Hebrews 11 takes a different direction from the preceding chapters. It provides numerous examples of faith from people in the Old Testament. The common thread is that they all believed in God's promises to them, they acted on it on faith, and were blessed even though they did not receive the full blessing in their lifetime.
The examples run the gambit from Abel (who was killed for his offering) through the prostitute Rahab at the time of Joshua. The author leaves the reader wanting more by saying he did not have time to cover anyone else, including Gideon, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel, and the prophets.
Personally, I wish the author did include a commentary on Jephthah. His story is one of the strangest in the Old Testament in which it seems like he sacrificed his own daughter. (Judges 11:34-40).
The author makes a curious statement about faith. In particular, one must have faith and believe in God in order for an act of faith to count. This in interesting. I understand this to mean that God does not want blindly following ritual patterns.
I do not think this means that God overlooks efforts by a person of little or no faith to find faith. If we remember earlier in the book, the author is intentionally addressing mature Christians by saying his book includes solid food, not just milk (6:1-3). In that context, the author seems to address those who act with mature faith, but really have little or none.
So how do we get more faith? The author of Hebrews does not seem to address it. But we know from elsewhere in the Bible that faith comes from God. For instance, Galatians 5:22 states it is one of the fruits of the spirit. Ephesians 2:8-10 might indicate that faith is a gift from God, but the text is a little nebulous at what precisely is the gift - grace, salvation, or faith.
A few other things that stand out to me about Hebrews:
The "by faith" examples begin with the story of Cain and Abel (11:4) who may be the precedent for animal and vegetable sacrifices that God codified in the Mosaic law. Again, there seems to be know command by God for them to sacrifice anything, it seems they just did it on their volition.
"By faith" Abraham almost sacrificed his son. The author of Hebrews provides the reason for Abraham in that he reasoned God could raise Isaac from the dead. (11: 17-19). The text from Genesis is silent as to this, so it is an interesting statement to make in the New Testament.
Monday, April 29, 2013
Saturday, April 27, 2013
A call to Persevere (Hebrews 10:19-39)
The second half of Hebrews 10 falls the audience in perseverance of faith.
It ends by reminding the reader of persecution and how they previously stayed fast, even at the face of insults and confiscation of property. I think that is the context in which to read the prior statements.
The prior statements can seem a bit harsh. It talks about people who deliberately keep on sinning after receiving the knowledge of truth. The author alludes that they will be treated with revenge and repayment by God. The author indicates that it will be a terrible thing.
Grace and mercy are a major theme of this book. But this is juxtaposed against taking it for granted and rejecting God.
I struggle with this book, to be honest.
It ends by reminding the reader of persecution and how they previously stayed fast, even at the face of insults and confiscation of property. I think that is the context in which to read the prior statements.
The prior statements can seem a bit harsh. It talks about people who deliberately keep on sinning after receiving the knowledge of truth. The author alludes that they will be treated with revenge and repayment by God. The author indicates that it will be a terrible thing.
Grace and mercy are a major theme of this book. But this is juxtaposed against taking it for granted and rejecting God.
I struggle with this book, to be honest.
Friday, April 26, 2013
More on animal sacrifices (Hebrews 10:1-18)
The first part of Hebrews 10 continues the theme of animal sacrifices. A few statements stand out to me:
God did want or desire animal sacrifices. (verse 8, citing Psalm 40:6-8). Likewise, it was "impossible" for the blood of animals to remove sin. (verse 4).
This stands out to me because it suggests that God knew the Old Covenant would be defective all along. Despite that, God used it.
Why would God do this? I don't know.
Here is one idea I will throw out now, is that actually honors the traditions at the time of the Mosaic Law. Abraham and the other patriarchs performed animal sacrifices, which God honored. How did Abraham know to do this when the Mosaic Law's prescriptions came down afterwards?
I don't know. Perhaps it stems from Cain and Able, who gave offerings to God. However, in Genesis 4, I cannot find a directive from God about sacrifices. It seems that Cain and Able voluntarily decided to do it.
