Presented to Swift Current Corps 08 November 2009
by Captain Michael Ramsay
Click HERE to read the sermon: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.com/2008/11/john-159-17-greater-love-has-no-man.htmlFriday, November 6, 2009
John 15:9-17: Greater love has no man...
Presented to each the Nipawin and Tisdale Corps 15 November 2008
Presented to Swift Current Corps 08 November 2009
by Captain Michael Ramsay
Click HERE to read the sermon: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.com/2008/11/john-159-17-greater-love-has-no-man.html
Presented to Swift Current Corps 08 November 2009
by Captain Michael Ramsay
Click HERE to read the sermon: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.com/2008/11/john-159-17-greater-love-has-no-man.html
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Hebrews 8:8-13: Covenant, Milkshakes, and the New World Order.
Presented to Swift Current Corps, 11 October 2009
By Captain Michael Ramsay
Click HERE to read the scriptures
Click HERE to read a related children's story, Jeremiah.
Today we are going to be speaking about the new world order a little bit. I’m not talking about the new world order that the US Presidents have been proclaiming ever since the Soviet Union dissolved or even the one that seems to be shaping up these days with China at the helm. I’m talking about the new world order that the Lord proclaimed when Christ conquered Sin and Death (Romans 5-8, 1 Corinthians 15:20-28, see Hebrews 2:14-15). There are many parts of this new world order that the preacher of the sermon to the Hebrews (Remember that the book of Hebrews is probably a sermon and not a letter) concentrates on in this section of the scriptures (Hebrews 7:1-10:39): He speaks about a priestly order enacted in the tradition of Melchizedek (7:1-8:13), a new priestly worship (9:1-15), death and purification (9:16-28), benefits of priestly ministry and the sacrifice of Christ, and about worship in this new world order (10:19-39).[1] And a fundamental aspect of this new world order is a so-called new covenant that accompanies it. It is this new covenant that we will be focusing on today as it is expressed particularly Hebrews 8:8-13.[2] First, however, I think that there are some general things that we should look at.
What is a covenant?
Can anyone tell me what a covenant is? A covenant is an agreement or a contract. The most commonly translated word for covenant (Berit[h], diatheke in the LXX), actually refers to being bound, tied or even shackled together.[3] Some common covenants that we have in our day and age are our Soldiership covenant (full membership in The Salvation Army), our Officer’s covenant (part of our ordination process) and – of course – the marriage covenant. With the word for covenant meaning to be shackled together, the marriage covenant (and others) always makes me think of that expression, “the old ball and chain” – it isn’t really so far off the true meaning and it is actually a good thing. Maybe instead of an old chain we should more positively phrase it as a seatbelt though: same idea but a much better image. Covenants meant are to keep us safely strapped in, safely bound together before the Lord.
Being bound to God or another person is like a three-legged race where we are tied to our partner for a purpose: to run a race.[4] In a three-legged race you’ll notice that some people run it with ease while others fall and trip all over each other. I’ve seen dads tied to their kids who’ve simply picked them up and run without breaking the tie that binds.
This is very much like how a covenant works. If we tie ourselves to God or anyone else in a sacred vow and do not follow God closely, it’s impossible to even finish, let alone win the race and experience victory with Christ. If we try to go our own way, we will crash like unsuccessful partners in a three-legged race.
On the other hand, if we move in step with each other, bound together by the tie of holy covenant, the race is easy and one can often move even faster than if she were running on her own. It is like this with our covenants before God, if we remain faithful and lean on our Heavenly Father we will find life’s race a lot easier. This is in essence what a covenant is: it is a contract, an agreement, a tie that binds us to our partner in life’s three-legged race and when Lord is involved that tie will not be broken until the race is successfully completed.
What is this ‘old’ covenant?
So if a covenant is a tie that will not be broken then that raises the question, what are the new and old covenants? From our text today (Hebrews 8:8-13; cf. Jeremiah 31:31-34) we are speaking about the importance of a new covenant and if there is a new covenant then we know, of course, as Hebrews Chapters 7-13 record, there is an old covenant (See Hebrews 7:18-19; 8:6-7, 13; 10:13). We will look at the new covenant in a little bit here but first, in order to fully understand it, I think we need to look at the old covenant: what is this old covenant that the homiletician to the Hebrews is preaching about here?
