Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Hebrews

  • Approach the Throne of Grace with Confidence

    I like the term confidence; many prefer boldness. Boldness is an interesting concept in Christianity. I’m taking my title from Hebrews 4:16, and in fact most of my thoughts here are based on the book of Hebrews.

    I first encountered the claim of boldness when I was quite young, and I heard a taped sermon in which the speaker claimed that he had been in need of transportation. Upon discussion with his wife, they had determined that God desired that they own a Cadillac, so they prayed and claimed their Cadillac. According to the tape, they were, in fact, provided with, you guessed it, a Cadillac.

    I was living in southern Mexico at the time, where my parents were serving people who were too poor to own a car. Many were too poor to own a donkey or a mule. Often these people would walk through the jungle for two or three days in order to receive medical care at the clinic where my parents worked. We had a discussion as a family as to whether this demand for a Cadillac was faith or presumption.

    Since then, I’ve heard it called boldness. In fact, when I have heard people discuss “approaching the throne of grace boldly,” they’ve generally been referring to asking God for the things they (think they) need, or that they want. Sometimes boldness is represented as asking God for luxurious consumer goods, always, of course, destined to help one build the kingdom or carry out one’s mission. I have always found it hard to understand why people need such expensive things.

    But that isn’t my topic here. What is the author of Hebrews talking about here? Does he have Cadillacs (or luxury chariots, fine horses, or fine clothes) in mind? No, that’s not the topic. He has been developing his ideas of what God has done with us, how God has communicated with us, and the basis for our trust in God. He has just summarized in the previous couple of verses (14-15) that Jesus is like us, except without sin.

    He will move on in chapters 5 and 6 to discuss faithfulness and endurance. This is for our spiritual well-being. We need to understand the basis of our salvation and the faithfulness of God who saves us in order to receive endurance. The foundation is solid, so we can be confident as we build on it.

    This confidence is needed for:

    • Our salvation. It is through trust in God who is trustworthy that we are saved.
    • Our sanctification. It is in response to God’s faithfulness that we follow, learn, and grow. The conclusion to Hebrews 11 and its examples of faith is not what we can receive, but rather that we need to turn away from everything else and turn to the one who is faithful as we are surrounded by this great cloud of witnesses (12:1-3)
    • Our witness. Our witness is implied as we are called to witness the endurance of others and to encourage one another. Hebrews says little explicitly about evangelism, but witness is woven through it.
    • Our faithfulness. It’s not even really our faithfulness, it’s God’s faithfulness working in and through us. It’s interesting to read the stories of the examples of faith from the Old Testament and then compare them to the stories told in Hebrews 11. Many of them don’t look nearly as good in the original story. Is the author of Hebrews lying? Not at all! He’s telling the story of God’s faithfulness in and through them.
    • Our reward. Again, this comes only through God’s faithfulness. Our confidence grows out of what God has done for us.

    Because of this, our confidence should mirror God’s faithfulness. Our confidence is about God, not about the stuff that we can get, or what we can make God do by praying in the proper manner. Prayer is not magic. Prayer is talking to a faithful God in response to the faithfulness God has displayed.

    God may provide you with things that you wouldn’t otherwise have. But those things will be because you need them to be the person God wants you to be and to carry out the plan he has for you. God may even be generous with you, but you should never assume you’re better because of what God has given you. You should never take God’s gifts in the material realm for granted.

    God is indeed faithful and we can be bold. But the major result of God’s faithfulness in us is our endurance–right to the end.

  • Another Note on Hebrews Outlines

    Dave Black commented on my outline, linked in my previous post, thus:

    1:28 PM Henry Neufeld, who has published a work on the epistle to the Hebrews, enters the discussion about the book’s outline/discourse structure. You can check out his soon-to-be-revised outline here. I love it! The only comment I might make concerns the title given to Heb. 6:1: “Press on to maturity.” Here’s why.

    I think he is absolutely right and this change will find its way into my revised outline.

    One might justifiably ask me in what way I’m dissatisfied with the outline. My problem with my current outline is that I don’t think it provides adequate links between the various sections of Hebrews, nor does it adequately focus on the key passage at the core. In fact,  I believe the passage in question provides the focus for the book, however much we may try to avoid the verses that follow, particularly 4-6 or consider the verses immediately after that overly obscure.

