Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Uncategorized

  • 1 Corinthians 12-14

    These three chapters are the most critical chapters in the Bible in reference to spiritual gifts, and they are not actually primarily intended to teach about them. We tend to read the three chapters separately, especially because 1 Corinthians 13 is such a wonderful composition by itself. Chapter 12 is often treated as an essay on gifts, 13 on love, and 14 on order in the church service. But the three are intended to go together as a unit, and that unit fits into the overall theme of the book of 1 Corinthians.

    Paul is dealing with the problems in the church at Corinth. They have become divided, and the main cause is spiritual pride based on various distinctions in the church. In these three chapters Paul talks first about unity, illustrated by the fact that all the gifts are needed, yet they are divided amongst the member of the church. The church needs to work together in order to make all the gifts available. Spirituality is determined not by which gift a member has, but rather by the fact that they work under the control of one spirit, the Holy Spirit.

    The test for the Spirit at work is then covered in 1 Corinthians 13, which tells us about love. The one Spirit works in accordance with love. (I discussed this same test from another perspective in my post Complementarian Translation.) Chapter 14 continues this thought by showing how the gifts would display themselves in public worship in accordance with the principles already described.

    In several posts following this one I’m going to present some notes on 1 Corinthians 12-14 and also on other passages related to the gifts of the Spirit. I won’t provide a directory here. To find all the posts look at category 1 Corinthians.

    (Added May 17, 2018)

    Follow-up notes:

    1 Corinthians 12-14 Greek Terms

    Notes on 1 Corinthians 12

    Notes on 1 Corinthians 13

    1 Corinthians 14

    Background:

    An Alternative Outline for 1 Corinthians

  • Mission and Prosperity

    In God’s economy, there is never prosperity without mission.

    I’ve been thinking about this in the last few days in connection with a number of issues, and I think it is a scriptural principle. I think you can replace “prosperity” with other terms of blessing, such as peace, joy, and fulfilment. This is where, in my opinion, modern prosperity preachers are missing the point. It’s not that they don’t mention mission, it’s that they put prosperity in the first place, and then mission follows after. I believe God puts mission first.

    Is this Biblical? Let’s look at a few examples.

    Many of my friends frequently remind me to “pray for the peace of Jerusalem” (Psalm 122:6). Now I don’t want to diminish in any way the need to pray for the peace of Jerusalem. But there is some baggage that comes along here. Read the rest of Psalm 122. You will find there a call for worship, a call for obedience, a call to carry out justice, and the call for prayer itself is aimed directly at the house of God and the presence of God. Mission is implicit throughout the passage. This is not an either/or situation. The peace of Jerusalem does not occur in scripture without justice and righteousness in Jerusalem.

    But as gentile Christians, we need to look just a little further out. This Psalm calls upon us to preserve centers of worship, to be glad to go into the presence of God, and to aim our prayers in that direction. Don’t miss the physical Jerusalem over in Israel, but don’t miss the presence of God here and now either.

    A friend once told me that praying for Jerusalem was a way to get a cheap blessing. But I don’t think there is such a thing as cheap blessing. The blessing has to go with commitment. A friend of mine passed a way a couple of years ago. She was a friend of Israel, and definitely prayed for the peace of Jerusalem. One time when she returned from Israel she came back with a new understanding and sympathy for the Palestinians as well. Her love of Israel was undiminished, but God had made a place in her heart for someone more. I could sense the blessing and the anointing that resulted from that growth. Her prayers were not cheap prayers, nor were they a means to an end. She not only prayed for the peace of Jerusalem, she invested heart and soul, time and money in it.

    Some may think the mission in Psalm 122, as clearly as I see it, is not so clear. Let’s look at a couple more passages from the time of the exile. Isaiah announced:

    ?6? I am the Lord, I have called you in righteousness,
    I have taken you by the hand and kept you;
    I have given you as a covenant to the people,?a?
    a light to the nations,
    ?7? to open the eyes that are blind,
    to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon,
    from the prison those who sit in darkness.
    ?8? I am the Lord, that is my name;
    my glory I give to no other,
    nor my praise to idols.
    ?9? See, the former things have come to pass,
    and new things I now declare;
    before they spring forth,
    I tell you of them.

    Isaiah 42:6 (NRSV)

    Note the call and the covenant are brought in a context of mission. God affirmed the same thing through Ezekiel when he said:

    Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord God: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came. — Ezekiel 36:22

    I commend all of Ezekiel 36 to you to read.

    But why should this be at all surprising? The concept goes back to Abraham who is told that God will bless him and that he will be a blessing. From that first call, blessing came with mission, and mission was the focus of blessing.

    Jesus expressed the same concept when he said:

    First look for God’s kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. — Matthew 6:33

    Notice the focus! Mission is at the center, and “all these things” follow from mission.