We know that there are actually many old covenants made as part of the Old Testament, in the old world order. In the old covenant, in the Old Testament of the Bible some of the Big ones include God’s covenant with Noah (Genesis 9:17; Numbers 25:12). What was it that God promised Noah? Never again to flood the earth (Genesis 9:8-17). What was the symbol of this covenant? A Rainbow. Genesis 9:8-17)
Remember Genesis 6-9: the world was evil and deserved to be destroyed but God showed mercy to Noah’s family and the animals of the earth and He showed Noah how to make an Ark (a big boat), which he did, and with this humans and all the other animals of the earth were saved from extinction. Remember that God took Noah’s family and two of some of the animals and seven of others. God then made a covenant and a promise to Noah that He wouldn’t destroy the earth by flood again (see Hebrews 11:7). He left it open should He decide to destroy it some other way (fire, nuclear holocaust, plague, etc.) but He promised never to destroy the earth by flood again.
Another covenant: a really important covenant that God made (I would say probably the most important on the other side of the cross) would be the covenant He made with Abraham (Genesis 12-17; cf. Hebrews 11:8). What did the LORD promise Abraham? That all the nations of the earth would be blessed through him (Genesis 12:3); that his descendants would be as numerous as the sand on the seashore (Genesis 22:17) or stars in the sky (Genesis 15:5, 22:17, 26:4); and that, provided his descendants were faithful, they would occupy the land of Canaan (Genesis 15:7-21). What was the symbol of this covenant? Circumcision (Genesis 17). Who is the one through whom this covenant that all the nations of the earth will be blessed is completed? Jesus.[5]
There was also the covenant that God made with David (2 Samuel 7, 2 Samuel 23:5; 1 Chronicles 17; cf. Psalms 89:3, 28-29; 93; 110:4). This comes into play a little bit in Hebrews here as well (especially in Hebrews 3:7-4:13).[6] This covenant stated that God would build a house, a dynasty for David’s descendents and that David would never fail to have an heir sit on his throne (2 Samuel 7, 1 Chronicles 17). This covenant was eventually fulfilled/completed through Jesus, of course, who sits on this throne forever.
These covenants all intermingle a lot in the history, truth, and the prophetic imagination of the Hebrews.[7] The main covenant of which we are speaking about in our text today (Hebrews 8:8-13, 10:19-39) though is the covenant with Moses. The covenant with Moses states that the people with inherit the Promised Land if they are faithful to the Lord; this covenant with Moses includes the Decalogue [Ten Commandments] and the Law; see Exodus 20, Exodus 34, Deuteronomy 5, Deuteronomy 10).
Roughly sketched out, the covenant here is that God will be the Hebrew’s God and they will be His people and He will give them the Promised Land IF they simply remain faithful to Him and His Law (Deuteronomy 5:32, 33). This condition is important. That is some of what the prophet Jeremiah was dealing with in the children’s story we read earlier and this is most certainly what the preacher of Hebrews is dealing with here (Jeremiah 31:31-35; Hebrews 8:8-13). Jeremiah said that if they abandon their covenant with the LORD then it will be no good to them and they will need a new one if they leave their old one behind. The preacher to the Hebrews (Hebrews 8:13) says that the old one now has now become ‘obsolete’.
What were some of the features of this old covenant that is now obsolete?
This old covenant was very, very important to the Hebrews people. There whole society was founded upon it. It was more important but not entirely dissimilar to the Canadian Constitutional Acts of 1982 and 1867 or even the Magna Carta and Habeus Corpus. There were a number of activities and ceremonies that were involved in the many cultural traditions that related to this old covenant, such as circumcision (this was actually directly related to Abraham’s covenant but often seen in light of the Mosaic covenant; John 7:22, see Genesis 17:11); ceremonial hand-washing; worshipping at the Temple (They would try to go here at least once a year); priests and Levites who had various jobs relating to the covenant; Sabbath (even though this has its roots even before Moses, in creation itself; See Genesis 2:2, Exodus 20:11, Hebrews 4); the Ten Commandments (the Law and the prophets are closely associated with it too; see Exodus 20, 34; Deuteronomy 5, 10); frequent sacrifices (of course); and much more.
Between all of these things relating to Moses, the election of the Hebrews for the task of proclaiming salvation to the world (see Genesis 12:3), the Temple and the Torah – even though the Israelites did not live up to the terms of the covenant – these ceremonies were very significant to the people. They loved them. They were extremely important to them; it was like a number of things are to some of us who have been involved with The Salvation Army for a while: the band, timbrels, songsters, Soldiers, Officers, uniforms, emergency disaster work, community and family social work, evangelism, League of Mercy (Community Care Ministries), thrift stores, etc.
