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

Passion Week VII

On one of the days while He was teaching the people in the temple and preaching the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes with the elders confronted Him, and they spoke, saying to Him, “Tell us by what authority You are doing these things, or who is the one who gave You this authority?”  Jesus answered and said to them, “I will also ask you a question, and you tell Me:  Was the baptism of John from heaven or from men?”  They reasoned among themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ He will say, ‘Why did you not believe him?’  But if we say, ‘From men,’ all the people will stone us to death, for they are convinced that John was a prophet.”  So they answered that they did not know where it came from.  And Jesus said to them, “Nor will I tell you by what authority I do these things.” (Luke 20:1-8 NASB)

Did you every hate it when your parents would tell you to obey “because I said so”?  Have you ever heard the term, “it is what it is” (probably original with Yogi Berra)?  Well, this word “authority” used here in Luke is sort of like that.  In Greek usage, the word has both a legal and a simple “unhindered” usage.  In other words, it refers to actions which are not prevented for some reason, but also to the right or legally granted right to act.

But the elders questions are not redundant because they examine two options.  They first ask, “…in what sort of authority…”, and then “…who gave you this authority?”(emphasis mine)  The connecting conjunction is “or”, meaning that both were not assumed to be true.  Either Jesus had this authority derived from some quality, or the authority was derived from another Person.  They didn’t consider it being both.  It was ironic that, in Jesus’ case, it was actually both.  He explains this ironic situation in His parable that follows.

Jesus explicitly refuses to answer.  He bargains with them asking them to reveal what they thought of John’s Baptism.  They feared the crowd stoning them (seriously?), so didn’t answer.  Therefore Jesus refused to answer.  But had He answered, what would He have said?  How could He explain that He had the authority by qualitative nature of being the Son of God, and it was therefore also derived from God the Father?  How do you explain that to people looking at a man in rumpled robes, dusty sandals, scraggly beard, and bad breath?  He didn’t appear in such royal powerful qualities one would expect of Deity.

The truth we often miss is that the people saw a person, much like them.  He was at least so much like them that He was too far removed from God to be any more like God than they were.  How could they have been expected to see beyond the human before them to the divine beneath?  We wouldn’t.  So Jesus’ refusal to explicitly answer the question isn’t strange at all.  In a sense, He also feared the crowd’s response.  It wasn’t time, not yet.  But soon, the crowd would be seeking His death, and it would be granted.  Again, He explains that in the parable that follows as well.

So, what is my lesson?  It has to do with authority.  I believe that, as children of the Creator of the universe, we have authority.  And I believe that, like Jesus, our authority is both qualitative and given.  Our authority is derived from our status as children and given to us by our Father.  I know I behave as if I have nothing, I’m poor, I’m wretched, I’m worthless, etc.  But if I truly believe that my Master has redeemed me, then how can I believe those things about myself?  Certainly my status before my Savior cannot be founded upon a personal quality within myself (self-righteousness).  But He has justified me, and is sanctifying me.  That means I am righteous because of His qualities.

I know that I tend to debase myself, probably in false humility, so that I don’t appear proud.  But authentic assurance in qualities derived from my Master is not pride, it’s faith.  I have authority derived from my Master, I ask and act in His name.  In fact He commands me to act and ask in His name.  I really struggle with this because it’s very easy for me to rely on myself and my abilities or knowledge.  I can appear to “have it all together” to other people.  The problem is that maintaining that facade drives me to crash and burn.  I can’t believe my own press, for my own good.  Instead I have to acknowledge the derived quality of my authority, and act authentically in His purpose and design.

I can dig further down, but that’s deep enough for one entry.  What’s your view through the fence?

Why Justify?

 And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” And he answered, “YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.”  And He said to him, “You have answered correctly; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE.”  But wishing to justify himself, he said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:26-29 NASB)

There had to be something about Jesus that drove the religious elite up the wall.  I’m guessing it had to do with His attitude, demeanor, or perhaps His refusal to show off how much He knew what others knew.  He seemed to only quote Scripture.  He never referred to any known scholars of the day.  He only used His own interpretation of Scripture.  Or maybe it was that being anywhere close to Him made one acutely aware of how unholy and unrighteous one was.

This lawyer stands to “test” Jesus.  It’s a test that desires to see the quality of what is tested.  I infer from the context that the lawyer asks without any assumption as to the expected outcome.  I think he really wants to know who this Jesus person is.  When he stands, the lawyer is in the “driver seat” directing the conversation to his desired outcome.  Yet that lasts two sentences into the conversation.  He asks, then Jesus asks, and the lawyer is now the “occupant.”  Something about Jesus’ question, his answer, and Jesus’ response leaves the lawyer wanting.  I wonder if this feeling of being “undone” was the expected outcome of the test.

The lawyer desires, wishes, wants to be justified.  He wants to justify himself.  So, he’s looking for validation from Jesus.  Why?  What is it about Jesus’ response that has this legal eagle so bugged?  Jesus gave the expected response.  When asked, it’s a teacher’s normal process to ask a question in response.  The lawyer gives a good answer, one Jesus will use later on in the Temple with other lawyers.  Jesus affirms the answer.  So what’s the problem, why the need to justify himself?

Jesus heals lepers.  Jesus speaks with and stays with Samaritans.  He travels to Gentile regions, and even heals someone there.  Jesus seems to accept women, even ones with dubious histories.  It’s a fairly safe bet this lawyer does none of this, or rather accepts no one in any of these categories.  To be near Jesus and talk with Him is to throw into sharp relief the distance between the love Jesus lives out and the love this lawyer lives out.  He needs this validation because he has just subordinated himself to the teaching of One who loves the unlovable.  That was not what was supposed to happen.  It left the lawyer undone, needing justification.

Me too.  Seriously, me too.  How can anyone read and really study the Gospels, sift through the life of Jesus, and not be undone?  How can we be confronted by this One accepting the unlovable, touching the unclean, taking the time to speak with women, holding up a child as an example of greatness, and then feel justified?  It’s not possible.  Even if the deeds match, something in the attitude would leave us undone.  Unless we don’t care.  Unless we really are not that interested in Jesus’ life and seeing where we fall short.  We can even justify ourselves by skipping parts.  But when we don’t skip, when we allow ourselves to be confronted by the Teacher who lives out perfect love, we feel the need for justification.

It’s the desire to justify ourselves that holds the danger.  The whole parable was designed to remove the option of self-justification.  The lawyer may have wanted to justify himself, but the Teacher was not going to give him that option.  It was necessary for the lawyer, and for us, to feel the need for justification.  We need it.  It’s part of why Jesus came, part of why He went to the cross, and part of why He needed to rise from the dead.  Justification is the result of knowing Jesus and submitting to Him as Lord of our lives.  Justification is available because Jesus suffered, died, and rose again.  Justification happens because our “defense attorney” is the Son of the Judge who has already paid for our crimes.  The court is rigged, the trial is predetermined in its outcome.  We win.

A fool has himself as his attorney.  The lawyer failed to justify himself.  We fail to justify ourselves.  But we can always take the option left to us by the Teacher.  Would you rather be your own defense attorney before the Judge, being accused by the Satan?  Or would you rather opt for the rigged trial where the Son of the Judge defends you?  The path to that outcome is through Jesus as your Master.  It’s not exactly “free”, it costs your submission and belief.  You declare Jesus is Lord with your mouth and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead.  But God does not believe lies.  Our life and heart are the litmus tests as to whether we have done this.  So, is Jesus your Advocate or are you still trying to justify yourself?

What do you see in the dialogue between Jesus and the lawyer?