    If you are praying for peace, prosperity, joy, or any blessing, and feel that you are not receiving it, perhaps you need to consider two possibilities. First, God may be working on you, preparing you for mission. With him, the kingdom comes first. But second, it may be possible that you haven’t gotten the mission, you haven’t gotten the vision, and thus the blessings can’t follow. God isn’t going to give you the blessings of a great and powerful mission for you to hoard.

    Get the mission, catch the vision, the blessings follow.

  • A Mighty Man

    My wife used one of my radio broadcasts from Running Toward the Goal (no longer on the air) for her devotional for tomorrow morning. In it, I discuss Gideon as a “mighty man.” We tend to remember Gideon for his great deeds, but his story doesn’t start out so auspiciously. I wanted to call attention to this post because I recently wrote about the honor roll of faith in Hebrews 11.

    Some people are concerned with my approach to Hebrews 11, believing I’m calling the writer of Hebrews a liar. Now I am certainly calling him a preacher, with just a little bit of the politician that is necessary in exhortation. When you are exhorting a group of people to do something, you have to give them the impression that they can do it.

    The particular approach of Hebrews 11 is to tell the faith story of a number of known characters, people who were described in their original histories as people with normal human weaknesses, but who nonetheless were used by God in exceptional ways. Gideon is one such.

    If God can use Gideon, he can use me!

  • Genesis 4: The Two Lines

    While Genesis 1:1-2:3 (or 4a) comes from the Priestly source and continues with Genesis 5, our first dose of the Yahwist begins with Genesis 2:4 and goes through the end of chapter 4. We have plenty of opportunity to see the difference between the two sources. The Yahwistic story will pick up with the description of a world totally overcome by evil in Genesis 6:5 (6:1-4 are added from another source).

    Thus while we often call Genesis 3 the story of the fall, it would perhaps be more proper to call Genesis 3, 4, and then 6:5-8 the full story of the fall, the descent of the earth from “good” to “totally evil.”

    Genesis 4 thus provides the link between the initial separation from God and the resulting fear that is told in chapter three, and the near total corruption of chapter 6. In chapter four we see that there are two types of people, which are presented as two successions. One group is God-pleasing, and the other is in rebellion.

    1Adam had sex with his wife Eve, and she got pregnant and gave birth to Cain, because she said, “I have produced a man with YHWH’s help.” 2Again she gave birth to his brother Abel. Now Able was a shepherd, but Cain was a farmer.

    This is the simple introduction. Hebrew narrative is sparse, and you have to pay attention. We have two boys and they follow different professions.

    3After a time Cain brought some of the fruit that the ground produced as a gift to YHWH, 4and Abel brought something as well, from the firstborn of his flock and from their fatty portions. And YHWH favored Abel and his gift, 5but he did not look with favor on Cain or on his gift. So Cain became very angry and his face fell.

    There are a couple of hints here, but no definitive statement of why God favored Abel’s offering, but did not favor Cains. Some would claim that Cain needed to bring a blood sacrifice, and his fault was bringing agricultural products. But there has been no command up to this time about what to sacrifice. Another suggestion is that Abel is said to have brought the firstborn, whereas that is not specified about Cain. But considering the normally sparse nature of Hebrew narrative, I’m not sure that is significant. I think the intent of the story is that each brought an offering from the results of their profession.

    God’s displeasure is not specified, but Cain’s response, I think, suggests the reason. Cain’s heart was not in the right place.

    6And YHWH said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? 7If you do well, you will be lifted up, but if not, there is sin waiting at the door. It desires you, but you must take it under your rule.”

    I see this as an indication that God was not implacably opposed to Cain, but rather that Cain was opposed to God. The rejection of the sacrifice was a symptom, but the disease was the sin waiting at the door. As we see from the continued story, Cain does indeed let that sin rule over him.

    8Cain spoke to Abel his brother, and when they were in the field, Cain rose up and kill his brother Abel.

    There is only a small distance between the sin lying at the door and death, in this case murder. I like the economy of the Hebrew text. Some translations try to supply what Cain said, but the Hebrew is simpler. I could have translated “Cain had words with Abel” but I’m not sure that even that not an addition to the thought. This may simply be an indication that Cain’s action in murdering Abel was premeditated. He set it up.

    9And YHWH said to Cain, “Where is Abel, your brother?”

    But he said, “I don’t know. Am I my brother’s keeper?”

    People are famous for different things. Cain is famous for this response to God’s question. “Am I my brother’s keeper?” In this way Cain seeks to deflect God from the real issue–premeditated murder on Cain’s part.

    10Then YHWH said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is calling to me from the ground!” 11Now you are cursed from the ground because it has opened its mouth to receive the blood of your brother from your hand. 12When you cultivate the ground, it will no longer give you its strength. You will be a fugitive and without purpose in the land.”

    13And Cain told YHWH, “My punishment is more than I can stand! 14Look! You’re making me leave the very surface of the ground, and I will be hidden from your face, and I will be a fugitive and without purpose in the land, and anyone who finds me will kill me.”

    15But YHWH said to him, “So let anyone who kills Cain suffer sevenfold revenge!” And YHWH put a mark on Cain, so that he would not be killed by anyone who found him, 16and Cain left the presence of YHWH, and he lived in the land of Nod to the east of Eden.