I am not sure where the idea of animal sacrifices first arose. It seems to have been a common ritual at the time, which God honored.
Another thought on the impossibility statement in the text. If people could not afford animals, they could offer the grain offerings. Obviously, grain does not have blood.
Looking at all this collectively, the Old Covenant sacrifices were never perfect. But yet, God had a relationship with the people. What does that say about God? To me, it shows God's mercy.
God did want or desire animal sacrifices. (verse 8, citing Psalm 40:6-8). Likewise, it was "impossible" for the blood of animals to remove sin. (verse 4).
This stands out to me because it suggests that God knew the Old Covenant would be defective all along. Despite that, God used it.
Why would God do this? I don't know.
Here is one idea I will throw out now, is that actually honors the traditions at the time of the Mosaic Law. Abraham and the other patriarchs performed animal sacrifices, which God honored. How did Abraham know to do this when the Mosaic Law's prescriptions came down afterwards?
I don't know. Perhaps it stems from Cain and Able, who gave offerings to God. However, in Genesis 4, I cannot find a directive from God about sacrifices. It seems that Cain and Able voluntarily decided to do it.
I am not sure where the idea of animal sacrifices first arose. It seems to have been a common ritual at the time, which God honored.
Another thought on the impossibility statement in the text. If people could not afford animals, they could offer the grain offerings. Obviously, grain does not have blood.
Looking at all this collectively, the Old Covenant sacrifices were never perfect. But yet, God had a relationship with the people. What does that say about God? To me, it shows God's mercy.
A Heavenly Tabernacle (Hebrews 9)
In chapter 9, the author of Hebrews further discusses the role of Jesus as a High Priest.
He states the pieces of the original tabernacle, the Holy Place, were actually copies of things that appear in Heaven. These would include the altar, the incense, the ark, and the cherubim. As the High Priest enters the Tabernacle to make offerings, so did Jesus enter the Heavenly throne to present himself as High Priest to God.
Of course, this is why do not do animal sacrifices anymore.
It has been over two thousand since the birth of Christ, so we look back with what is now a long Christian tradition. So with that, animal sacrifices have been discontinued since the first century.
I think we might actually take it for granted that we do not need to do animal sacrifices anymore. When we read Leviticus today with its numerous rules on sacrifices, it feels a little odd.
A question to ponder - did the author of Hebrews write because Christians were still doing animal sacrifices? It would not surprise me, either way actually. Animal sacrifices still occurred the temple of Jerusalem because it still was a Jewish temple. Did Christians partake in it? It is quite possible.
He states the pieces of the original tabernacle, the Holy Place, were actually copies of things that appear in Heaven. These would include the altar, the incense, the ark, and the cherubim. As the High Priest enters the Tabernacle to make offerings, so did Jesus enter the Heavenly throne to present himself as High Priest to God.
Of course, this is why do not do animal sacrifices anymore.
It has been over two thousand since the birth of Christ, so we look back with what is now a long Christian tradition. So with that, animal sacrifices have been discontinued since the first century.
I think we might actually take it for granted that we do not need to do animal sacrifices anymore. When we read Leviticus today with its numerous rules on sacrifices, it feels a little odd.
A question to ponder - did the author of Hebrews write because Christians were still doing animal sacrifices? It would not surprise me, either way actually. Animal sacrifices still occurred the temple of Jerusalem because it still was a Jewish temple. Did Christians partake in it? It is quite possible.
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
A New Priest for a New Covenant (Hebrews 7-8)
The logic of the proceeding chapters seem to coalesce around chapters 7-8.
Here, author further discusses Melchizedek. For instance, we do not know much about him as a person. Yet, Melchizedek was greater than Abraham because Abraham gave him a 10% as a tithe. This became the standard for the Levite priests to collect. Indirectly, Levi paid homage to Melchizedek because Levi was still within Abraham.
