face their Savior. You think He is honored by that sort of gift? Really?

We have a movement within contemporary Christianity to get away from “religion” in favor of a “relationship”. All that means is that one group (the contemporary group) calls the other group (the traditional group) invalid and unspiritual. According to the inspired Scripture in the letter to the Hebrews, they’re both wrong.

The Nicodemus is writing to Jewish believers in the “Diaspora”, the dispersed community of Jews throughout the Roman Empire, mostly collected around the Mediterranean Sea. They all used the Greek text of their Scriptures. They were “strangers in a strange land”, keeping themselves separate as Jews, and surviving, sometimes thriving, in those lands.

For those of them that devoted themselves to Jesus as their Messiah, things changed in relation to their Jewish brothers and sisters. They were shunned, ejected from Synagogues, and sometimes persecuted in other ways. They were told that the followers of this “Way” were enemies of the Jews, adding them to a long list of “goyim”. How could these disciples of Jesus also be Jews? Wasn’t it practice that differentiated them from the communities around them?

Nicodemus points out that no human religious practice, even the practice given to Moses by God, supersedes the heavenly practice of Jesus. Therefore only His practice truly matters. It isn’t the keeping of the law, the sacrificial system, the priesthood, the music, the decorations, or the lighting that defines who is and is not relating to our Savior.

Is it traditional or contemporary? It’s both. Now, STOP FIGHTING ALREADY! Why can’t we see what Nicodemus clearly points out, that we are heading to REST, not chaos. When we, as the ambassadors of divine Peace, Joy, and Love, fight and divide over stupid stuff, we fail and Satan wins. Sometimes, it’s not a matter of being right, it’s a matter of agreeing in the Lord (Philippians 4:1-3).

For these besieged Jewish disciples, it wasn’t about being right. It wasn’t about being accepted by their brethren. It wasn’t even about being connected to their Jewish community. Those things may have been important, but they weren’t the main point. For them, and for us, the main point remains what our Savior, Jesus, our High Priest, does, right now, today, on our behalf. That remains the Main Point.

So, after all that, what’s your view through the knothole this morning?

Scripture quotations taken from the NASB. Copyright by The Lockman Foundation

What’s In a Name?

As I have been cruising through Hebrews, the writer (I call him Nicodemus now), refers to an obscure character from the Hebrew Scriptures, Melchizedek. He refers to both his appearance in Genesis 14:18, and a strange reference to him in Psalm 110:4. What if the reference in Psalm 110 isn’t a name at all?

The Hebrew text has the following construction: מַלְכִּי־צֶדֶק (see Strong’s H4442) for what is typically referred to as the name of the king of Salem in Genesis 14:18. To break this down a bit, it is a compound construction of two words, “meleki” and “tsedek”. The first word has a suffix (the “i”) which adds a first-person possessive meaning, “my”, to “melek” which renders, “my king”. The second word is the Hebrew word for “righteousness”. And between these two words is a bar, called a “maqaf” which is both a separator and a connector. That sounds odd, but it’s not that peculiar in Hebrew, and it’s the meaning of this punctuation mark that’s in question here.

So, if this is a name, then it could mean, “my king is righteous”, “my king of righteousness”, or even other options. Now, unfortunately, the Hebrew unicode in this entry is tiny, but you may see the various combination of dots under the Hebrew letters. Those are the “vowels”, which do not appear in ancient or modern Hebrew. The ancient group of Jewish scholars from Europe, known as the Masoretes, added those to enable a consistent use of Scripture in Jewish Synagogues. They also added a lot of notations to enable consistent pronunciation as well, including the maqaf.

And there’s the thing, the maqaf wouldn’t be in the ancient/original text. So, it’s possible that this was originally two words, and the guy who comes out to Abram was known as a “righteous king”, and Abram calls him “my righteous king”. You can see how this might be possible, but also it’s obviously very improbable. Yet, the more modern Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh has the following translation of Psalm 110:4

The LORD has sworn and will not relent,
"You are a priest forever, a rightful king by My decree."

Now that is very different than most every translation, including the 1917 edition of the same JPS Tanakh which has the following:

The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent:
"Thou art a priest forever after the manner of Melchizedek."

So, a change was made in the 1985 edition to remove the reference to Melchizedek. Now, why would that option be chosen? By the way, there is a footnote in the 1985 edition that says, “Or ‘After the manner of Melchizedek.'” So, the translator’s acknowledge that the reference to Melchizedek is still valid. But it’s the maqaf, right? Well, maybe not.