    God is not deflected from the issue. Since Cain is a farmer, he is sentenced to harder work for less results. Note the relationship between this curse and the curse put on Adam in chapter 3:17-19. But contrary to later practice, Cain does not pay for killing his brother with his own life.

    What happens is a separation. Questions such as where Cain got a wife, and how there was a land of Nod where he could build a city, and who would live there all miss the point of the story. What we are seeing is the early explanation of why there are two lines of people–those who are obedient to God and those who are in rebellion. The myth is powerful even if the story leaves historical holes.

    The mark of Cain, which is sometimes used in popular speech as a curse is actually a protection. It says that Cain, though a murderer, must not be killed because of the vengeance that God has decreed will follow. For Cain, the mark is a blessing, an amelioration of his punishment.

    17Then Cain had sex with his wife, and she got pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain built a city, and named it after his son.

    18Enoch had a son named Irad, and Irad had a sone many Mehujael, and Mehujael had a son named Methusael, and Methusael had a son named Lamek.

    19Lamech married two wives named Adah and Zillah. 20Adah gave birth to Jabal, who was the progenitor of those who live in tents and keep cattle. 21His brother’s name was Jubal, who is the progenitor of those who play the zither and flute. 22And Zillah also gave birth to a son named Tubal-Cain, who was a smith, working bronze and iron. And Tubal-Cain’s sister was Naamah.

    As we have genealogies of the patriarchal line (Genesis 5 & 11), so here we have a genealogy tracing the line of evil back to Cain. The victory of Cain’s line is emphasized in Genesis 6:5ff. For those who believe in a universal flood, it’s interesting how Genesis 4 can specific people of the non-patriarchal lines as the ancestors of those with certain professions, surely something that could not be if their line died out in the flood. I believe this supports my contention elsewhere (The Two Genesis Flood Stories) that the Yahwist source does not tell of a universal flood, and thus there is no perceived contradiction between Genesis 4 and Genesis 6-8.

    23Lamech said to his wives:

    Adah and Zillah, hear my voice,
    Lamech’s wives, pay attention to what I say.
    I have killed a man because he wounded me,
    And a child because he brused me.

    24If Cain will be avenged seven times,
    Lamech will be avenged seventh-seven times!

    The interesting thing here is the way evil multiplies. Lamech, with Cain’s example, continues the pattern of murder, but he expects to get by with it.

    25Adam had sex with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son, and she named him Seth, because she said, “God has given me seed instead of Abel whom Cain killed.”

    26Seth also had a son, and he named him Enos. At that time people began to call on the name YHWH.

    This is the Yahwist’s way of telling us that there is also a patriarchal line, a line dedicated to obedience to God. The priestly source will provide us with more details in chapter 5.

  • Isaiah 24-27: Basics of Criticism

    Now that we’ve looked over the text and found a set of transitions in it, we can start looking at how critical methologies will apply to this material. Will they help us interpret and apply the passage?

    This is a moment to look at some of the reasons I’ve been writing this series. Frequently, Bible students are confronted with the results of critical scholarship, but with very little support, documentation, and reasonsing provided to help them determine whether they should accept a particular critical position or not. On the other hand, they will often see denials of the results of criticism with equally little background provided. One can’t avoid the types of questions that Biblical criticism asks, even though one can have widely varying positions on the answers. Whatever commentary or study Bible you choose, there will be statements about the date of writing, the authorship, and the historical and cultural circumstances of the book.

    What do you do when one set of notes tells you that the gospel of Mark was written around 45 CE, while another says it was written between 70 and 80 CE? In relation to our particular exercise, what do you do when one source tells you that Isaiah was written by a single author in the 7th century BCE, while another says it has at least three authors dating from the 7th century to the 4th century BCE? Again narrowing in on Isaiah 24-27, how do you respond when one source says this is a scattered collection of unrelated sayings that has obviously suffered in editing and transmission, while another tells you that this passage is a coherent whole with a single theme carefully presented?

    You can, as some people do, take the word of the scholar who is most similar to your theological viewpoint, you could throw up your hands and say, “Nobody knows!” or you can dig in and ask a simple question: How do each of these scholars know what they claim to know? That is the purpose of delving into critical methology. How does someone come to any of these conclusions?

    Let’s think briefly about the gospel of Mark. There are two major areas of disagreement that alter the way scholars date Mark. The first is their solution to the synoptic problem. If someone believes that Mark is one of the sources for Matthew and Luke, he will clearly have to date it before Matthew and Luke. The second major issue is found in the relationship of the text to the destruction of Jerusalem. This is not only an issue of whether predictive prophecy is possible, but also whether the text of Mark reflects a situation in which the temple has been destroyed or not. Based on these criteria, you’ll find that more conservative scholars who believe that Mark was written first tend to date Mark very early. More liberal scholars tend to date Mark a bit later, even if they believe Mark was written first. Conservative scholars who believe Matthew wrote first tend to date Mark a bit later, though often still before the destruction of Jerusalem. (This can get tricky depending on how one dates Matthew.) Some scholars who are moderate or liberal believe Matthew was written first, and this results in a very late date for Mark, since in general the same scholars would date Matthew shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem. If you look carefully in each introduction to Mark, you will probably find the reasons even though they may not be clearly set out for you.