The author of Hebrews likens Jesus to Melchizedek in connection with Psalm 110.
The author transitions to since there is a change in priesthood, there must be a change in the law. This is the New Covenant, as outlined in 8.
The New Covenant is characterized by the following:
1. An individual personal knowledge (i.e., relationship) God (v. 11, "they will all know me")
2. People's hearts will change and God's laws will be written on their hears (v. 10)
3. It makes the "Old" Covenant obsolete. (v. 13)
Some implications of this that come to my mind.
First, Christians still disagree about what is "Old Covenant" and what is "New Covenant". In other words, what laws, principles, or examples in the Old Testament are applicable today? It is a very common disagreement among Christians.
Second, we can infer a causality relationship from the writing of the laws on the heart and personal relationship with God. Inviting God into one's life is a step into having the laws written on one's heart. This is what I think of when the New Testament authors write of "fruits of the Holy Spirit".
Here, author further discusses Melchizedek. For instance, we do not know much about him as a person. Yet, Melchizedek was greater than Abraham because Abraham gave him a 10% as a tithe. This became the standard for the Levite priests to collect. Indirectly, Levi paid homage to Melchizedek because Levi was still within Abraham.
The author of Hebrews likens Jesus to Melchizedek in connection with Psalm 110.
The author transitions to since there is a change in priesthood, there must be a change in the law. This is the New Covenant, as outlined in 8.
The New Covenant is characterized by the following:
1. An individual personal knowledge (i.e., relationship) God (v. 11, "they will all know me")
2. People's hearts will change and God's laws will be written on their hears (v. 10)
3. It makes the "Old" Covenant obsolete. (v. 13)
Some implications of this that come to my mind.
First, Christians still disagree about what is "Old Covenant" and what is "New Covenant". In other words, what laws, principles, or examples in the Old Testament are applicable today? It is a very common disagreement among Christians.
Second, we can infer a causality relationship from the writing of the laws on the heart and personal relationship with God. Inviting God into one's life is a step into having the laws written on one's heart. This is what I think of when the New Testament authors write of "fruits of the Holy Spirit".
God Swears by Himself (Hebrews 6:13-20)
The author of Hebrews discusses that God's oath is confirmed by making the statement itself. (v.17). This is because it is impossible for God to lie. (v.18). Interestingly, the author compares it to human oath by swearing on a person "greater than oneself", in order to confirm the oath. (v. 16).
This is something largely out of practice, so it is a little hard to relate to. Although people still say things like "I swear by God" and so forth. What people do not do is make statements like "I swear by the King" or "I swear by the President of the United States".
This is something largely out of practice, so it is a little hard to relate to. Although people still say things like "I swear by God" and so forth. What people do not do is make statements like "I swear by the King" or "I swear by the President of the United States".
Can people lose their salvation? (Hebrews 6:4-12)
Presumably, the author now wants to discuss "meat". Here, he goes into some uncomfortable territory. He says that is impossible for those received the Holy Spirit, if they fall away, to come back. The stated reason is that it crucifies God twice.
I will be honest, I am not entirely sure what this means. My mind focuses on the word "impossible". What exactly is impossible? Is it impossible for men to do? Is it impossible to completely fall away? Does it mean they never were saved to begin with?
It is a hard question and maybe my ability to eat "meat" is too low to make sense of it.
All I can do is look to the Gospels to sort it out. In Mark 10, Jesus stated that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God. (v. 25) The disciples asked who then can be saved? (v. 26) In response, Jesus said that with God, all things are possible. (v. 27).
The context of the question from the disciples in the Gospels actually relates to the section in Hebrews - salvation.
God wants people to come to him. God will what do is impossible.
I will be honest, I am not entirely sure what this means. My mind focuses on the word "impossible". What exactly is impossible? Is it impossible for men to do? Is it impossible to completely fall away? Does it mean they never were saved to begin with?
It is a hard question and maybe my ability to eat "meat" is too low to make sense of it.
