Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: New Testament

  • Revelation: Progressive or Continuous?

    Working on the book of Hebrews over on my Participatory Bible Study blog has led me to do some additional thinking about revelation or inspiration, and how it functions. One of the key claims of the book of Hebrews is that Jesus is a greater revelation than that provided by the Torah. In order to support this claim, he has to first establish that revelation is in some sense progressive, though he does not develop a doctrine of progressive revelation, but rather establishes that a new, greater revelation can supercede an earlier one.

    This is a key difference between Christianity and Judaism. Judaism sees the Torah as the ultimate revelation, and everything that follows is less authoritative. The idea of something appearing that would supercede the Torah is pretty much anathema. It is typical of later religions to make a claim that their own newer revelation is greater than what has gone before. For Christianity, it’s Jesus and the New Testament, but then many Christians want to claim that revelation has ceased. For Islam (or at least the vast majority of it), the Qur’an is the final revelation, and cannot be superceded. It’s finally the perfect thing.

    But Christians divide on this point, some believing in one form or another of continuing revelation, while others believe that revelation ceased with the age of the apostles. Amongst Christians liberals and charismatics tend to see revelation as continuing, while the reformed movement and those related to it see revelation as complete with the Bible. There are a number of special cases, such as the Roman Catholic church and the concept ofthe “magisterium.” Technically, this is not continuing revelation, but in effect, it certainly gives that appearance. The Latter Day Saints have their living apostles who can bring out new revelation.

    I grew up as Seventh-day Adventist, and one of the key controversies between SDAs and the rest of the Christian community is over Ellen White. Can you have a modern prophet, and how does this relate to scripture? Here again I think there is a difference in the way things are expressed and the way they are put into practice. My experience was that many Adventists used the writings of Ellen White as though they were scripture, no matter how church doctrine was stated. But I don’t think SDAs are alone on this issue. The place of the prophetic movement in charismatic and pentecostal churches is very similar and I see some of the same things being done either with words from the Lord, visions, and writings. Some conversation here between modern charismatics and Seventh-day Adventists might be valuable. I have often wondered how Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel would fare if we had as detailed a record of their lives, along with copies of every letter they ever wrote. Fortunately or unfortunately we don’t get to compare the first draft of Jeremiah with the second, and attempts at a chronology of his message are often quite speculative.

    So let me ask first whether revelation is progressive. I think “progressive” is a terribly dangerous word. In biology, evolution is often described as a progress from simple to complex, primitive to modern, with “modern” defined as “better.” As time goes forward some suppose that organisms become better adapted to their environment, so that we have a constant movement toward perfection. But if you read descriptions of evolution by actual biologists, this picture doesn’t seem to work quite as well. One can say for certain that variety has generally increased, i.e. there is more now than there was in the Cambrian period, but none of the other claims I mentioned can be made with certainty. “More complex” may mean less adapted, and thus natural selection would select for simplicity. The environment changes as well, so one cannot be certain that we’re always moving to better adaptation.

    Why bring biological evolution in here? Simply because progressive revelation is often compared to biological evolution, often in a negative sense. It’s part of the “applying evolution to everything.” Well, one can certain apply some evolutionary concepts to anything that changes, but that’s not really the issue here. “Progressive revelation” has gotten tangled with the same types of misunderstandings that are involved in biological evolution. First, it is assumed that any new revelation must automatically supercede an older revelation. Second, it is assumed that as time goes on the revelation we have in our possession will be better and better, i.e. that we will become closer and closer to the truth about God.

    Just as the inevitable progress of biological evolution does not seem so well founded, and just as adaptation can go on for many millions of years without any assurance that anything actually gets 100% adapted, so I see little reason to assume that revelation will be progressive in either of those senses. What I personally hear from the Lord is more adapted to my circumstances. A current revelation to a church community will be better adapted to their time and their place, but because we are imperfect people, we will always have problems fully comprehending that revelation. A perfect revelation cannot be 100% adapted to imperfect recipients.

    But my prior paragraph could easily be misunderstood. The biological analogy breaks down. The revelation is not, in fact, adapting itself. Rather, the revelation is coming to different people, in different circumstances, at different times, and in different ways. It has always been that way. We can refine our understanding, but again, because we are imperfect, there is no guarantee that we are always getting better. We can hope we are, but we cannot be certain. The next generation could look back at our time and laugh, just as many of us laugh at a prior time.

    I think that God is continually revealing himself, continually speaking. We hear with varied clarity. In scripture and established traditions, we take those things that have been heard, confirmed, and reaffirmed at many times and in many places. What Isaiah said is not necessarily better than what someone hears from the Lord in their morning devotions. But Isaiah’s words have been used and tested repeatedly by many people over a long period of our tradition, and so have been accepted as of genuine, general value over a wide geographic area and over a broad range of times and places. The fact that his book is scripture is a definition of the community that accepts it, not a simple derivation from the nature of the content.