    In the case of Isaiah, we don’t have an issue of copying, except in a small number of cases. We have two categories of issues: 1) That some portions of Isaiah are written presuming Assyria to be the main enemy, 2) that some portions are written assuming Babylon to be the main enemy, 3) that Cyrus is specifically named as a deliverer (which even some who like a 7th century date in general find a little hard to accept), and 4) that there are also passages that appear to apply to a time of rebuilding. This is not the time to evaluate all those issues in detail, but you should be aware of them. The deutero- and trito-Isaiah theories are based on an analysis of the text itself, along with a small number of external references. You need to consider the details about the text in order to express a valid and convincing opinion on the topic.

    As we start on Isaiah 24-27, I want to call your attention to a couple of my own experiences in studying other books. I did a full quarter independent study in college on Ezekiel’s call vision (Ezekiel 1). One commentary guts the call vision of repetitions and things that seem not to fit into a coherent description of the vision. As I read this commentary (see the paper for more details), I began to ask myself whether the original report of the call vision would, in fact, have had the characteristics of brevity, organization, and clarity that this commentator supposed it would have? I decided that this was unlikely. A vision, after all, is not an ordinary experience. One might be slightly incoherent in describing the vision. By making the chapter more organized, that commentator was, in fact, losing the feeling of excitement and awe, along with the difficulty of describing a vision of this nature. I encountered the same thing using R. H. Charles’s commentary on Revelation in the ICC series. Charles rearranges the last chapters of Revelation because he thinks they are so horribly disarranged. He even suggests the following:

    . . . John died either as a martyr or by a natural death, when he had completed i.-xx. 3 of his work, and that the materials for its completion, which were for the most part ready in a series of independent documents, were put together by a faithful but unintelligent disciple in the order which he thought right. (Charles, Revelation Vol II, p. 147)

    Again we have to ask whether the order that the modern student thought right is the order that would have appeared right to the original author.

    The assumption behind the interpretation of the passages I cited (Ezekiel 1, Rev. 20:4-22) is simply that a description of an end time vision should be clear, orderly, and in perfect sequence. The problem I have with this assumption is that there don’t seem to be any examples in scripture of such a clean, orderly work that would allow us to conclude that this was the “normal” form for such a vision report. The apocalyptic speeches of Jesus are more orderly, though not much more forthcoming with the data, than these, but it isn’t the report of a vision. A similar assumption has been made about Isaiah 24-27.

    If you did your own outline of these four chapters, showing transition points, take a look at it again. If not, use the one I did earlier in this series, and then read the passage again. What kind of feeling do these chapters give you? Is it necessarily true that in a time of crisis, however resolved, we would feel a clean sequence of events, or would we have a slower transition?

    Each of the “forms” we identified (though I used ad hoc names, rather than those you will find in many commentaries) contributes to the feeling of these chapters. We can use form criticism, identifying a passage as a hymn or a prayer, for example, to help us understand the pieces, but they form a portion of the word picture that the author is painting. They come from different places and situations, but they are combined into one theme.

    In my next entry I’ll look a bit more at the theme and how it is brought together, and we’ll use a little bit of methodology from redaction criticism. While some scholars do try some source criticism on this passage, generally theories that combine some of the elements into sources prior to the final composition generally rely on extremely thin evidence, and I am unconvinced that such sources can be identified. The best picture of authorship, in my view, is that a single author takes elements from worship, devotional life, existing literature, and his own visions and compositions, and combines them into a passage heralding God’s final victory. The elements may look scattered to us, but that is largely because we come with the wrong questions, asking what historical events are in view, what is the sequence of age-ending events pictured, and so forth, when the author is answering the question of what it will be like when YHWH makes his final intervention in human history.

  • Hebrews 1:5-14

    I’m going back now to fill in some of the blanks in my blogging on the book of Hebrews. My series of classes is finished, and I’ll focus just a little bit more narrowly than I did in a series of thematic classes taken from the book.

    Following his introductory long sentence (1:1-4) our author immediately moves back to establishing the details of his broad claim. He wants to show that Jesus is greater than any previous revelation, and from that he will establish the better priesthood, the better sacrifice, the greater salvation, and the greater need to carry on to the end. We have already seen to some extent how he interleaves his goal–faithful endurance–with the reasons supporting it. So first we will hear about how Jesus is greater than the angels, then we will hear a little bit about the nature of the salvation that Jesus brings (2:1-4), and then again we hear about who Jesus is (2:5-18), and so forth through the book.