All I can do is look to the Gospels to sort it out. In Mark 10, Jesus stated that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God. (v. 25) The disciples asked who then can be saved? (v. 26) In response, Jesus said that with God, all things are possible. (v. 27).
The context of the question from the disciples in the Gospels actually relates to the section in Hebrews - salvation.
God wants people to come to him. God will what do is impossible.
Milk and meat (Hebrews 5:11-6:3)
Here is the relatively famous concept of milk and meat (NIV, "solid food").
The author tells the readers that they should be teachers, not needing basic teachings themselves. By analogy to food, they should be mature enough to eat solid food, not milk.
I have heard the phrase "milk and meat" a lot. From my observation, it comes in the context of people either belittling the spiritual maturity of others and saying "they" (other people) need milk, not meat. To some extent, this is understandable since this is the pattern the author of Hebrews sets.
The other context is a person belittling the instruction that they are getting. In essence, they say "what you are feeding me is milk, when I want meat".
What does the author say about it?
Maturity comes from using discerning between good and evil. In fact, it comes from 'constant use' of it. (5:14). This allows someone to be mature enough for meat. Can anyone really say we have used it "constantly". No. Likewise, the manner in which these judgments are made or expressed can show a lack of the precise maturity that is required.
The author tells the readers that they should be teachers, not needing basic teachings themselves. By analogy to food, they should be mature enough to eat solid food, not milk.
I have heard the phrase "milk and meat" a lot. From my observation, it comes in the context of people either belittling the spiritual maturity of others and saying "they" (other people) need milk, not meat. To some extent, this is understandable since this is the pattern the author of Hebrews sets.
The other context is a person belittling the instruction that they are getting. In essence, they say "what you are feeding me is milk, when I want meat".
What does the author say about it?
Maturity comes from using discerning between good and evil. In fact, it comes from 'constant use' of it. (5:14). This allows someone to be mature enough for meat. Can anyone really say we have used it "constantly". No. Likewise, the manner in which these judgments are made or expressed can show a lack of the precise maturity that is required.
Jesus, the High Priest like Melchizedek (Hebrews 4:14-5:10)
At the end of chapter 4, Hebrews seems to transition to discussing Jesus' role as High Priest, following the "Order of Melchizedek".
Melchizedek was the priest and king of Salem who met with Abraham. Later, the author of Hebrews points out that this priest did not come from the line of Levite priests, which was instituted in the law of Moses. Similarly, Jesus takes on the role of High Priest from outside the Levite line, but rather as a descendant of David.
So, God is going outside the Levite line and returning to something that even preceded that, Melchizedek.
In some ways, we can probably even think of Melchizedek as a "Gentile priest", since the Hebrew people of Israel were all descendants of Abraham.
Here, the author of Hebrews traces the order of Jesus' priesthood to Melchizedek. The author refers to Psalm 110, which is an interesting psalm that has Messianic undertone of conquest.
Hebrews 4:16 really stands out to me as it states "let us approach the throne of grace with confidence". What interests me about that is that the high priest must do his own sacrifices to clean himself before doing sacrifices for others. Here, that is circumvented - WE can approach the throne of grace.
Thank you Jesus!
Melchizedek was the priest and king of Salem who met with Abraham. Later, the author of Hebrews points out that this priest did not come from the line of Levite priests, which was instituted in the law of Moses. Similarly, Jesus takes on the role of High Priest from outside the Levite line, but rather as a descendant of David.
So, God is going outside the Levite line and returning to something that even preceded that, Melchizedek.
In some ways, we can probably even think of Melchizedek as a "Gentile priest", since the Hebrew people of Israel were all descendants of Abraham.
Here, the author of Hebrews traces the order of Jesus' priesthood to Melchizedek. The author refers to Psalm 110, which is an interesting psalm that has Messianic undertone of conquest.
Hebrews 4:16 really stands out to me as it states "let us approach the throne of grace with confidence". What interests me about that is that the high priest must do his own sacrifices to clean himself before doing sacrifices for others. Here, that is circumvented - WE can approach the throne of grace.