The place where David was born is Bethlehem, right? Well, that, too, is a compound word made up of “house” and “bread”. Guess what is always found between the two words in Hebrew? You guessed it, the maqaf. And yet, this is translated as “Bethlehem” throughout the 1985 Tanakh.

When the Jewish scholars of Alexandria Egypt translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek about 150 years Before the Christian Era (for those for whom this a more comfortable reference) or 150 BC (for those more comfortable with the traditional reference), they transliterated Melchizedek into Greek. So, before the Masoretes added punctuation, these brilliant Jewish scholars also understood both references to be a name, not some other reference. In the time of Nicodemus writing Hebrews (you never know, it could have been), the accepted understanding of Psalm 110 was that it referred to the man who brought bread and wine out to Abram after his successful rescue of Lot. And so should we.

And yet, there are those who would see this differently, focus on the slim possibility that David didn’t have this obscure character in mind when he penned this Psalm. Let’s accept that possibility, and still point out that even so, it does not take away from Jesus’ role as our High Priest. So, His order of priesthood would be as a righteous king. I’m good with that. Jesus remains our King, Priest, and Prophet. He is the Anointed One in all roles, and will one day appear on a white horse with a robe dipped in blood. The High Priest will lead the hosts of heaven as King of Kings. I hope to be among the host. You?

I’m excited! Let’s ride!

What’s your view through the knothole this morning?

Intercession

Last week I wrote an entry about Jesus as hour High Priest. In it, I claimed that the qualification of Jesus to be our High Priest is that he made intercession for us. That is an interesting qualification, if you think about it. I’ve been reading through Numbers recently, in a “chronological Bible”, and I find it fascinating how much animal sacrifice was supposed to go on regularly for the people. Daily, monthly, festivals, annually, all the time. Since they ate many of those sacrifices, the Temple would have been one of the best restaurants in Jerusalem.

But what were those sacrifices for? What did they accomplish in the covenant relationship between Israel and Yahweh? That’s not as easy or simple a question as it sounds, because it depends on what you read in the law. Basically though, in one way or the other, these sacrifices are made on behalf of the people. So, in a very practical sense, they are a form of intercession. Therefore, the role of priests, as administers of the sacrifices of the people of Israel to Yahweh, was intercession on behalf of the people.

The former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing, but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently. Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

Hebrews 7:23-25 NASB

The Greek word for “intercession” in the above passage is “entygchano” (Strong’s G1793), which not terribly common in the Christian Scriptures. When it’s used with the Greek preposition “over” (Strong’s G5228), then “entygchano” means to “intercede on behalf of another”, and specifically to intercede to our Creator on behalf of His human creatures.

As common a theme of prayer as that is, you’d think that this word would be more common in the Christian Scriptures, but it’s only used this way three times (2X in Rom 8, and once here in Heb 7). There is actually a compound word made up of both the Greek word for intercession, and the preposition “under” used in Romans 8:26, but that word only occurs there in all of the Christian Scriptures. So, four times total, even so, still more rare than the common practice would suggest. Why is that?

Because the more common way to refer to intercession is “to pray for” someone. Suddenly the common quality becomes obvious, that phrase is used all over, by nearly every Christian author. But now the question becomes, why is “entygchano”, a technical term, different than “praying for someone”? And that question helps us understand the role of Jesus as High Priest.

Jesus is not sacrificing, daily, for the sins of His disciples. He sacrificed Himself, once, and that was all that was needed:

For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.

Hebrews 7:26,27 NASB

Therefore, intercession done by our Savior is not the daily regular sacrifice, even though He “always lives to make intercession for them.” Something else is meant when Jesus intercedes for us as our High Priest. What is it? What does Jesus do in the role as High Priest which intercedes for us?

To answer that, I refer you back to my prior entry, “Why A High Priest” (see the first sentence of this entry). Basically, Jesus offered up “prayers and supplications” on our behalf. It wasn’t presiding over the death and burning of animals, but more the role Moses played in going before God on behalf of the people (see this repeatedly in Exodus and Numbers). Jesus is more a “priest” in the sense of Moses than that of Aaron. Although, Moses’ role is more often thought of as prophet, and Jesus is our Messiah of that type as well.