    In this section we will also see our author’s use of the Old Testament in his teaching. He’s quite willing to slice and dice it, phrase by phrase, and use what would seem to be minor points in their original context to make major points in his context. I’m going to blog later on his use of the Old Testament. For now, I will only make brief remarks as it applies to the way in which the passage is being used.

    5For to which of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son, today I have given birth to you” [Psalm 2:7] or again, “I will be a father to him, and he will be a son to me”? [2 Samuel 7:14]

    It’s useful here to read both of these verses in their Old Testament context, not because the author is using them in context–he’s not–but because he is aware of the context, and is drawing meaning into the passage. He can count on his readers having some knowledge of the passages from which he is drawing. The first, Psalm 2, is a royal Psalm and most likely would be used for coronation and/or confirmation of the king. The second, 2 Samuel 7, is God’s words to David about his successor, Solomon, and what his relationship would be to that king. Neither passage, in context, appears to be predictive.

    So what is going on here? First, let me note that New Testament writers are not afraid to make use of Old Testament language in just about any context, borrowing it, paraphrasing it, or alluding to it as it suits them. But second, we should be aware of typology, which understands a present event in the light of past events. As an example, let me cite Matthew 2:15, “out of Egypt I have called my son.” Matthew uses this citation as a prophecy, to be fulfilled in Jesus, specifically that Jesus went to Egypt as an infant, and came back to Judea and then Galilee.

    But if we read the citation, from Hosea 11:1, we will find that not only is this not a prophecy but rather a historical reference, there are a number of elements in the next few verses of Hosea 11 that we would certainly not want to apply to Jesus. But Matthew accomplishes something with this reference that we modern folks often miss. He’s letting us know that he interprets the mission of Jesus in the light of the exodus from Egypt, right down to the sacrifice of the passover lamb. How well that works is another matter. Our modern focus is on whether Hosea was predicting this particular event in the life of Jesus, and we must conclude that he is not, if we’re faithful to the context of Hosea. But while Matthew may think of this single sentence as a prediction, his greater concern with it is to tie the mission of Jesus with the a previous act of salvation history, the exodus from Egypt.

    So back to our text. The greatest point here is to establish that Jesus is greater than the angels. Like the kings of Israel, and especially Solomon, God calls Jesus “Son.” I believe that the royal element in the mission of Jesus is implicit throughout Hebrews even though it is not developed. It is likely that the author assumes an understanding of the royal metaphor for who Jesus is, and simply wants to establish the other elements–priest and sacrifice.

    6But again when he brought the firstborn into the world, he said: “And let all the angels of God worship him.” [Deuteronomy 32:43 LXX; Psalm 97:7]”

    We’re again working with a single phrase, and the worship referenced in context is worship of YHWH as God. For Jewish readers this would have been quite an astounding verse to quote. This verse would work very poorly to convince opponents. But if you combine it with 2:1-4, we get a verse to draw Jesus, already known to be divine in some sense, into the act of worship.

    7Rather he says concerning the angels:

    “He who makes his angels spirits {winds}
    and his servants flames of fire.” [Psalm 104:4 LXX]

    In this case the LXX quote is required. The Hebrew can be read in this way, but it is not the most likely translation. See my notes on Psalm 104.

    8But concerning the Son he says:

    “Your throne, God, is eternal,
    and the Scepter of your kingdom is a righteous one.
    9You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness,
    Therefore God, your God, has anointed you;
    With {olive} oil of rejoicing amongst your companions.” [Psalm 45:6-7]

    If I were translating this myself, I would translate Psalm 45:6 thus:

    “Your throne is a divine one, forever and ever,
    Your royal scepter is one of justice.”

    I suspect that the combination of royalty and divinity is precisely what was desired by our author again. Read Psalm 45 in context to get the flavor there.

    10And:

    “At the beginning you founded the earth;
    The heavens are the work of your hands.
    “11They will pass away, but you remain.
    They all become old like a piece of clothing,
    12and as a canvas you roll them up.

    Now we are dealing with pure divinity, in material written of YHWH himself.

    13To which of the angels has he ever said:

    “Sit at my right hand,
    Until I set your enemies as a footstool for your feet”? [Psalm 110:1]

    And again back to a royal Psalm, but one which we will hear about later. This is the Psalm that mediates the use of the story of Melchizedek, who becomes the type for the eternal priesthood.

    14Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out for the sake of those who are about to inherit salvation?

    Essentially, angels are servants, and Jesus was more than that. He has really only hinted at this rather than proven it in these few verses, but he has snuck a rather large amount of typology, especially royal typology, into his argument.

  • Hebrews 11: Honor Roll of Faith

    Hebrews 11 is one of those chapters that tends to get treated apart from its context. Many people who are largely unacquainted with the basic themes of book of Hebrews are nonetheless acquainted with this one chapter. But this chapter fulfills a specific purpose in the argument of the book as a whole. Without any intention of denigrating the independent use of the faith chapter, I’d like to look at it’s place in the overall argument.