Thank you Jesus!
Thursday, April 11, 2013
The New Testament Sabbath (Hebrews 4:1-13)
The writer of Hebrews states that the promise of rest still remains.
The logic the author uses focuses on "God's rest", I.e., the rest of God. I think this means the restful spirit of God. If we take on God's rest, then we will by our nature enter a Sabbath rest where we refrain from work.
This opens other questions. Before we address them, let's remind ourselves of Colossians 2:16-17 which states (1) that the Sabbath was a shadow of Christ, and (2) people should not judge each other about the Sabbath, I.e., it is flexible.
What does it mean to work or to abstain from working?
The focus on the text is on "rest", not a particular type of rest or work. The nature of "rest" is actually subjective and individualized. It depends on what you do for "work."
For example, when I worked as a lawyer, I sat in a chair reading for long hours of the day. If that was my day job, "rest" to me actually was manual labor and exercise. It revitalized me and became a joy I really looked forward to.
During the fall, watching Sunday afternoon football and taking a nap is extremely restful for me.
For others, perhaps shopping is restful, reading a novel, or playing board games.
Which day(s)? How frequent? Once a week? Once a month?
The text is actually silent on a particular day, but does use the example of God resting once a week, it seems to endorse that pattern.
The text is silent as to whether we should follow the Jewish custom of Saturday or pick another day. From my reading of Colossians 2:16, I do not think God cares.
Likewise, from Acts 2:46, we know the early church met "every day", which means that any and every day could be a day devoted for God or church activities.
Is this a command?
The way I read it, it sounds like a strong suggestion and a goal, rather than a command. There are jobs where people must work all week long, or at least be on call and potentially work all week long. Examples of this could include the military and civil services (police, medical, and fire responders). Likewise, in times of emergency, people work all week long.
But these are the exception, not the rule. It is not a sin to work during an emergency, for even the Pharisees would help their ox on a Sabbath if it fell into a ditch.
The important part is to take a break.
Modern application - the weekend
Putting all this together, I think we actually have two Sabbath days in the modern context. We have a weekend, which are two consecutive days of "rest" from our normal routine.
There are people who "work" on weekends. For example, professional football games are usually on Sundays. Likewise, preachers work on weekends. For them, the work weekend actually would be after the normal weekend, such as Monday.
The logic the author uses focuses on "God's rest", I.e., the rest of God. I think this means the restful spirit of God. If we take on God's rest, then we will by our nature enter a Sabbath rest where we refrain from work.
This opens other questions. Before we address them, let's remind ourselves of Colossians 2:16-17 which states (1) that the Sabbath was a shadow of Christ, and (2) people should not judge each other about the Sabbath, I.e., it is flexible.
What does it mean to work or to abstain from working?
The focus on the text is on "rest", not a particular type of rest or work. The nature of "rest" is actually subjective and individualized. It depends on what you do for "work."
For example, when I worked as a lawyer, I sat in a chair reading for long hours of the day. If that was my day job, "rest" to me actually was manual labor and exercise. It revitalized me and became a joy I really looked forward to.
During the fall, watching Sunday afternoon football and taking a nap is extremely restful for me.
For others, perhaps shopping is restful, reading a novel, or playing board games.
Which day(s)? How frequent? Once a week? Once a month?
The text is actually silent on a particular day, but does use the example of God resting once a week, it seems to endorse that pattern.
The text is silent as to whether we should follow the Jewish custom of Saturday or pick another day. From my reading of Colossians 2:16, I do not think God cares.
Likewise, from Acts 2:46, we know the early church met "every day", which means that any and every day could be a day devoted for God or church activities.
Is this a command?
The way I read it, it sounds like a strong suggestion and a goal, rather than a command. There are jobs where people must work all week long, or at least be on call and potentially work all week long. Examples of this could include the military and civil services (police, medical, and fire responders). Likewise, in times of emergency, people work all week long.
