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

Advertisement

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

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…

Why a High Priest?

Jesus is our Prophet, King, and Priest. He is our “High Priest”, but according to the order of Melchizedek. And you may think you know how He is our High Priest, since He became our “sin offering”, as Paul points out (Romans 8:3 and Ephesians 5:2). And notice He offers Himself, according to Paul. Yet, Paul never refers to Jesus as our High Priest. So, what is it about Jesus that makes Him our High Priest?

The writer of Hebrews is, as far as we can tell, the first Christian writer to refer to Jesus as our High Priest. There are several problems with viewing Jesus in this way, even though Paul may allude to it in his “sin offering” references. The biggest issue is that Jesus is not from the tribe of Levi, nor from the Aaronic or Zadok line. And that is more significant than you may think.

Jesus’ lineage is probably the biggest reason for the writer of Hebrews to refer to Jesus as a High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek. But that doesn’t explain how or what Jesus does that indicates how He functions as our High Priest. The writer alludes to Jesus’ death on the cross, but even that isn’t what is used to define His role.

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, and He was heard because of His piety. Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered. And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation, being designated by God as a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

Hebrews 5:7-10 NASB

So, when did this happen? If you are familiar with the Gospel accounts, it may seem like a reference to the Garden of Gethsemane. But there, Jesus prayed for the “cup” of suffering to be removed, and it wasn’t. The reference above sounds like Jesus received what He asked for. Perhaps it’s more likely a reference to the “High Priestly Prayer of John 17. But, honestly, we don’t know. There could have been lots of places where Jesus prayed this way, any given morning, and a good case can be made for the Garden of Gethsemane prayer as well. Not knowing when Jesus did this doesn’t change the fact of it as His qualification.

Jesus prayed and He learned obedience (which sounds weird for someone already perfect) from suffering. Because of these two things, Jesus is “designated” High Priest, becoming the source of eternal salvation. Again, salvation is predicated on “obedience”, so it sounds like “works” salvation, but isn’t. The obedience is “perseverance in faith”, not performing elements of the law for “worship”, “festivals”, and so on.

So, it seems that the role of High Priest isn’t predicated on the self-sacrifice of Jesus, but rather the activity of Jesus in prayer (interceding) for others, and suffering. Perhaps the “suffering” is a reference to His death on a cross, but it may not be. Notice that the “One able to save Him from death” heard Him, and yet He still died. While not definitive against seeing “suffering” as a reference to His death, it does seem a strange way to put it if it were.

Jesus removes the penalty of our sin through His work on the cross. He empowers our life through His resurrection. But it’s His passionate prayers and obedient suffering that fulfill this role of High Priest. If Philippians 2:5-11 is a pattern set by Jesus, then how is this? If Jesus is our High Priest, aren’t we called to be “priests” (see 1 Peter 2)? So, we too are to be passionate in prayer for others, and obedient through suffering. We are to follow this pattern set by Jesus, and, in this way, continue in faithful perseverance.

This is another place that I see I am to be active in my faith, but I am not. I see the call to passionate prayer for others, but it seems I can’t be bothered. I see the call to obedience through suffering, but I’d rather not, I’d rather remain comfortable. What about you? Are you passionately praying for others? Are you pursuing obedience, even though you suffer for it? I need to turn this are of my life around, over to my Master, and commence changing my attitude.

What do you see through your “knothole”?

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

Confidence

Many people may not know that the term “con”, as in “swindle” or “deceive” is actually a shortened form of the word, “confidence”. A “con-game” is a “confidence-game”, at least that’s how it’s played. Someone uses their projected sense of confidence to deceive another, or others. But, when we hear the word “confidence”, we don’t immediately go to that negative inference. And that’s good, because confidence is good.

In fact, an argument could be made that the reason such deceptions work is only because of the attractiveness of confidence. People can be thought of as having an innate desire for confidence. The alternative is fear. The greatest solid basis for confidence is Jesus.

Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

Hebrews 4:14-16 ESV

Jesus instills confidence in His disciples, or at least in His sincere disciples. And it is this confidence that the writer of Hebrews is trying to use as an inducement to faithfulness. Entering the rest of chapters 3 and 4 is only possible through faith (Heb. 4:3), and part of what is enjoyed in this “rest” is confidence before our Savior (Heb. 4:16).

Views either for or against eternal security miss the point here. The point for the author, the goal he’s trying to accomplish, is the perseverance of his audience. Arguments about the state of a person’s salvation while they walk this earth is outside the view of the author. He wants these Hebrews to make it across the finish line, and into the eternal rest of our Savior.

Jesus is the One, the High Priest and Apostle, making the rest of God accessible. We experience that rest when we respond to the access through faith. Part of how we experience this rest here-and-now is through our ability to approach Jesus’ throne with confidence. There is a future aspect, but there is a present aspect as well, access to Jesus.