    To review the general outline, our author begins by establishing Jesus as a superior source of revelation to the Torah (1:1-4), and moving forward to discussing Jesus as our High Priest (chapters 2-4 passim). Prior to chapter 11 he focusses on the human aspects of the High Priesthood of Jesus (2:16-18), how he is one of our brethren (2:5-15) and able to sympathize with our weaknesses (4:15). He has pioneered our way into the presence of God, before the throne of grace (4:14-16).

    At the same time he has developed a foundation for the idea of something better to come, the “rest” that still waits for the people of God in the future (3:7-4:11). We have not attained it, he tells us, but it is coming. At the same time he notes that people in his audience are in danger of quitting the struggle before they attain the goal. This leads us into chapter 6, in which we have the famous passage about those who fall away, and are told that they can no longer repent (6:4-6). Nonetheless the author resumes his narrative with a statement of confidence that those to whom he is writing will not fall by the wayside (6:9).

    In chapters 7-10 he goes into more detail about the priesthood, developing the divine aspects, and the reasons why the priesthood of Jesus is better than the old priesthood. He ends chapter 10 with more admonitions to endure to the end. This endurance is based on the better promises and the faithful one who promised (10:19-25).

    But then he turns back the clock again and looks at this faith/faithfulness. There is a repetition in Hebrews 11 of the phrase “by faith,” and we need to broaden our conception of the word “faith” here to understand the full meaning. Faith is not merely a loose assent to a proposition; it is putting one’s confidence in that. Thus, “do not throw away your confidence (or boldness)” (10:35), this confidence being a result of putting one’s full trust in the way that has been provided. So we go all the way back to Abel (11:4), and we see that he worked also “by faith.” In the view of our author, Abel did not have what his readers have; he didn’t have any of the intervening revelation. He didn’t have the ultimate revelation that came through Jesus Christ. But he put his trust in God and was able to please him.

    This formula is repeated throughout the chapter. This is the cheerleader’s approach of pointing out all the prior victories and all the other people who have done what the readers are being called upon to do and saying, “Yes! You can do it! Just keep your confidence!” All these men and women of faith succeeded in pleasing God, even though they were much further from the reward and didn’t see even as much as the readers have seen themselves.

    But there is an additional element. Try looking at the stories of many of these individuals in their Old Testament context. Many of these folks do not look nearly so good in the first telling as they do on the honor roll. What’s going on? Is our author lying about them for effect?

    Let’s just take one example. If you compare the story of Moses in Exodus (Exodus 2:11-15), and then the report of the same incidents in Hebrews 11:24-27, the tone is completely different. In Exodus, Moses kind of falls into the situation, commits murder, thinks he has been caught, is in terror, and finally flees for his life. In Hebrews, he has a plan. He makes a choice: the right choice. He isn’t afraid of the king, but rather goes where he has to go and chooses who he’s going to be.

    I don’t know if that’s lying, but it’s certainly a different perspective. I would like to suggest it’s the “faith” perspective. The author of Hebrews looks back on Moses, and because Moses endured, completed his task, and died faithful to God, he is the person of decisive faith described in Hebrews 11. He may have done some stumbling along the way, but that’s not in the picture now. Moses endured. That’s really the point the author is trying to make. His point is strengthened by the fact that some of the people on the honor roll were not always perfect, were not always absolutely faithful at every moment of their life, but the testimony that can be given over their whole life when it was complete, is that they were faithful. They did it by faith.

    One can’t hope to have a better testimony than that. When I’m feeling that I’ve gone too far off the track to be regarded as a person of faith, I remember Hebrews 11. By faith all kinds of people made it to God’s honor roll. All they had to do was keep right on moving forward.

  • Jesus as Human and Divine Priest

    There are three passages in Hebrews that are critical to the concept of Jesus as a priest who combines divine and human attributes.

    17For this reason it was necessary for him to be like his brethren in all ways, so that he could become a merciful and faithful high priest concerning divine matters {matters dealing with God} in order to cleanse the sins of the people. 18Because he was tested by the things he suffered, he is able to sympathize with those who are tested. — Hebrews 2:17-18 (TFBV project)

    14Since we have such a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the son of God, let us grasp our confession. 15For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, since he has been tested in all things in the same way we have, but without sin. 16Let us approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we might receive mercy and we might find grace in time of need. — Hebrews 4:14-16 (TFBV project)

    These two talk mostly about the human attributes, though they hint also at the divine. The next one purely describes the divine attributes:

    26We now have just such a suitable high priest, holy, blameless, undefiled, separated from sinners and come to the highest places of the heavens. 27He has no need to offer sacrifices each day first for his own sins, like the other high priests and then for those of the people, because he has offered himself once and for all. 28For the law appointed high priests who had weaknesses, but the word confirmed with an oath, which came after the law, appointed a Son, perfected forever. — Hebrews 7:26-28 (TFBV project)

    Recall that this is all being written well before the formulation of the doctrinal creeds in which the Christian community declared Jesus fully God and yet fully human. Without such a doctrinal explanation, however, we have here both elements of that doctrine. In the first passage, Jesus is our brother, one of us, having suffered temptation and faced death as we must do so, but always with the emphasis on the fact that he did not sin. Our second passage (Hebrews 4:14-16) introduces the heavenly side of the priest, but is still primarily concerned with sympathy for our weaknesses. The emphasis is on what he shares with us.