    I know there will be those who are disturbed. I am overcome by delusions of grandeur, and am receiving revelations of the quality and value of those of the prophet Isaiah. [Pause for effect :-)] Well, no, I’m not. But if God speaks to me, and if I hear correctly, the words of God are just as true whispered in my ear as in anybody else’s. And of course they are just as true whispered in anybody else’s ear, including the ear of someone I despise, as they are in mine.

    I have more options to test these words now because I have scripture, as defined by my community, and I can even dabble in scripture as defined by other communities just to check things out. This increase in quantity and variety gives me an advantage. One pictures Abraham, as tradition suggests dealing with idols as was the family business, and suddenly addressed by God. “Get out of here! Go somewhere that I’ll show you!” Abraham has very little to go on. Scripture doesn’t exist yet, and won’t for centuries. He simply has to decide whether to accept what the voice says (presumably based on the patriarchal tradition, but do you want to decide on God’s voice based on your family tradition?) or not. I have it easier. I have a community; I’m not about to found one. I have other people who at least claim to hear God speak, though this is often more of a hindrance than otherwise. There’s more variety.

    But fundamentally God speaking is God speaking, and I don’t think it’s getting better or worse. We just have more instances of it to study. So I reject the term “progressive” and prefer “continuous.”

  • Priesthood, Sacrifice, and Christian Theology

    I want to call the attention of the readers of this blog to some posts I’m starting in the Participatory Bible Study blog. I’m looking at the nature of priesthood and sacrifice in connection with views of the atonement. This portion of my blogging through the book of Hebrews will take me a number of entries, and I will only point to them once here. For those interested in such issues as the substitutionary atonement, particularly penal substitutionary atonement, and how this compares with other views may find that series interesting.

    The sub-series begins with What is a Priest?.

    Admin note: I’m going to be out of town over the weekend teaching a weekend discipleship seminar. If any comments get stuck in moderation, they’ll probably be stuck until I return.

  • What is a Priest?

    If you read through the book of Hebrews as a whole, you cannot help but notice the central place that the concept of priesthood has for the author of the book. His metaphors come strongly from the tabernacle or sanctuary service, and especially the wilderness version. Where he refers to these things he doesn’t reference the second temple or even Solomon’s temple, but the original tent. Some believe this means he wrote after the temple was destroyed, but I would suggest that there must be a greater motivation than that. The wilderness tabernacle itself was not in existence either. I would suggest that his interest in the tabernacle is because he sees this version as the pristine form, the inaugural form, if you will, and because it is the form described directly in Torah. He is working on a contrast of the person of Jesus with the whole of Torah, so he takes his illustration from the Torah as directly as possible. (We will note when we discuss his use of the Old Testament that he works from the LXX to some extent.)

    The problem for modern readers is that we do not hear the same things by these words as he probably did. Terms like priest, high priest, sacrifice, pure, impure, and even worship don’t necessarily mean the same thing to us simply because we live in a vastly different cultural context. The sacrifices fit well into their cultural context and served a teaching purpose. I was energized by studying through Leviticus with Jacob Milgrom’s 3 volume commentary in the Anchor Bible series (see my review).

    [For those who are working through my study guide, you might stop at this point and work with the advanced question on priests, ministers, and intercessors, and fill in the chart on page 29.]

    Milgrom suggests two key functions of the priest. These are not the only functions, but they are critical. First, according to Leviticus 10:10-11, the priests are to be teachers, and the key element that they teach is distinguishing sacred from common and pure from impure. (I could write an entry on that, but I will refrain for the moment. Milgrom’s key comments are on pp. 615-618 of Volume 1 of his series.) This function is restated and reemphasized in Ezekiel 44:23-28. This pair of distinctions is pervasive through the book of Leviticus, and it is made clear that the priests are to know them, to be able to render judgments about them, and to teach them.

    Secondly, priests, and particularly the High Priest, were to carry and/or carry away sin. This is illustrated at Exodus 28:38, but could well be expanded from many other passages in Exodus and Leviticus, looking at how sin is handled in connection with sacrifices. (Again, Milgrom comments in his first volume, pp. 622-625.) So we have these two functions that we often do not think about in connection with priests and the tabernacle–teaching and bearing sin and impurity. (Note these two are not identical, something Christian readers often miss.)

    The tabernacle, and particulary the priestly service as carried out in it, is the central metaphor of Hebrews, the means by which he conveys his message. If we don’t understand his metaphor, we’re not going to understand what it means. This is something we will work on through several posts.

    Do these two key elements of the priestly function play a role in the book of Hebrews? Indeed they do.