I believe it’s the right time to state the obvious conclusion. Jesus is our King, Prophet, and High Priest, because each of those designations is simply a different way of saying the same thing. We have needs which categorically fall into each of those roles. Jesus fulfills each and every one of those needs, as He completely fulfills each and every one of those roles. So, once again, through the venue of obfuscating elucidations, we have ended up with a simple answer. Perhaps I should have led with that…

Insult By Way of Explanation

If you are reading this, you probably are wondering at the title. Spoiler alert: I’m not going to insult you. Perhaps I should say that I’m not going to insult you intentionally. If you come this blog regularly, you may have found things I’ve said offensive at some point. If so, sorry about that, but only to the extent the offense was distracting from the message. To the extent the offense made the point more clearly, I have no regret.

More than likely, what frequent visitors find is confusing, or worse, boring. For those things, I truly am sorry. I regret being confusing and boring because it obscures the message I believe my Master gives me. Try as I might, I still wind up as either or both. But the writer of Hebrews uses insult to pull his readers into rapt attention:

Concerning him we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food.

Hebrews 5:11-12 NASB

“Yeah, I’d like to go deeper, but you’re stupid. Are you paying attention now?” That’s what this tactic seems to be for the writer. He goes on in the beginning of chapter 6 to describe some basics he’d like to get past so he can delve into more important things. Why? Why insult his readers/hearers prior to driving to a deeper point?

I get that it’s a literary tactic, but why, with all the available tactics, did he choose that one? Why be insulting? Because they were in grave danger, and I mean “grave” pretty literally, and spiritually. The writer wants his hearers/readers to wake up to this next point, and having insulted them, he is sure to have their attention.

It’s time to leave the connective elements that Jesus’ teachings have with Judaism, and move on to the more important elements. Why? Because if they don’t, they will eventually reach a “point-of-no-return” (see 6:4-8, and my previous entry “No ‘Third’ Repentance“).

As we, Twenty-First Century readers, read this First-Century writing, we need to come to the same abrupt halt. Our attention needs to be arrested. There are points of correspondence between our culture and Christianity. It’s time to get past them into deeper, more meaningful stuff. Because, if we don’t, there will be a point-of-no-return for us as well.

The insult indicates, or explains, the dire importance of “what comes next”. The next thing is pushing past basics elements that teachings of Jesus have with Judaism:

Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment.

Hebrews 6:1-2 NASB (emphasis mine)

Those disciples of Jesus believed in and taught new converts, but so did Jews. Jews taught their new converts the same basic elements, they simply had different meaning. A Jewish disciple of Jesus could hold to those basics and not run afoul of their traditional Jewish brothers. But those beliefs were not an end, they were supposed to be a foundation for more.

One of the more disastrous problems with way too many churches today is the failure to “make disciples” of those they convert to faith in Jesus. Few failures can more assuredly cause “shallow soil” and “thorny soil” than the failure to disciple. On the flip side are those churches making disciples of their theology rather than of Jesus. That’s almost worse; except that sometimes, within the bad theology, there are kernels that can lead diligent seekers of truth to the feet of Jesus.

Read Hebrews 5:11 through 6:8 again. Wake up, smell the coffee of the call of Jesus. He calls us to seek HIM, not words about Him. He calls us to seek His face, not opinions about Him. We are to be baptized, immersed in His Spirit, not this world’s view of Him, or even this world’s view of this world.

Jesus is the Person who stands as the point of the Scripture He inspired. What is necessary to know to know Him is found in there. Once what is necessary to know Him is found, we actually come to know Him through our obedience to Him. It’s not what we find in Scripture that defines our relationship with our Creator, it’s what we do with what we find in Scripture. It’s obedience to our Creator that defines our relationship with Him.

It’s not “work” that saves us, but work demonstrates we’re saved. It’s not a confession of word as much as a life lived in deeds that declares our allegiance. Do we live as if this world is passing, and we’re looking for that city “who architect and builder is God”? (Hebrews 11:10) Or are we distracted, seeking rather to conform to this world instead of the one to come? The writer of Hebrews leads his readers to an enduring faith, enduring to the Eternal City of God. And yes, he insults people along the way. Because it’s important.

Let’s be insulted, offended, challenged, and driven to reach that city. Let nothing stop us.

Scripture quotations taken from the NASB. Copyright by The Lockman Foundation