    In Hebrews 7:26-28, the emphasis has shifted completely. Jesus is able to sacrifice properly for us because he does not need to sacrifice for himself, being without sin. He is set apart from us, holy, so he can approach God. But then there is that other aspect; because he is our brother, he can also invite us to approach God with equal boldness. The approach to the throne of grace is made possible by the divine-human combination in the new high priest.

    Let’s tie this in as well to the interpretation of Hebrews 6:4-6. There we have a dire warning of destruction for anyone who falls away. But that warning can only be heard in the light of this encouragement. God, presented to us in the person of Jesus, is able to sympathize with our weaknesses, because he has seen them in action and suffered their testing. The intended message is one of great hope but yet serious warning. The author of Hebrews believes we will never get a better invitation than this.

  • Hebrews 6:4-6: Can Those who Fall Return?

    Again I’m addressing a very small portion of this chapter. To get the context in mind, please read my previous post Hebrews 6:1-3: Going On Toward Perfection. These three verses have generated a great deal of commentary, because they appear to be saying that if one falls away from the Christian walk he cannot return, that repentance is no longer possible. And certainly read in isolation, that is precisely what the passage says.

    I relate my own experience with these verses in my personal testimony, Drawn to the Cross. In that experience I was led to question this interpretation by broader considerations of scripture from outside the book of Hebrews. That testimony is repeated both in my study guide to Hebrews, and in my book Not Ashamed of the Gospel: Confessions of a Liberal Charismatic.

    Here, however, I want to look more directly at the context of this passage in the book of Hebrews, to see whether any other interpretation, including my own, is possible in the context of the book. To do that, let’s look first at the major elements of the context, and then at the elements of the doctrinal statement made in the three verses.

    This passage comes right after 1:1-3, which talks about laying the foundation, and the need to keep moving forward. In my previous post on that passage I suggested that the basics of faith listed in those three verses corresponded to conversion, to one’s joining the Christian community. Following verses 4-6, we have the expression of hope that follows in verses 13-20, in which our author expresses his confidence that verses 4-6 are not going to apply to his audience. If we broaden our view a bit, this comes immediately after establishing Jesus as a priest, greater than the angels and than Moses, but still understanding our situation and our weakness. Immediately following he begins to discuss the eternal and perfect priesthood of Jesus, the way to God that allows us to approach the throne of grace boldly.

    With those elements in mind, let’s go back to the verses themselves:

    4Now it is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gifts, become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5and tasted the good word of God and the wonders of the coming age, 6and then fallen away to be renewed to repentance. It’s because they are crucifying the Son of God again for themselves, and putting him to open shame. — Hebrews 6:4-6 (from my TFBV project).

    What I see as the elements of this doctrine are:

    • A person may be enlightened, consisting of tasting the heavenly gifts, partaking of the Holy Spirit, tasting the good word of God, and the wonders of the coming age
    • From that state, a person may fall, and that fall is equated to crucifying the Son of God again, and putting him to shame.
    • Such a person cannot be renewed or brought to repentance.

    Since few commentators really want to just say outright that if you’ve left the faith, you can’t return, there have been numerous attempts to explain this. Indeed, there should be, because the idea that it is impossible to return after backsliding, for example, which is a possible interpretation, seems contradictory to quite a number of Biblical teachings. One would have to picture the prodigal son driven off by his father on his return, for example!

    Such interpretations have dealt with various elements:

    • Some interpreters look at the various requirements of enlightenment, and determine that very few, if any, people have actually attained that state, and thus it would only be someone who had truly been enlightened, and not merely converted to Christianity, who would be unable to come to repentance.
    • Some interpreters deal with the idea of falling away, claiming that the falling away is not just any simple departure, but rather a complete and utter stubborn rejection, complete with public renunciation of Jesus.
    • Some adjust the concept of impossible, pointing out that it might be humanly impossible, but that with God, all things are possible

    Can the context point the way through this? I think so. First, I do believe it is right to try to find a sense of hope in the passage, because while the author of Hebrews is handing out some fairly tough medicine, there is a strong element of hope in his presentation. As I have noted, he expresses confidence that his readers will not fall in the way described here. Because of both the immediate context and the broader context of the book, I think we need to understand a more hopeful message than that you can fall from grace and you’re finished if you do.

    Further, I think that the idea of saying that it may be impossible in human terms, but with God all things are possible does not fit well in the context. We are quite clearly presenting a divine opportunity of salvation throughout the book, and I suspect the readers would hear that here. In addition, if he’s saying it’s impossible, but it’s really possible, then these three verses don’t seem to move forward very much, and it’s a strange way of saying it.