    First, the learning of distinctions:

    14Solid food is for the mature, for those who through practice have exercised their understanding to distinguish good and evil. — Hebrews 5:14 (from the TFBV project).

    This single reference would not be nearly as important as it is if it did not occur in a section leading up to one of the key points of the book. At the end of chapter 5 our author is explaining why he can’t go deeper into certain things: Believers need more maturity to understand. The key requirement of maturity is a well-trained discernment. Isn’t it interesting that one of the key things the priests were to teach the Israelites through the sanctuary service was precisely this? All those weird rules about which animals to eat and which not to, and what to touch and what not to were, at least in part, an exercise in learning how to make distinctions.

    We are frequently hesitant to make distinctions in the church, fearing the dreaded accusation of “discrimination.” But our author here is affirming that there are right and wrong actions, and that the mature Christian has a mind trained to choose between them. We must guard against a critical spirit or nitpicking on non-essentials, but there is a place, and apparently a fairly substantial one, for making distinctions.

    Second, bearing sins . . .

    4 . . . it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to carry sin away. — Hebrews 10:4 (TFBV)

    This is again a key problem addressed by the book of Hebrews. His answer is the once and for all sacrifice for sins by Jesus who is able to bear away the sins of many once and for all.

    27And just as it is the nature of men to die one time, and after that the judgment, 28so also Christ will appear again without sin, having offered himself to bear the sins of many, to those who wait for salvation. — Hebrews 9:27-28 (TFBV).

    So two key elements of the book of Hebrews are based on these two functions of the priesthood as taught in Exodus, Leviticus, and Ezekiel. In future entries, I will discuss the characteristics that our author believes make Jesus the perfect High Priest.

  • Hebrews 10:19-25: Why Meet for Worship?

    19Now then, brethren, we have boldness to go into the holiest place through the blood of Jesus, 20which he placed as a living way through the curtain, not previously available, which is his flesh. 21Jesus is also a great priest over the household of God. 22So let’s come with true hearts and full assurance of faith, our hearts sprinkled clean from bad conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. 23Let us hold firmly the confession of our hope without wavering, for the one who promised is faithful. 24And let us pay attention to each other, so as to stir up of love and good works, 25not neglecting our meetings, as is the practice of some, but encouraging, and doing this even more as we see the day approaching. — Hebrews 10:19-25 (from my TFBV project)

    (OK, this one is way out of order, and is not arranged according to the lessons either. I just had some thoughts about worship.)

    Why do we need to meet for worship?

    I hear many answers to this question and I sense many more in meeting with people, both those who do meet regularly for worship and those who don’t. Some of us meet just because it’s habit. Our parents went to church, and they got us in the habit, and somehow we preserved that habit. Some go for social reasons. It’s a good time to meet friends and business associates, an opportunity for networking. Some go to get points toward their hoped-for ticket to heaven. Perhaps if their lives during the week were not quite up to standard, attendance at a worship service or so might make up the difference.

    The author of Hebrews has some specific, and he thinks compelling reasons to worship.

    1. We can!
      Since we can approach God boldly, why not do so? Much of the book of Hebrews deals with our access to God, and one of the assumptions of the author is that those who can approach God boldly will want to do so in worship. One of his concerns is that it seems his assumption might not be quite true. There seem to be some people who just don’t get the need.
    2. God is faithful! and we need to be reminded of that fact
    3. We need encouragement.
      What better place to get encouragement is there than with a group of people who realize the possibility of boldness before God and come together to claim that boldness? Of course, as our author again has noted throughout the book, not everyone seems to live up to the possibilities.
    4. Others need encouragement.
      And here’s one of the keys. When you’re feeling really good, filled up, and ready to go, and don’t feel the need of another church service, you may need to go in order to encourage someone else.
    5. It’s time to stir up love and good works.
      But do we? Is this what happens at your church on Sunday morning? Do we leave feeling that it is easier to do good?

    These are some of the key reasons the author of Hebrews sees for gathering together in worship. I’d suggest three areas for consideration. Ask yourself:

    1. Does my behavior at church and in worship services help encourage others to good deeds?
    2. Do I come home from worship motivated and energized in my love and my service for others?
    3. Is there something I could do about the worship service I attend that would make it more likely that all who attend would be energized and encouraged in their love and good works?

    Perhaps there are some reforms you could look into in your own life, your worship experience, and the way worship is practiced at your church.

  • Hebrews 4:12-13: God’s Word is Alive and Active

    Yes, but what does it do?

    I sometimes think that this passage should be our key passage for the inspiration of the Bible rather than 2 Timothy 3:16. After opening with the wonderful passage in Hebrews 1:1-4, and telling us how God has communicated in so many ways, he begins to close the circle on the Word of God, and the powerful work that it does. The word came in many ways at many different times, but now it has come through a Son, Jesus Christ. This word challenges us to its quality and nature (Hebrews 2:1-4). God not only has information for us; he has a plan. We don’t only need to know the contents; we need to let our lives reflect that content. When we “consider the apostle and high priest of our confession” it is not so that we can polish up our doctrinal statements, it is so that we will be faithful to our confession.