But even more than that – Moses, election, the Temple, the Torah and all their ceremonies and holidays were as important to them as is to us: birthday parties, Sunday church services, New Years celebrations, Christmas, Christmas Eve, and Easter. It would be as difficult for the Hebrews to imagine life without the ceremonies of the old covenant, as it would be for us to imagine winter without Christmas. What are some other things that are very important to us in our culture – that are part of our everyday life? Our national anthem at hockey games and school assemblies, our public schools themselves, Medicare, and even our own Canadian style hospitals.
The old covenant covered every aspect of the Hebrews’ lives. The old covenant was as important to people then as a child’s birthday party or Christmas holidays and all they entail are to us here today. Our text (Hebrew 8:8-13) is saying that God has taken this whole important system to the Hebrews (like Christmas trees, Easter eggs, nativity scenes, and birthday presents to us), crumpled it up like a piece of paper and thrown it into the garbage. This would be even more devastating for them than if God took all of our Canadian Christmas traditions, crumpled them up and tossed them in the same garbage can. God says that their very important covenant is old. Jeremiah says that they need a new one. The preacher of this sermon to the Hebrews says that it is obsolete and should be thrown away and even replaced. Can you imagine how difficult that would be for the Hebrews of that day and age to deal with?
What happened to this ‘old covenant’? Why is it obsolete?
So what happened then? Why was all that the people knew and loved in the old covenant simply crumpled up and tossed away? Hebrews 8:13 records that this old covenant is now obsolete and even at the time this sermon to the Hebrews was preached it was already fading away. Why was it fading away already? How is it obsolete? What happened to this covenant? The terms of the covenant were broken. The Israelites broke them. The covenant was a conditional contract and Israel broke the conditions of it. Like we saw in the children’s story today, ‘Jeremiah’ (www.sheepspeak.com./jeremiah.pdf),[8] ancient Israel turned their backs on God. Israel turned their backs on their fellow YHWH worshipers. They betrayed the Lord and they betrayed each other. It would take much too long to run through all or even many of the times that Israel (The Hebrews) defied God or how they broke their covenant. One of the key ways, however, would be their neglect of the disenfranchised[9]: the poor, the widow, the immigrant (see for example, Exodus 23:6,11, Leviticus 19:10,15, 23:22, 27:8, Deuteronomy 15:7, 15:11, 24:12-15, 1 Samuel 2:8, Psalms 22:26, 34:6, 35:10, 82:3, Isaiah 61:1, Ezekiel 16:49, 18:12, 22:29, Amos 2:7, 4:1, 5:11-12, 8:4-6, Zechariah 7:10, Matthew 6:19-21, 19:13-26, 25:31-46).[10] One comment pertaining to this that I would point us towards is in the New Testament Gospels themselves. Remember when Jesus was asked about the old covenant and the Law? What did He say summed up the whole Law and the prophets? (Matt 22:36-40; see also Luke 10:25-28, Exodus 20, 34, Leviticus 19:18, Deuteronomy 5, 10)? Love God and Love your neighbour. How does one love one’s neighbour? By Looking after the most vulnerable in society, by turning the other cheek, and by bringing others to the Lord (see Matthew 6:19-21, 19:13-26, 25:31-46). Micah 6:8 says that we are to ‘love justice, love mercy, and to walk humbly with our God’. The Hebrews didn’t do this. They did not live up to the terms of the agreement.
An important point to remember here is that this covenant wasn’t exactly cancelled (See Leviticus 26:42-44; Deuteronomy 7:9; Judges 2:1; Matthew 5:17-20, 24:35; Luke 16:17, 27:33; Romans 3:3-4, 31, 7:1-6) rather it was completed (fulfilled) by the advent of Christ (See John 19:30). Remember that we said when we were defining covenants that when they are made with the Lord, He will be faithful until they are completed[11] (See Leviticus 26:42-44; Deuteronomy 7:9; Judges 2:1; Matthew 5:17-20, 24:35; Luke 16:17, 27:33; Romans 3:3-4, 31, 7:1-6). This old covenant wasn’t forsaken. It was completed or even renewed like a library book or a rented movie. When the allotted time for borrowing a book or a movie is completed, it can be renewed. We must not forget though that, as there is a penalty to pay if we fail to live up to the rental terms – if we’re late or damage the book/video there are late fees - so too there was a penalty that Christ paid on our behalf before He renewed our covenant[12] (see Jeremiah 31:31ff, Ezekiel 36:16ff, Joel 2:28ff, and also Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4; 6:10; 9:25; Ezekiel 44:7). Let me explain by exploring a couple of more questions.