    Further, though I think the question of just how enlightened a person is before they fall is quite appropriate, since this passage follows a description of conversion, I think it is likely to contain a warning that is applicable to people at the stage of their Christian life just described–immediately after they have acquired the basics.

    As for the fall, on the same basis I think it is right to inquire what was considered a fall by the author. There are those who believe this would only be a denial of Jesus in the face of martyrdom. When the persecution was over, some would desire to return to the community even though they had denied Jesus in the face of death. Some commentators suggest that this was forbidden by this text.

    Let me suggest a view that relies a little bit on each of these approaches to interpretation, that applies a warning, and yet also provides a basis for the message of hope that follows.

    First, the warning applies to everyone who has undertaken the Christian journey. That is the context and that is what is suggested. If you have taken that first step with Jesus, this warning applies.

    Second, there is a point to which you can fall from which repentance, turning back becomes impossible. More on that in a moment.

    Third, note that it is “impossible.” It does not say that God will reject you, but rather that the repentance itself is impossible.

    Now to support this, look back at Hebrews 3:7-4:11. Here we have the review of God’s offer of a “rest” for the people of God. One of the requirements to enter that rest is that we listen to God and do not harden our hearts. Consider further the discussion, Hebrew 2:3, of the quality of salvation offered–“how shall we escape” if we neglect it?

    What I am suggesting here is that if we reject the voice of God repeatedly, and thus harden our hearts, we will come to the point at which we will no longer desire to repent. This is a necessary warning no matter where you are in your experience, because you don’t want to get in the habit of hardening your heart and not listening. Whether you are very near such a problem or far enough away, you just don’t want to go there. If you follow the “hardening” path, there will come a time when repentance is impossible. That point can also be described as one at which you would not hesitate to crucify Jesus again. The more you have both heard and rejected, the more danger you are in.

    Note also that all of this refers not to non-Christians but to people already on the Christian journey, as our author sees it. It is a warning about moving forward, and continuing to listen to and be led by God.

  • Hebrews 6:1-3: Going On Toward Perfection

    1Therefore, leaving the beginning of the message of Christ, let us carry on to maturity, not re-laying the foundation of repentance from dead works, of faith in God, 2of the doctrine of baptism, of the laying on of hands, of the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 3This we will do if God pleases. — Hebrews 6:1-3 (from my TFBV project)

    This is too short of a passage to recommend for separate study, but it will make for a reasonable sized blog entry. Put this passage inside of the broader picture of Hebrews 5:11-6:20. To summarize this background, our author has established his idea of the priesthood, and given us the human attributes of Jesus as a priest, but now he begins to make a transition to discuss the essential nature of the new priesthood. All priests had the human characteristics of the priesthood. Why was Jesus different?

    As we move forward we are going to see that a perfect priesthood, in his view, is what will bring perfection or maturity and a clear conscience to believers. The two tie together. So in these few verses we have a study of our side of the problem. What is it that we need? First, in 5:11-14, he tells his readers that they are not mature enough to hear everything he has to say. I’ve already discussed what I see as the key text here, verse 14, being trained to distinguish good and evil.

    But at the beginning of chapter 6, he calls on the people to keep on moving, “moving on toward perfection.” As a United Methodist, with connections to the Wesleyan tradition, this phrase “going on toward perfect” is an important and central text. I’m going to suggest, however, that our author has a dual meaning in mind. First, he’s moving on toward perfection, or completion, in his argument about the priesthood. There is a parallel here between the divine work and the human work. The divine priesthood, or the divine effort on behalf of humanity, moves from the partial (the old priesthood) to the complete (the priesthood of Jesus). God doesn’t stop with the job partially completed. Second, he’s referring to the lives of the believers. Now at this point I listed these in what might be seen as reverse order of importance. What he is explicitly saying is that the believers need to keep moving forward.

    But what is his primary thought? I would suggest that he sees the moving forward of the heavenly and of the earthly as necessarily intertwined. He is calling on his readers to get on board and move on toward perfection, as God did through the ministry of Jesus. He says he’s not going to lay the foundation again. In this foundation are six elements:

    1. repentance from dead works
    2. faith in God
    3. baptism
    4. laying on of hands
    5. resurrection of the dead
    6. eternal judgment

    I have heard some interesting thoughts from this, including someone who thought that one of the foundational thoughts involved was how to raise the dead, thus raising people from the dead should be a regular, foundational part of ministry. But look at the list carefully. In many modern traditions we don’t have all the elements, laying on of hands especially, in accepting someone into the body of Christ, but those in churches with a any sort of high church flavor will recognize much from the baptismal ceremony and vows. These are the elements that go into bringing people to a basic relationship with Jesus and with his church in most of the Christian tradition. So what our author is telling us is that he is not going to talk again about the basics of salvation, rather, he is going to move on to matters of the Christian life after one’s conversion. Verses 4-6 especially refer to one’s continuing Christian life.

    With that, he places even the course of his argument in the hands of God and then proceeds to some of the most difficult text in the book, Hebrews 6:4-6.