    Hebrews 4:12-13 brings a close to this part of the argument and launches us into a new phase as we discuss priesthood. To catch the emphasis, let me translate very literally: “Living is the Word of God and active/powerful . . .” There has been some debate over whether our author here is talking about Jesus (John 1:1-3) as the word, or is talking about the scriptures. Scholarly opinion centers on the second. But I think both are too narrow. I think he has seen the marvelous ways in which God, through his word, intrudes himself into our lives. He sees the benefits that will result from responding to this activity and makes a call for us to be faithful to that call.

    That’s why the next section of this passage talks about knowledge. God’s word not only enlightens us and informs us, it discovers all that there is to be known about us. You can get a picture almost of dissection, but that wasn’t on our author’s mind. He was probably looking more at a combat metaphor of the skilled swordsman whose sword finds the precise mark. But in this case the purpose is not to wound, but to lay it all bare before the eyes of God. All creation is open to him because, after all, he is the creator of all creation. It’s all laid bare.

    The word of God is both informative and formative. It provides us with knowledge of God. It is God, knowing all there is to know about us. It is the motivator of our actions and the empowerment to do them.

    By the word of YHWH the heavens were made,
    By the breath of his mouth, all their host! — Psalm 33:6

    But then perhaps 2 Timothy 3:16 is not so far off after all. In fact, as I read it, I see much the same thing. “Every scripture is God-breathed, and is useful for teaching, for rebuke, for correction (straightening out), and for instruction in righteousness.” Isn’t that pretty much what this is saying? I find that this verse gets quoted more often to tell us what the content of scripture is. The Greek term “theopneustos” is analyzed to tell us how inspiration works, and what it must do to the words of scripture. In fact, the Revised English Bible translates, “All inspired scripture has its use . . .” and many people have told me that this takes all meaning from the verse. Not at all! What Paul is getting at here is how to put the scripture to practical use. The word is active, and we need to get active with the word. We need to let the word change us.

    One particularly important point I like to emphasize in Bible study is the need to let the word correct you personally first. It is so easy to read the Bible, or hear the word in any context, and find all of the things that other people need to hear. There is correction there for my wife, for my children, for my pastor, for my Sunday School class. But the real question is this: When that sword cut to the heart of the matter, what did it find?

    That should be the focus of our Bible study!

  • God’s Nature in the Natural World – Take 1

    Study Guide Q2: How much of God’s nature and will can be determined from nature? How do the natural and moral laws of God differ?

    This question spans this less and the next, which is about God as creator. I suggest doing it as I’m doing it here and taking a look first from the point of view of God’s direct or “special” revelation, and then looking at it again after looking at God as creator, and what this might mean about the physical world. Applicable additional reading is Psalm 33 and Romans 1-3. Genesis 1-2 & 6-9 provide more advanced background.

    This question is not a primary concern of the book of Hebrews. The reason I suggest studying it at this point is simply to round out one’s doctrine of divine communication. I think that too frequently we look simply at a doctrine of scripture, or of prophetic utterance, and not at the overall view of how God communicates with people.

    The author of Hebrews is focussed on God’s communication specifically through prophets. He does see this as happening in small portions at different times and in different ways. He also clearly sees the communication via the events of history and the testimony of individuals in the long history of God’s relationship with Israel (see especially Hebrews 11). His focus is on showing the superiority of the revelation though Jesus due to the superiority of the messenger. But just what is the actual superiority of the message?

    One exercise I suggest is taking each major topic and then re-reading the book of Hebrews with that topic and its major questions in mind. This means that if one completes all 13 lessons of the study guide, one will have read the book of Hebrews a minimum of 13 times during the course of that study. This may seem like a lot of reading to many people, but the book is actually only a few pages, and you will benefit from such study.

    But the revelation through prophets and even the revelation through Jesus Christ is not the whole of God’s revelation. Paul tells us: “For [God’s] invisible attributes, his unending power and divinity, have been understood and seen since the creation of the world” (Romans 1:20). I would suggest that this is a neglected text. Just how much can one learn simply from the creation without the benefit of direct revelation. Paul seems to think this revelation is sufficient that there is no excuse for missing the essentials of this revelation. Thus apparently one can derive from God’s created things sufficient to be in favor with God, i.e. presumably for salvation, and this is clear enough that one cannot be excused for failing to understand. I don’t think we give enough weight to the implications of this passage in Romans.