But these are the exception, not the rule. It is not a sin to work during an emergency, for even the Pharisees would help their ox on a Sabbath if it fell into a ditch.
The important part is to take a break.
Modern application - the weekend
Putting all this together, I think we actually have two Sabbath days in the modern context. We have a weekend, which are two consecutive days of "rest" from our normal routine.
There are people who "work" on weekends. For example, professional football games are usually on Sundays. Likewise, preachers work on weekends. For them, the work weekend actually would be after the normal weekend, such as Monday.
Allusions with Moses (Hebrews 3)
In Hebrews 3, the writer alludes to the experience with Moses.
Jesus is superior to Moses
First, the writer states that Jesus is/was superior to Moses. The writer uses the analogy of the builder of the home is superior to the home itself.
This does not denigrate the importance of Moses in the tradition, but just states that Jesus is superior. This follows the pattern of supremacy of Jesus to others, in particular angels in chapters 1-2.
The writer could have picked any Old Testament prophet to compare Jesus to. However, the selection of Moses sends a strong message about the "Law of Moses". In a nutshell, Jesus is superior to the Law of Moses as well. At this time, and to some degree today, there was a debate about the relationship and applicability of the Law of Moses and its traditions to the New Testament church. This writer implicitly aligns with the other writings that Jesus is superior.
Analogy of faith to Moses leading the people
The writer then uses the analogy of Moses leading the people in the desert. The writer states that many people could not enter the promised land because of their lack of faith. The writer urges us to have the faithful obedience to go where God is leading us.
The analogy of this point of Israel's history affirms the importance of Moses. In other words, the writer does not discount the contribution of Moses, or implicitly the law of Moses, but nevertheless these are not as important as Jesus.
Jesus is superior to Moses
First, the writer states that Jesus is/was superior to Moses. The writer uses the analogy of the builder of the home is superior to the home itself.
This does not denigrate the importance of Moses in the tradition, but just states that Jesus is superior. This follows the pattern of supremacy of Jesus to others, in particular angels in chapters 1-2.
The writer could have picked any Old Testament prophet to compare Jesus to. However, the selection of Moses sends a strong message about the "Law of Moses". In a nutshell, Jesus is superior to the Law of Moses as well. At this time, and to some degree today, there was a debate about the relationship and applicability of the Law of Moses and its traditions to the New Testament church. This writer implicitly aligns with the other writings that Jesus is superior.
Analogy of faith to Moses leading the people
The writer then uses the analogy of Moses leading the people in the desert. The writer states that many people could not enter the promised land because of their lack of faith. The writer urges us to have the faithful obedience to go where God is leading us.
The analogy of this point of Israel's history affirms the importance of Moses. In other words, the writer does not discount the contribution of Moses, or implicitly the law of Moses, but nevertheless these are not as important as Jesus.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
The King of Angels, part 2 (Hebrews 2)
What's all this angel talk? (vv. 1-4)
The second chapter of Hebrews begins with a warning against drifting away. The example that Paul gives might provide some clarification about the reason for why Paul is writing and why Paul discusses angels at length in chapter 1.
Paul discusses how the words of angels are not binding. In particular, it seems that the angels said that "every violation and disobedience received its just punishment (v. 2). Paul follows by discussing salvation through Jesus, which was announced by Jesus, and testified by the witnesses, miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit.
We can reasonably infer that people were receiving messages from "angels" that were contrary to the Gospel that Jesus preached. Paul's response, at least here, does not distinguish between good and bad angels, but rather to state that Jesus was superior to all angels, so stick with Jesus said.
This might be somewhat reminiscent of Colossians 2:18, where he warns against worshipping angels. But here, I think the focus is on countering the message that angels preached, or people believed that angels preached to them.
We actually do not know the details of the exact situation in either case, but given Paul's response, I think these are reasonable inferences.