    Hebrews does not follow a straight line in its structure. It’s more like a cord woven of threads of different colors, with different themes coming to the fore at different times. I’m hoping that by wording my outline properly, these connections will become more clear. With the outline display I use, one can choose how many levels to view, so one should be able to view the structure almost as though one was zooming in and out.

    Will I be successful? I have no idea. Hebrews is a special piece of scripture to me, and I find that no matter how many times I read it, or how many different ways I look at it, it keeps speaking. Maybe it’s inspired or something! 🙂

  • An Exegetical Outline of Hebrews

    Via Dave Black I found Brian Small’s link to Nathan Brown’s outline of Hebrews.

    Here’s what Dave had to say:

    6:48 PMBrian Small has just linked to An Exegetical Outline of Hebrews. The author naturally shies away from Pauline authorship even though new arguments are being made for that position today (or at least for the “Paulinity” of the letter), and I feel constrained to point out that his very first outline division leaves much to be desired. He tells us that the opening paragraph of the letter is 1:1-3 — which to me is a complete impossibility, since verses 1-4 are a single sentence in Greek and form their own distinct discourse unit. (I have treated this paragraph in some detail here.) These “thorns in the cushion” (as Thackeray, himself an unhappy editor, once called them) are perhaps not deadly, but they do make one pause. However, perhaps I am being overly critical. Read it for yourself and make up your own mind.

    Is Dave too picky here? I don’t think so. I think dividing your outline in the middle of a Greek sentence may impact how you read the rest. I always learned Hebrews 1:1-3 as a unit when I was reading in English. In fact, I was required to memorize that when I was in elementary school. I didn’t realize the tight connection between the opening and the remainder of the first chapter (and the argument of the book) until I first read this in Greek.

    I also take some issue with the list of methods of persuasion, though this is more of a nuance than a direct disagreement:

    1. Taking OT statements concerning the Messiah and applying them to Jesus Christ. (from page 1 of the intro to the outline)

    This is more picky than Dave is being, but I don’t see any hint of an attempt to persuade people to believe in Jesus as the Messiah in the use of OT passages. In general, the use of OT passages falls under Nathan’s points 2 & 3, i.e. the author takes the readers from a place of simply believing that Jesus is the Messiah to a place of action and endurance by relating Jesus to the OT stories.

    But I’m probably too picky.

    Since I’m in the process of revising my own Hebrews study guide, including my own outline, with which I am dissatisfied, I’m going to be going over this outline (and a number of others) rather carefully in the next few weeks. (In case you view the text of my translation with the outline, be aware that I am even more dissatisfied with the translation, which I made nearly 20 years ago.)

     

  • Hebrews 2:6 and Inspiration

    James McGrath brings up Hebrews 2:6, where the author introduces a quote by saying “somebody somewhere says.” Dr. McGrath uses this sort of as an argument against inerrancy, though primarily as an argument for human authorship.

    I have used the text in a similar way. It is not, in fact, a good argument against inerrancy, at least as generally defined by scholars who affirm it. It is not an error but rather a failure to state a fact. Is this rhetorical? One of the commenters on Dr. McGrath’s post seems to think so. I would suggest rather that the author either did not remember precisely or simply didn’t come up with a good way to introduce the passage.

    But the important thing about this, in my view, is that the verse sounds distinctly human. The problem with “distinctly human” is that we don’t really have a way of knowing how God might talk about such a thing should he choose to. But arguing about this particular issue and finding a way to make it more “god-like” in tone is not the issue.

    One key point I try to make in my book When People Speak for God is that we need to look at how Scripture actually was produced and how it functions in order to understand how it was produced and how it functions. Circular? Well, in a way. There’s nothing like looking at the actual object or mechanism to discover what it is and what it does.

    But the tendency in creating or producing a doctrine about Scripture is often to read texts in Scripture that say what the “Word of God” is, or texts that speak of what Scripture is (circular again, anyone?), then to imagine what this would mean in practice, and finally to force the texts to fit the definition.

    What does it mean for Scripture to be “god-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16)? The only way we have to really know that is to look at other things that are god-breathed, if we can find them. The difference between “All god-breathed Scripture” and “All Scripture is god-breathed” may be somewhat less substantial than people think. What we need to do is to fill in the definition of “god-breathed” by looking at Scripture, rather than concocting a definition and then imposing it on Scripture.