    But Paul continues later:

    12 All who have sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all. — Romans 2:12-16

    This passage makes several additional points. First, according to verses 15 & 16, this knowledge is sufficient for one to take into judgment, and God may find the person acceptable. Second, there is an interesting possible allusion to the law written on the heart (Jeremiah 31:33), a characteristic of the Messianic age. Third, it is apparent that one can follow the law instinctively.

    The further passages on the creation emphasize that the creation, the physical universe, results from God’s word, from God’s will and command. This suggests that we can learn a great deal about God simply from the way he has constructed the universe. I would suggest that Christians ignore this aspect of God’s revelation too frequently. I discuss one aspect of this in my post Evolution, Theology, and Respect.

    Let me suggest not conclusions, but questions:

    1. What can we learn about God from nature?
    2. What is the role of the Holy Spirit when we receive revelation?
    3. Does the Holy Spirit always enlighten the mind of one who honestly seeks knowledge (a broadened prevenient grace)?
    4. How does the revelation of God in the natural world interact with direct or special revelation?

  • Cute Bunny Rabbits, Eggs, and Resurrection

    Is there a resurrection in your future? In your near future?

    Often concerned Christians complain about the pagan background of Easter, and such practices as Easter eggs, bunny rabbits, and all the signs of spring. Pagan religions in many countries have celebrated spring and the new life that it represents. Fall and spring festivals celebrate the cycle of life as we know it. I believe there is something very appropriate in placing the Christian celebration of the resurrection at the time of the spring, and I am even pretty happy with some of the pagan connections.

    Christian easter both reaffirms and transforms the idea generally behind spring festivals. (I’m not trying to make a connection with any particular festival here; I’m just looking at spring festivals in general.) We celebrate on the one hand that God does renew things on a regular basis. There may be valleys in our lives, but there are also mountaintops, and if we’re traveling with God, we know that the mountaintops will follow the valleys without fail. For every trial there’s a potential victory. We live in a world of death, but at the same time a world of life.

    As Christians we often look down on those pagan religions that emphasize fertility. Stories of sexual orgies and perversions help foster that attitude. But the elements of excess and perversion are just that–a perversion of something that God made and that God said was good. Human sexuality and reproduction are to be celebrated. Why? Because they provide us with the best example of God’s life giving power placed in our own hands. The passion of a husband for his wife, or a wife for her husband and the response of one to the other provide the greatest metaphor of God’s passion for his people and our response to him. It is not that sex is dirty without the metaphor; it is God’s gift of life and of passion. Try reading Song of Solomon as a love story. Don’t worry about any spirituality; just read it as passionate poetry and enjoy it. It is that passion that represents God’s desire to commune with you, to be intimate with you, and to renew your life.

    At the same time the resurrection transforms the whole idea of a spring festival. In many ancient religions there was an endless cycle of celebrations or commemorations of the changing of the seasons with no expectation that humanity was going anywhere. The resurrection transforms that. We are not in an endless cycle; God has a plan! We’re going somewhere. That’s the central message of Easter. We cannot have Easter without first going through Good Friday. The trial came first. But the cross would be a symbol of death if it was not followed by Easter. The resurrection breaks the cycle and brings life.

    So enjoy the cute fluffy bunnies, and eat the chocolate easter eggs. There’s a resurrection in your future!

  • Hebrews 2:1-4: Such a Great Salvation

    [Note: The reason I am jumping from 1:1-4 to 2:1-4 is that my study guide is thematic rather than verse by verse. Hebrews 1:5-14 is part of the reading for lesson 5. I am not including a post on textual issues in this passage, because there are no substantial textual issues.]

    Because this passage is packed quite tightly, let me phrase it first:

        1Because of this
    we need to pay even greater heed
        to the things which we have heard
        so that we won’t drift away.
    2The message
        brought by angels {ref: Galatians 3:19}
            was firm,
            and every transgression and disobedience received its just punishment.
    3How then shall we escape
        after neglecting such a tremendous deliverance?
            The Lord spoke of this deliverance first,
            then it was confirmed to us by those who heard him.
            4God also confirmed their testimony
            with signs and wonders and various powerful deeds,
            and with the Holy Spirit
                apportioned according to his will.

    There are quite a number of ways this could be done, but this should give a picture of the elements of the passage.

    This passage has a fairly simple basic meaning: The law is good, but the message brought by Jesus is better. In the section I skipped over, 1:5-14, our author has established that Jesus is greater than the angels. Now we start to see the purpose of those passages. (While I recommend reading the entire book of Hebrews each week during this study, at a minimum, read from the beginning of the book to 2:4.) As modern Christians, this argument seems redundant. We’re used to seeing Jesus as greater than the angels; as trinitarian Christians we are used to seeing him as God incarnate, so it seems redundant to spend all this time establishing that he is greater than the angels. But remember that when Hebrews was written, all of this was still rather controversial. It would be centuries before the precise definition of the trinity and the details of the incaranation as we know them today were defined.