On a side note, Paul states that signs, wonders, miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit testify to the reality of Christ (v. 4). We can, and should, pursue supernatural encounters with God to increase our faith. This contrasts verse 3 where the testimonies came from those who saw Christ in person.
Jesus became a man (vv. 5-18)
In the remaining verses of the chapter, Paul discusses how Jesus became "lower than angels", at least temporarily, so that he might be crowned with glory. This refers to him becoming a man to share in our humanity to release us from the fear of death. (v. 15).
The only thing I would add here is that these chapters show, for lack of a better term, God's hierarchy. That is:
1. Jesus (much superior to the angels, 1:4)
2. Angels (ministering servants sent to serve those who will inherit salvation, 1:14)
3. Humanity (a little lower than angels, 2:9; note, it does NOT say that angels rule humanity if anything 1:14 states that angels serve humanity)
4. Rest of nature (ruled by humans, Genesis 1:28-30)
The second chapter of Hebrews begins with a warning against drifting away. The example that Paul gives might provide some clarification about the reason for why Paul is writing and why Paul discusses angels at length in chapter 1.
Paul discusses how the words of angels are not binding. In particular, it seems that the angels said that "every violation and disobedience received its just punishment (v. 2). Paul follows by discussing salvation through Jesus, which was announced by Jesus, and testified by the witnesses, miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit.
We can reasonably infer that people were receiving messages from "angels" that were contrary to the Gospel that Jesus preached. Paul's response, at least here, does not distinguish between good and bad angels, but rather to state that Jesus was superior to all angels, so stick with Jesus said.
This might be somewhat reminiscent of Colossians 2:18, where he warns against worshipping angels. But here, I think the focus is on countering the message that angels preached, or people believed that angels preached to them.
We actually do not know the details of the exact situation in either case, but given Paul's response, I think these are reasonable inferences.
On a side note, Paul states that signs, wonders, miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit testify to the reality of Christ (v. 4). We can, and should, pursue supernatural encounters with God to increase our faith. This contrasts verse 3 where the testimonies came from those who saw Christ in person.
Jesus became a man (vv. 5-18)
In the remaining verses of the chapter, Paul discusses how Jesus became "lower than angels", at least temporarily, so that he might be crowned with glory. This refers to him becoming a man to share in our humanity to release us from the fear of death. (v. 15).
The only thing I would add here is that these chapters show, for lack of a better term, God's hierarchy. That is:
1. Jesus (much superior to the angels, 1:4)
2. Angels (ministering servants sent to serve those who will inherit salvation, 1:14)
3. Humanity (a little lower than angels, 2:9; note, it does NOT say that angels rule humanity if anything 1:14 states that angels serve humanity)
4. Rest of nature (ruled by humans, Genesis 1:28-30)
The king of angels (Hebrews 1)
The beginning of Hebrews focuses on the superiority of Jesus. Hebrews 1 emphasizes the superiority of Jesus to the other angels, but also makes an inference that Jesus is superior to the prophets of the Old Testament.
About Jesus, this is what Paul says:
1. He has spoken to us in these last days (1:2)
At this point, it has been several decades since the Resurrection of Christ, but Paul states that Jesus is still talking to "us".
Does "us" mean Paul is referring to the Apostles? Possibly. But Paul is usually alone among the Apostles.
The immediate "us", I.e., the letter writers. Timothy is the only other person mention in the concluding remarks, but it is does not indicate he is a writer (13:23).
Does "us" mean the recipient to whom Paul is writing the epistle of the Hebrews? I take this approach and this would mean that Jesus was talking to the church in general, but I also believe that Jesus talks to the church today.
2. He is the heir of all things (1:2)
I do not have much to add about this, but it is interesting.
3. Through whom, God made the universe (1:2)
This is reminiscent of John 1:1 where it states that Jesus was integral of the Creation week from Genesis 1.
4. He is the radiance of God's glory (1:3)
There is a lot here in terms of God demonstrating his glory through Jesus.