    Besides looking at how Scripture itself came to us, we have some interesting claims regarding what God’s breath might do, such as Genesis 2:7, when God breathes into the first human being. Interestingly enough, that first human became alive. He did not, perhaps unfortunately, become inerrant.

  • On Hebrews 5:1-10 and Prayer

    I’m going to do something I almost never do on any of my blogs—re-post. But first a few comments.

    Hebrews 5:1-10 is the epistle lesson from this week’s lectionary. Hebrews has always held a special place in my heart (my study guide on it), because it is such beautiful prose bringing a very deep message. In addition, passages such as Hebrews 1:1-4 and 4:12-14 helped shape my views of scripture and my christology at the same time, and Hebrews 6 became a key passage at a pivotal point in my own experience. (This isn’t “book advertising” week, but I discuss that experience in my book Not Ashamed of the Gospel: Confessions of a Liberal Charismatic.)

    But one of the most critical passages for me has been this one, which has helped in developing my understanding of prayer and its value and purpose in the life of a Christian disciple.

    Since our son James died, Jody and I have found that the one thing most people want to hear about when we speak or teach is just how one lives through such a thing. How do you deal with the grief? How do you deal with the questions? Why would God let your child die while you were busy teaching about prayer?

    On this especially I must let Jody answer for herself. Each person’s walk with God in such a situation is individual. In many ways my answer is much like that in another of this week’s lectionary passages, Job 38. I don’t know why, but I know God. But then I also realize that I don’t even know God all that well, but I can still strive to know what surpasses knowledge and in that active relationship, I can withstand even the whirlwind.

    So herewith the re-posted post from May 3, 2007:

    7Who, in the days of his flesh, offered entreaties and petitions to the one who was able to save him from death with loud cries and tears, and he was heard because of his piety. 8Even though he was a son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered, 9and being made whole he became a means of eternal salvation to all those who obey him, 10since he was designated by God as a priest according to the priestly order of Melchizedek. — Hebrews 5:7-10

    I’m writing this on the national day of prayer. A “national” day of prayer makes me wonder just what we’re praying for and how. But it reminded me of a question I hear frequently: “Why should anyone pray if they’re not going to get what they pray for?” That question starts with a false premise. It assumes that you won’t. But since I believe that quite often you will not get what you pray for, I should give it consideration.

    In Hebrews 5:7-10, we have the statement that Jesus prayed. He prayed to “the one who was able to save him from death.” I presume such a prayer might have, and did, occur many times during his ministry, but likely this reference is primarily to his prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane. “Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me.” He also placed that prayer under subjection to God’s will. Now if the text stopped in the middle of verse seven, we might imagine that the prayer of Jesus was not heard because he didn’t get what he was asking for.

    But the text explicitly says that Jesus was heard. And there is what’s hard for us to get hold of. Praying is not about getting stuff. Praying is about our communion with God. That’s why all these scientific tests about prayer and healing largely miss the mark. They’re interesting, but the can’t test prayer because prayer is not a means of getting things.

    What if the prayer of Jesus was counted in a scientific test? It would certainly go into the “failed” column. He didn’t get what he asked for. And yet he was heard, and what actually happened was better–in the end–than what he had requested. It happens that way because there’s a lot more knowledge on God’s end of the prayer than on mine.

    So a national day of prayer invites me to commune with God, and that is the only purpose I have to have. If I have communed with God, my prayer worked. The amazing thing is that I often would rather have God do it my way. I’m in touch with infinite power and infinite knowledge, but what I ask is that God use his infinite power to make things work the way I–oh so incredibly finite–want them to.

    One of the most blessed characteristics of this universe is that God doesn’t always answer our prayers in the way that we would prefer.

    Jesus was the great example of this. One thing was refused him–escape from the cross. Through that one refusal, a refusal he invited by saying “not my will but yours,” our salvation was secured.

    Aren’t you thankful that God doesn’t do things your way?

  • A Note on Hebrews 1:3 (Orthodox Study Bible)

    I’ve said enough negative things about the Orthodox Study Bible that I need to mention when I find it quite helpful as well. Generally, this is when it is either quoting or referring to various church fathers.

    In the note on Hebrew 1:3a, “who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person …”

    The first half of v. 3 is quoted verbatim in the Liturgy of St. Basil the Great. The brightness of His glory expresses the Son’s nature, His origin from and identity of nature with the Father. He is the Father’s brightness because He is begotten from the Father beyond time and without change. Thus, the Nicene Creed speaks of “Light of Light.” As the sun does not exist without radiating light, so the Father does not exist without the Son (p. 1653, on Hebrews 1:3).