Was there anything wrong with the old agreement itself?
Was there anything wrong with the old covenant, the old agreement itself that is now obsolete? Yes and no.[13] No, in that the old covenant was certainly fair: God promised that He would look out for His chosen covenant partners and He did. He let them enter His rest so long as they loved Him and their brothers and sisters. It is like any of us who are parents saying, “all right children, we can all go for a milkshake at the ‘Land of Milk and Honey’ ice cream parlour after dinner so long as you kids don’t fight and don’t give me a bad time.” This seems fair.[14] The problem is that the children of Israel just wouldn’t stop fighting and they weren’t very nice to their Father either. They were always fighting. They were always hurting each other. And they didn’t even bother to obey their curfew. They were likely to not even come home at all. Instead they’d hang out all night in the hill country with the Baals when they should have been spending the night safely in the protection of their Father’s house. And when they did come home the children of Israel would fight amongst themselves about all of this and more too. They didn’t show their love for their Father or for their brothers or their sisters.
A big part of the problem with Israel’s disobedience was that God promised them the metaphorical milkshakes from the ‘Land of Milk and Honey’ ice-cream shop IF they would JUST be good. And even though they didn’t deserve it, God really still wanted to give them their ‘Land of Milk and Honey’ milkshakes (See for examples Isaiah 3:1-6; 8:16-22; 9:1-7; Jeremiah 31, Amos 9, Micah 2:1-11-13; 5:1-4). Not only that: He wanted to drink the milkshakes with them in the ‘Land of Milk and Honey’ ice-cream shop, Himself. He wanted to spend this quality time with His children. He wanted to have fun with them. He wanted to give them all of this and much more but they just wouldn’t stop fighting and they just wouldn’t listen to Him so He just wouldn’t give them their reward.
This was the purpose of the milkshake incentive: the purpose of the Law, the old covenant, was to bring people closer to God so that they could experience His Salvation. God’s Law, His old covenant – that He set up so that His children could come for the eternal ice-cream with Him – this Law, that was created for good, actually wound up preventing His children from getting the ice-cream that God wanted to share with them. Because they were bad and they didn’t deserve this ice cream, God was very sad. God kept His part of the covenant. God wanted to enjoy that milkshake with them in the ‘Land of Milk and Honey’ ice-cream parlour but they just wouldn’t co-operate (See Romans 3:3,4). This old covenant failed to bring people into a Salvific relationship with God (Hebrews 8:7-9; See Hebrews 4, Numbers 14 and Deuteronomy 1; See also Galatians 3-4). God’s chosen people, the children of Israel failed Him; the Law therefore did not provide for their (our) salvation (see Galatians 3 and Romans 2:1-14).
What is this new covenant?
Since this old covenant did not give us the Heavenly milkshake, what about the new covenant? What is it? Can God use the new covenant as a way to share the milkshake of eternal life with us? What is this new covenant that is God’s seemingly new idea? Firstly we should note that it’s not really a new idea at all.[15] God knew all along that He would eventually implement this new covenant. He knew this even before He put the old one in place but this new one comes into place with Jesus’ incarnation, death, and resurrection (cf. Genesis 15:7-21; Jeremiah 34:18-20; Romans 7:1-7).[16] Jesus’ death fulfils the old covenant: it is finished (John 19:30). The old one – as bad as we were at living up to it - was not thrown out before it was finished; it was only discarded after it was completed on the cross.