5. Exact representation of his being (1:3)
In other words, Jesus was God on earth. The same God of the Old Testament walked among us and the reaction of many of the people of the day was to reject Jesus.
6. He provided purification of sins (1:3)
7. He sat down at the right hand of God and became superior to the angels (1:3-4)
Finally, here it is. Jesus is superior to angels. It is interesting that this comes immediately after the purification of the sins. This seems to indicate that the purification of sins made Jesus superior to angels. This reminds me Revelations 5:3-10, where the only one in heaven worthy enough to open the scrolls is the slain lamb. The reason the slain lamb is found worthy is because the lamb was slain to purchase men for God.
Praises concerning Jesus and angels (1:5-13)
The rest of Hebrews 1 focuses on applying psalms to Jesus and angels. They seem to indicate the relationship between them. Paul provides a contextual narrative to lead us.
A couple things stand out to me.
Paul cites several Psalms to say that God calls Jesus "God" and "Lord" (vv. 8, 10).
In verse 7, Jesus makes the angels winds and his servants flames of fire. I do not think this means that angels are turned into wind or the servants are turned into fire. Rather, it seems to indicate that these are a supportive role. In other words, Jesus helps the angels and servants by providing wind and fire.
At the end of the chapter, Paul asks if all angels are ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation. The question seems rhetorical and we can probably believe it is a statement to mean that yes, angels serve the church. For after all, Jesus is the king of angels and Jesus purchased the salvation of humanity. Although asked as a question, we can infer the angels serve the church since they serve Jesus.
About Jesus, this is what Paul says:
1. He has spoken to us in these last days (1:2)
At this point, it has been several decades since the Resurrection of Christ, but Paul states that Jesus is still talking to "us".
Does "us" mean Paul is referring to the Apostles? Possibly. But Paul is usually alone among the Apostles.
The immediate "us", I.e., the letter writers. Timothy is the only other person mention in the concluding remarks, but it is does not indicate he is a writer (13:23).
Does "us" mean the recipient to whom Paul is writing the epistle of the Hebrews? I take this approach and this would mean that Jesus was talking to the church in general, but I also believe that Jesus talks to the church today.
2. He is the heir of all things (1:2)
I do not have much to add about this, but it is interesting.
3. Through whom, God made the universe (1:2)
This is reminiscent of John 1:1 where it states that Jesus was integral of the Creation week from Genesis 1.
4. He is the radiance of God's glory (1:3)
There is a lot here in terms of God demonstrating his glory through Jesus.
5. Exact representation of his being (1:3)
In other words, Jesus was God on earth. The same God of the Old Testament walked among us and the reaction of many of the people of the day was to reject Jesus.
6. He provided purification of sins (1:3)
7. He sat down at the right hand of God and became superior to the angels (1:3-4)
Finally, here it is. Jesus is superior to angels. It is interesting that this comes immediately after the purification of the sins. This seems to indicate that the purification of sins made Jesus superior to angels. This reminds me Revelations 5:3-10, where the only one in heaven worthy enough to open the scrolls is the slain lamb. The reason the slain lamb is found worthy is because the lamb was slain to purchase men for God.
Praises concerning Jesus and angels (1:5-13)
The rest of Hebrews 1 focuses on applying psalms to Jesus and angels. They seem to indicate the relationship between them. Paul provides a contextual narrative to lead us.
A couple things stand out to me.
Paul cites several Psalms to say that God calls Jesus "God" and "Lord" (vv. 8, 10).
In verse 7, Jesus makes the angels winds and his servants flames of fire. I do not think this means that angels are turned into wind or the servants are turned into fire. Rather, it seems to indicate that these are a supportive role. In other words, Jesus helps the angels and servants by providing wind and fire.
At the end of the chapter, Paul asks if all angels are ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation. The question seems rhetorical and we can probably believe it is a statement to mean that yes, angels serve the church. For after all, Jesus is the king of angels and Jesus purchased the salvation of humanity. Although asked as a question, we can infer the angels serve the church since they serve Jesus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)