    So relying on the tradition that the law was mediated by angels (Galatians 3:19), originally intended to honor the law, our author now states that the message that Jesus has brought is greater, primarily because of the messenger. But he also introduces the specific problem he’s writing this letter to correct. There are people in the audience who are in danger of giving up and straying from the faith, probably because they feel that the reward is too long in coming.

    pay even greater heed. This is a call to both pay attention to the word and also to keep it. See Deuteronomy 32:46, which uses the same Greek word for “paying heed” as does this verse.

    to the things which we have heard. The gospel message, passed on by those who first preached the message to them. It is possible that this community was established by eyewitnesses to the ministry of Jesus (see below).

    so that we won’t drift away. “Drift away” is a nautical term. It is likely that our author is developing a nautical metaphor here, combining the Greek words for “paying heed” or “holding fast” and “drift away.” Barclay says:

    But both these words have also a nautical sense. Prosechein can mean to moor a ship; and pararrein can be used of a ship which has been carelessly allowed to slip past a harbour or a haven because the mariner has forgotten to allow for the wind or the current or the tide. So, then, this first verse could be very vividly translated: “Therefore, we must the more eagerly anchor our lives to the things taht we have been taught lest the ship of life drift past the harbour and be wrecked.” It is a vivid picture of a ship drifting to destruction because the pilot sleeps. (William Barclay, the Letter to the Hebrews [Revised Edition], p. 21.)

    every transgression and disobedience received its just punishment. The law had required punishments, and was very strict. Christians often view the New Testament as much easier and lighter. In some ways this will be expressed in Hebrews as well, but the way in which it is “easier” is not that the requirements or less or that it is less important. It is not an easier path; it is, in fact, even harder. But what makes it so much better is the help that we have. Jesus is our pioneer, our advocate, and so we have a much better path and a much better guide.

    How then shall we escape after neglecting such a tremendous deliverance? The new message provides greater requirements, a greater goal, but also a greater possibility. Think of a person trapped by a flood. They try to swim, but fail, and turn back. They try a boat, but it sinks. Then someone provides a full pontoon bridge over which they can cross to dry ground without even getting wet, and a vehicle to ride in. If the person who is captured then fails to go to safety, what can possibly be done? This is essentially what our author is starting to say here: Jesus has provided a way that is so much better that he cannot imagine anything else that one can do. If we neglect this salvation, we’re just going to drown!

    What makes the way better? That is the message of the latter part of verse 3 and of verse 4:

    • The Lord spoke of this deliverance first,
      The message was brought by the Son (1:1-4). The greater message is carried by a greater messenger.
    • then it was confirmed to us by those who heard him.
      We received the confirmation from eyewitnesses who heard the words spoken.
    • 4God also confirmed their testimony
      In case we doubt their word, God confirms it. The term is a rare one and probably has a legal sense of “corroborate.”
    • with signs and wonders and various powerful deeds,
      The signs and wonders that followed the apostles confirm the message. But more importantly the gospel transforms lives. I’m writing this on the Saturday of Easter weekend, and so the cross’s transforming power is in my mind. The transforming power of the cross is demonstrated in its own transformation. (See my Good Friday meditation on Threads from Henry’s Web, Transforming the Cross.)
    • and with the Holy Spirit apportioned according to his will.
      The presence and gifts of the Holy Spirit, given according to God’s will in order for his church to accomplish the gospel commission, are evidences of the reality of the message of the gospel.

    More powerful message = greater necessity for obedience.

  • Transforming the Cross

    Transforming the Cross

    Not Ashamed of the Gospel: Confessions of a Liberal Charismatic[The following Good Friday meditation is extracted and slightly adapted from my book Not Ashamed of the Gospel: Confessions of a Liberal Charismatic, pp. 17-22. This post was truncated at some point in the history of this blog. This is a restoration of the content on January 6, 2018.]

    There might be many reasons why someone would be ashamed of the good news about God that is represented in what we call the “gospel.”

    Historically, the shame was in worshipping a convicted and executed criminal, calling him God and following his teachings.  Very few people doubt that Jesus died, and that he was executed by the barbaric method of crucifixion.  Raised from the dead, alive today—that’s another matter entirely.  But the death is the best established thing about Jesus.  I’ve entered into debates about whether such a person as Jesus existed historically.  All of these debates start—must start—with a list of things that I will demonstrate limiting myself strictly to the tools of a historian, to the extent that past events can be demonstrated.  These are the things that Jesus did or that happened to him.  Many scholars have created such lists.  Invariably, “crucified by the Romans” is on them.  Jesus’ death by crucifixion is as established as a historical fact gets.