    I particularly liked the last sentence. It’s hard to use analogies for the trinity without falling into one or another heresy, but this one does a great deal. The note goes on to state that the “express image” speaks of the Son as distinct from the Father, thus bringing together the two elements of the incarnation—one with the Father and yet with us, truly an icon of God.

  • Yet Again The Voice and Italics

    I know I’m beating this topic to death, but I can’t help it. Really I can’t. Or at least I won’t.

    I was reading Hebrews today, and I ran into some interesting examples, both of positive and (in my opinion) negative uses of italics. Before I look at a couple of cases, however, I do really like the flow of this translation of Hebrews. For the most part they don’t get too wordy in trying to make the text clear in English, but they do clarify a number of points. Other than the standard problem with a clear translation–often the translators must make large numbers of interpretive decisions and then cut out the alternatives in their rendering–this translation is quite good.

    Now to the use of italics. In Hebrews 1:1, the word “Hebrew” is added before prophets. This seems to be quite a likely clarification. I do question the necessity. But in 1:13-14, the italics provide some valuable clarification of the text. After “at My right hand,” “in the seat of honor” is added. It is quite possible that modern readers may not recognize that  fact. Then in 14, beginning the answer to the question that opened verse 13, we have “No, of course not.” It’s clear from the context that the answer to the question is going to be “no,” but again, what might be missed is made explicit.

    But in chapter 2:2, we have a note that I believe is entirely unwarranted. Verse 2 reads:

    For if the words of instruction and inspiration brought by heaven’s messengers were valid, and if we live in a universe where sin and disobedience receive their just rewards, … (note: italics/non-italics reversed)

    I believe that this verse refers to the Mosaic law and to the punishments under it, which tradition held was mediated by angels, and not to general instruction and inspiration of angels and the nature of the universe. What we’re being prepared for is the idea that the punishment for rejecting the message of Jesus (“imprinted with God’s image”–The Voice) would be greater, not less than, the punishment for rejecting Torah, brought by angels to Moses.

    I’m guessing there’s a desire here not to accept the idea that the author of Hebrews might believe that the Torah was mediated by angels, since that is extra-biblical. But interpreting this otherwise loses some of the emphasis of the message the author is intending to convey.

    In summary, thus far I’ve found the use of italics in The Voice as inconsistent as it is in the various formal equivalence versions. There’s no bright line between words that are justified by the source text, and words that constitute additional explanation. Readers will differ on this point and it’s hard to be consistent and also appear to be consistent.

  • St. John Chrysostom on Being Strangers

    From Homilies on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Christian Classics Ethereal Library), commenting on Hebrews 11:13-16.  All emphasis is mine.

    What then? Did they mean that they were “strangers” from the land that is in Palestine? By no means: but in respect of the whole world: and with reason; for they saw therein none of the things which they wished for, but everything foreign and strange. They indeed wished to practice virtue: but here there was much wickedness, and things were quite foreign to them. They had no friend, no familiar acquaintance, save only some few.

    But how were they “strangers”? They had no care for things here. And this they showed not by words, but by their deeds. In what way?

    He said to Abraham, “Leave that which seems thy country and come to one that is foreign”: And he did not cleave to his kindred, but gave it up as unconcernedly as if he were about to leave a foreign land. He said to him, “Offer up thy son,” and he offered him up as if he had no son; as if he had divested himself of his nature, so he offered him up. The wealth which he had acquired was common to all passers-by, and this he accounted as nothing. He yielded the first places to others: he threw himself into dangers; he suffered troubles innumerable. He built no splendid houses, he enjoyed no luxuries, he had no care about dress, which all are things of this world; but lived in all respects as belonging to the City yonder; he showed hospitality, brotherly love, mercifulness, forbearance, contempt for wealth and for present glory, and for all else.

    And his son too was such as himself: when he was driven away, when war was made on him, he yielded and gave way, as being in a foreign land. For foreigners, whatever they suffer, endure it, as not being in their own country. Even when his wife was taken from him, he endured this also as being in a strange land: and lived in all respects as one whose home was above, showing sobermindedness and a well-ordered life.  // For after he had begotten a son, he had no more commerce with his wife, and it was when the flower of his youth had passed that he married her, showing that he did it not from passion, but in subservience to the promise of God.