So, what is our confidence based on? It has to be based on something for us to be convinced of its validity. Our confidence is based on Jesus’ example. That may sound peculiar, but Jesus laid out a path for us to follow (see my last entry The Walk). Our confidence is experienced as we obediently follow the obedience of Jesus:

Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.

Hebrews 5:8-10 ESV

The writer here isn’t concerned about theological arguments about the immutability of God any more than he is exploring eternal security. His point is that Jesus laid out a path for us to follow, and we too are to be obedient, we are to be made perfect, we too are to follow the role to which our Creator has designated for us. In so doing, we live out our faithfulness, experience the rest of God, and confidently approach the throne of Jesus.

That’s the lesson I see in these chapters. Hebrews hasn’t been about what I thought it was about. It has held challenges I didn’t expect, and made assertions I didn’t expect to find. I’m sure I’ll find a lot more as I go along. As you read chapters 4 and 5, what do you see through this “knothole” of Scripture?

Passion Week XXV

When it was day, the Council of elders of the people assembled, both chief priests and scribes, and they led Him away to their council chamber, saying, “If You are the Christ, tell us.” But He said to them, “If I tell you, you will not believe; and if I ask a question, you will not answer.  But from now on THE SON OF MAN WILL BE SEATED AT THE RIGHT HAND of the power OF GOD.”  And they all said, “Are You the Son of God, then?” And He said to them, “Yes, I am.”  Then they said, “What further need do we have of testimony? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth.” (Luke 22:66-71 NASB)

In Luke, we have an abbreviated version of the trial.  He skips the false witnesses.  There are no comments about Jesus building the temple in three days.  Missing are the frustrations of the religious leaders as they struggle to gain some way to accuse Him.  But in Matthew, Mark, and Luke we have the same allusion to Psalm 110.  And we have Jesus’ answer of “You have said it yourself” when asked if He were the Messiah and Son of God.  The order is reversed in the other two, but the content is essentially the same.

John doesn’t record much of a trial by the Jewish leaders.  What we have in Matthew and Mark is the greatest amount of detail.  Considering that there were no disciples present at this proceeding, it’s not hard to understand the lack of detail.  But in Luke we do have two peculiar details that are missing in the other three.  First is the odd answer Jesus gives to the question about whether or not He is the Messiah.  Jesus’ answer has three parts.  Only the third occurs in other Gospels.

Jesus says, “If I tell you, you might not believe.  But if I ask, you might not answer.”  Scholars are confused by the second part.  So am I, and I suspect so are you.  If Jesus asks what they might not answer?  Most translations use a confident future tense in English, “…you will not believe…”, “…you will not answer…”.  In Greek it’s actually subjunctive, which leaves open the potential without such certainty.  It’s the negation that lends itself to the choice of English translation.  With the combination of the verb tense and mode with the negation, the meaning is an ingressive sense, as in “do not begin to…”.  And that’s the other problem, if it’s taken that way, it’s a prohibition, not an indicative statement.  In other words, Jesus is telling them to not begin to believe, to not begin to answer.  It’s context that suggests otherwise, so what’s a translator to do?  They all pretty much do the same thing, done since 1611, translate it as a confident future.  Even so, it’s probably good to keep in mind that Jesus is saying that they won’t even begin to believe or answer.  He’s saying He’ll get nothing from them.

But what does that combination in Luke mean?  Why claim they won’t believe, why state they won’t answer?  While the answers to that are not really clear, I suspect that that Jesus is protesting that there is no dialogue here.  There is no option to discuss, but, rather, the discussion is all one-sided.  They want Jesus to only tell them what they want to hear so they will have an excuse to have Him killed.  They don’t want to hear anything else.  They don’t want to discuss, their minds and hearts are already set.

Don’t we do that though?  We have a point of view in our minds and hearts, and let nothing add or detract from that view?  I have struggled with that for a lot of my life.  The concept of this blog has come out of that struggle.  Have you also come to the place that you are convinced that you need the perspective of others?  It has been a tough lesson to learn that I need to listen more and speak less.  I do have my own views, and often I fall in love with those views over and above my Master.  I have the potential to idolize my own conclusions.  I hope I’ve grown out of that, but the potential will probably always haunt me.

Where are you in that?  Have you attached yourself to some view of God without realizing that it’s impossibly narrow?  Maybe it’s a teacher you believe makes no mistakes.  Maybe it’s a comment you’ve heard or read on a passage that has framed your entire view of God.  Whatever it is, it’s possible Jesus is asking you whether you will begin to believe and begin to answer so the two of you can dialogue.  The problem I faced was that my Master uses the views of others to help refocus my own; lots of others.  Sure I filter them, but I find truth in the oddest places, but only if I look, listen, and ask questions.  If I dialogue I learn.  If I’m open to belief I grow.

That’s my view this morning.  What’s your view?