    It seems remote and distant to us.  If we have shame in anything about Jesus or Christianity, it is something different than it was for Paul and other early disciples.  For us, the cross is the symbol of a religion, a person, or a faith system.  We see it on churches every day.  We have pictures of crosses, sometimes with a figure of Jesus hanging on them.  Sometimes the figure will be portrayed with a halo.  We make earrings and necklaces with crosses.  We know the crucifixion is a horrible thing, but the symbols involved in it have become commonplace and familiar, and they are objects involved in the rituals of the church, not in execution.

    We may be ashamed of some of the people who carry crosses, or of some of the groups that worship in buildings with crosses on them.  We may object to where crosses are placed, such as on the lawns of public buildings.  But none of this is quite what the “shame of the cross” would have been for the early followers of Jesus.

    Put yourself back in Paul’s time.  Jesus was recently executed.  The one political power in the world was the authority by which that execution was carried out.  That particular form of execution was one reserved for the worst, and especially for rebels and political offenders.  There was a shame in worshipping someone who had been crucified.  It had the aura and the stigma of worshipping a mass murderer, perhaps a bit like modern Americans would feel about a cult worshipping Charles Manson.

    But in addition, it was something dangerous.  The followers of Jesus were proclaiming as divine someone executed by the Roman authorities.  Divinity was being carried by someone who was a rebel and a dangerous character.  Proclaiming the kingdom of a rebel was an act of rebellion in and of itself.

    And here we have Paul proclaiming that he is not ashamed of this good news.  He glories in the cross, glories in an instrument of shame.  In disaster, he finds good news.

    One of the key elements of that good news lies in the fact that you see a cross with much different emotions than did the people of Paul’s day.  That element is transformation.  The symbol of the cross has been transformed from one of disaster, death, agony, shame, and despair into one of hope for many people.  Not all people, and we’ll discuss that as well.

    That transformation comes from the way in which God used the experience of the cross.  God came to the earth in the human form of Jesus.  God experienced life with us.  He took action as we might need to take action under the circumstances of our lives.  He found himself in an occupied country, living under cruel foreign domination.  He didn’t just come and appear on a mountaintop.  He got involved in human experiences, human emotions, human weaknesses, and yes, human strengths as well.  When it came down to it, he died a death in just the way that a human would have to do it in that time and place.

    The first part, then, of the transformation was involvement.  The cross would never have been transformed as a symbol without the involvement.  God, the infinite gap-crosser, crossed the gap and stayed on our side long enough to experience the worst of the worst.

    But not only did he get involved, he stayed involved.  The second part of that transformation was endurance.  God didn’t quit.  He carried through.  If he had not, we could think of the wonderful time when God was with people, lived with us, talked with us, worked with us, but we would always have a distance from him, because he would never have experienced the one thing that seems to terrify most of us—death.  “Through death, he destroyed the one who had the power of death” (Hebrews 2:14).  “He endured the cross; he treated the shame with contempt” (Hebrews 12:2).

    Jesus knew when to ignore what others thought was shame.  The shame was intended to fall on the one who was punished.  But Jesus had no reason to be ashamed and he knew it.  Knowing what one should ignore is an important part of living in this imperfect world.  Many people, Christians and others, have endured torture and death with dignity and even peace because they knew this lesson.  What was intended to bring shame on them instead became a source of glory.

    The transformation that Jesus accomplished on the cross, symbolized by the transformation of the cross itself, is something that we all can grasp.  Circumstances and our environment are not fixed things that we have to take as they are.  They can be transformed by our attitude and by the way that we deal with them.  Every cross in your life, everything that you would prefer not to have done or not to have encountered can be transformed.  When we give testimonies of things that have happened to us, this is what we are doing.  Some think that testimony meetings are about telling how dark our lives were before God intervened.  And sometimes they are.  But if you are focusing on the darkness, and the negative things that have happened, perhaps you haven’t let those things be transformed yet.  Did you become involved, stay involved, and endure?  Did you have contempt for the supposed shame?  The real point of a testimony, a witness, is to present how things have changed, not how much they are the same.

    But there’s one more part of this process.  Some of you may be wondering whether I’m going to ignore it.

    Jesus triumphed over the adversity.  He rose again from the dead.  His movement should have died.  It came back to life.  Without this, the transformation could not have taken place.  In this sense, only one who was God, or totally in tune with God’s spirit, could have triumphed.  We daily deal with circumstances and troubles.  Jesus was dealing with the nastiest circumstance of all—death.  He was there to deny and destroy the one who had the power over death.

    I’m not going to argue here about the physical resurrection of Jesus.  It’s very hard, if not impossible to prove a miracle.  But I do think the greatest evidence that something different happened that day in Palestine is that the movement surrounding Jesus didn’t go away.  Having seen Jesus crucified, his movement should have failed, but it didn’t.