    And what did Jacob? Did he not seek bread only and raiment, which are asked for by those who are truly strangers; by those that have come to great poverty? When he was driven out, did he not as a stranger give place? Did he not serve for hire? Did he not suffer afflictions innumerable, everywhere, as a stranger?

    [5.] And these things (he says) they said, “seeking” their “own country.” Ah! how great is the difference! They indeed were in travail-pains each day, wishing to be released from this world, and to return to their country. But we, on the contrary, if a fever attack us, neglecting everything, weeping like little children, are frightened at death.

    Not without reason we are thus affected. For since we do not live here like strangers, nor as if hastening to our country, but are like persons that are going away to punishment, therefore we grieve, because we have not used circumstances as we ought, but have turned order upside down. Hence we grieve when we ought to rejoice: hence we shudder, like murderers or robber chiefs, when they are going to be brought before the judgment-seat, and are thinking over all the things they have done, and therefore are fearful and trembling.

    They, however, were not such, but pressed on. And Paul even groaned; “And we” (he says) “that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened.” ( 2 Cor. v. 4.) Such were they who were with Abraham; “strangers,” he says, they were in respect of the whole world, and “they sought a country.”

    What sort of “country” was this? Was it that which they had left? By no means. For what hindered them if they wished, from returning again, and becoming citizens? but they sought that which is in Heaven? Thus they desired their departure hence, and so they pleased God; for “God was not ashamed to be called their God.”

  • On Faith Preceding Works

    Some time ago I wrote an essay titled A Fruitful Faith, in which I maintained that there is a pattern of grace before law that is consistent throughout scripture, both Old Testament and New.  One can also express this idea as call before response, or, as I’ve been thinking today especially, faith before works.

    Frequently faith and works are seen as contradictory, and there is, of course, an approach to works that contradicts faith.  There is also an idea of faith as abstract belief that divorces it from any form of works.  I’m reminded, however, of the reformation formulation “by faith alone, but not by the faith that is alone.”

    I found two quotes in my reading on Hebrews today (Hebrews: Ancient Christian commentary on Scripture, New Testament X).  The first is from Athanasius, Festal Letters, 11.3, and is found on page 178:

    [Paul] deemed it necessary to teach first about Christ and the mystery of the incarnation.  Only then did he point to things in their lives that needed to be corrected.  He wanted them first to know the Lord and then to want to do what he told them.  For if you don’t know the one who leads the people in observing god’s commands, you are not very likely to obey them.

    I like the way this is expressed.  Works done to earn God’s favor or to learn about God are very different from works done because one know and loves God.  The former are futile; the latter rewarding.

    Again, St. John Chrysostom, On the Epistle to the Hebrews, 22.4, on page 179:

    How was it “by faith” that “Enoch was taken up”? Because his pleasing God was the cause of his being taken, and faith the cause of his pleasing God.  For if he had not known that he should receive a reward, how could he have pleased God?  But “without faith it is impossible to please” God. How? If a person belives that there is a God and a retribution, that person will have the reward.  (emphasis mine)

    God’s grace, received by faith, is the cause of doing good, and doing good pleases God.  But clearly none of that comes from us; it all proceeds from God and comes to us because God has called us.

  • Think Lightly of Wealth and Honor

    From St. John Chrysostom, On the Epistle to the Hebrews 20.5, from Hebrews: Ancient Christian commentary on Scripture, New Testament X p. 167

    Knowing then these things, let us be patient when we suffer evil and forthright in offering kindness.  This is all the stronger if we think lightly of wealth and honor.  He that has stripped himself of those affections is of all people most generous and wealthier even than he who wears the purple.  Do you not see how many evils come through money?  I do not say how many through covetousness, but merely by our attachment to these things.  Just think of one who loses his money and leads a life more wretched than any death.  Why do you grieve, my friend?  Why do you weep if God has delivered you from excessive watching?  Better that you come before God in fear and trembling.  Again, if someone might chain you to a treasure, commanding you to sit there perpetually and to keep watch for other people’s goods, you are grieved, you are disgusted.  But would you, having been bound with these chains, grieve when you yourself are delivered from slavery?

    How do these words compare to the view of wealth in American Christianity?  What would our reaction be if they were preached from the pulpit?  Perhaps outrage, but it’s quite possible that we would just ignore them and go on, as we do so many things.