    But the critical element in transforming the symbol of the cross from one of shame to one of hope and glory was simply that the followers of Jesus believed that he had conquered death.  You may debate me about the idea that without something special happening on the morning of the resurrection, the followers of Jesus would simply have scattered.  You may have another explanation you think works as well.  But I think there can be no doubt that unless the followers of Jesus believed that something had happened, there would have been no transformation, no Jesus movement, no Christianity, and the cross would forever have remained a symbol of shame, or passed into history as an example of the barbarism of ancient cultures.

    But the fact is that those followers did believe, they didn’t scatter, but continued to proclaim the victory of the person the Romans had crucified.  And it was in that proclamation that the cross was transformed.

    Jesus could have died with dignity, endured the shame, and risen from the dead, but if nobody had arisen to proclaim those facts, no transformation would have taken place.  It took human beings getting involved, carrying the message, and acting on the good news.  I’m sometimes accused of being very human oriented in my religious beliefs.  But I believe that this orientation toward what people do and how they respond is thoroughly Biblical.  Not only did God accomplish reconciliation through Christ, but he gave us the same ministry.  In other words, God knows and intends the human element to be critical in carrying out his mission on earth.

     

  • Why Doesn’t God Speak Directly?

    Note: I strongly recommend that if you are taking my class in Hebrews, or who are following my study guide through the book answer the study guide questions before reading this entry. The purpose of the thought questions is to provide an opportunity to think. These are just some of my own thoughts on the question.

    Q#2: Why does God use prophets rather than speaking to everyone?

    The actual genesis of this question was in a small study group I was leading several years ago. Part of the group program was that we would take however much time the members wanted to and work through the meaning of each passage as long as the group cared to do so. This led to some rather lengthy arguments, and often to nitpicking the meaning. (You should only use this kind of approach in a study group if everyone truly wants to do it.) In one such session we were debating some passages in Revelation, and one of the members finally gave in to frustration and said, “Why can’t God just write all this out in the sky clearly, so that we would know beyond any doubt what it meant?”

    Now that’s not the same question I’m asking, but it’s related. We’re starting the study of Hebrews, and the key passage for this first lesson is Hebrews 1:1-4. God has spoken at various times and in various ways through the prophets. Now, in the last days, he has spoken by means of his Son. But you and I still have to listen to God speak to someone else. We don’t see a physical Jesus or hear him preach. Instead we read reports of what he said to other people 2,000 years ago. We don’t even get to listen to the author of Hebrews; indeed, we can’t seem to agree on who he (or some say she) is. So again we’re hearing him speak to other people, and we are kind of eavesdropping. Why doesn’t God make it clearer? Why doesn’t it speak directly to me?

    It’s not just speaking directly, though. It’s the clarity that’s important. If God would just make the message personal, we would not have to consider just what the principles are, and how to apply them to our own lives–we’d know!

    Personally I believe that God does speak to each person directly, but clarity is another matter. In doing prayer ministry, one reason people will ask me to pray with them is that they believe they have heard from God, but they’re not sure that it is God, or they’re not sure just how to put it into practice.

    This is not a question that we can resolve in a single blog entry, but it’s a good question to think about. Let me make some suggestions to think about, and then also provide links to some other things I have written on the same subject.

    1. God wants us to learn to think. We often treasure the work of the prophets, and we like the results of the wisdom writers, but are we willing to do the work that goes behind wisdom? Hebrews 5:14 tell us: “14Solid food is for the mature, for those who through practice have exercised their understanding to distinguish good and evil.” God may well want us to practice our own judgment and discernment and grow in wisdom.
    2. God wants us to hear from him in a community. Any one of us can go wildly astray on our own, but when we have accountability to brothers and sisters, at a minimum we have to consider the response of those close to us to what we say. Even writing this blog entry has made me give new consideration to this particular question.
    3. God wants to leave us free to make unpressured decisions. This is hard for some of us to understand, because we think we want to know and do precisely what God commands. But if God made himself too obvious, we might feel pressured just by his obvious presence, sort of like having the boss breathing down our neck.
    4. Those who actually listen to God are rare. It’s possible that God is speaking a great deal more than we are hearing, and that the prophets are the ones who listen more. If this one sounds good to you, make sure to consider the idea of the prophetic call Ezekiel 1 or Isaiah 6, for example, in this connection. Is it possible God calls many, and only a few hear and report the situation?

    Now let me provide a few links to material on this topic.

    For inspiration and testing claims that someone is speaking for God read my series that starts with The One Ended Crod. In addition, the Participatory Study Series pamphlets What is the Word of God?, The Authority of the Bible, and Spiritual Gifts: Prophecy.

    On the possibility that God prefers freedom to security and certainty, see my entry Evolution, Theology, and Respect.