It is like with our children. Our girls are only 7 and 8 right now but we know that someday there will be curfews and guidelines for using the car but there is no need for those to come into place just yet. We know this new order will eventually be coming to our home; it is not here yet but it is inevitable. Likewise, God knew that this new covenant was inevitable even before He made the old one.[17]
As far as my children are concerned, even further down the road (and probably an even better analogy to God’s new covenant), relating to these curfews and guidelines for driving the car that we will eventually have for our girls: there will come a time when even these rules will no longer be needed. Our children will grow up and be ready to have a relationship with us, and the world, as responsible adults. If we do our job as parents, then our children will grow up to love God, read their Bibles, love their neighbour and clean up after themselves – all on their own, without our rules to make them do it. They will do their chores and assignments as adults living and working in the world without us needing us to enforce our old house rules. (If we try to enforce our old house rules after our children have moved out, it will not work: our whole relationship with our children will inevitably fail.) This is what the Law and the old covenant is like; it was only good until the enactment of the new covenant at the advent of Christ (Galatians 3:24-25). The advent of Christ is like humanity’s coming of age – it is our growing up, our leaving home for the final time (Galatians 4:4).[18]
Paul tells us in Galatians 3:23-25 that the old covenant and the Law was needed but that the people were being imprisoned and guarded by the Law. He says that the Law –depending upon your translation -was our guard, our disciplinarian, our custodian, or some translations even say our schoolteacher. In Galatians 4, the Apostle Paul goes on to explain the Law as if it were this guardian servant who is the tutor of a small child. The guardian servant only has any authority until the child is grown, then the child has authority over her servant. And now we are here today; we are like the twenty-something year-old son or daughter who is making her way in the world today without our tutor, without our teacher, without our parents’ house rules but still with our Heavenly Father’s very real love. This is what the new covenant is. We no longer have the house rules to follow but because God raised us well, we can read our family history (the Bible) and because we are His children we can live the way He would have us live and this is good (1 Thessalonians 5:12-24). And the really good thing too is that – just like a Christian parent of an adult child – if for some reason we do become confused in life, we can always come to God. God is even closer than a phone call away; God is as close as a prayer.
Let us call upon Him now.
http://www.sheepspeak.com/
---
[1] Thomas G. Long, Hebrews (Interpretation: a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching: Louisville, Kentucky: John Knox Press, 1997), p. 82. Tom Long presents this in an easy to read chart.
[2] Leon Morris, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Pradis CD-ROM:Hebrews/Exposition of Hebrews/VII. A New and Better Covenant (8:1-10:39)/B. The Old Covenant Superseded (8:8-13), Book Version: 4.0.2 : The idea of the new covenant is not confined to this epistle. It is implied in the narratives of the institution of the Lord's Supper in the first two Gospels (Matt 26:27-28; Mark 14:23-24). What is the meaning of "covenant" in these passages unless the new covenant is in mind? And it is explicit in Luke's longer narrative (Luke 22:20) and in Paul's account (1Cor 11:25). Paul also saw Christian ministers as "ministers of a new covenant" (2Cor 3:6). The new covenant is thus one of the strands in the NT teaching about what Christ has done for us. While it emphasizes radical novelty, we should not overlook the fact that it also points to continuity. The new arrangement retains the term "covenant" and it is established on the basis of sacrifice. It refers to the fulfillment of what is superseded rather than outright opposition to it.
[3] Leon Morris, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Pradis CD-ROM:Hebrews/Exposition of Hebrews/VI. Melchizedek (7:1-28)/C. Christ's Priesthood Superior Because of:/2. The divine oath (7:20-22), Book Version: 4.0.2 has a good discussion on the meaning of the word ‘diatheke’ in this context and argues well for its equivalence to Berit[h].
[4] See my article by this title in The Officer Magazine. Captain Michael Ramsay ‘The Three-Legged Race’ The Officer Magazine (September – October 2008) on-line at: http://www.sheepspeak.com/images/Three%20Legged%20Race_doc.pdf
[5] Cf. Commissioner J. Edward Read, Keepers of the Covenant. (Whitby, Ontario: J. Edward Read, 1995) p. 15. Sarna, Genesis, pp. 114-115, Terence E. Fretheim, The Book of Genesis, 446. See also John H. Sailhamer Abraham and the covenant (15:1-21) and Ronald F. Youngblood, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Pradis CD-ROM: Second Samuel/Exposition of Second Samuel/II. Epilogue (21:1-24:25)/A. The Lord's Wrath Against Israel (21:1-14)
[6] Thomas G. Long, Hebrews (Interpretation: a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching: Louisville, Kentucky: John Knox Press, 1997), pp. 3&28. See also Fred B. Craddock, The Letter to the Hebrews (NIB 12: Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1998), p. 5. and William L. Lane, Hebrews 1-8 (WBC 47A: Word Books: Dallas Texas, 1991), p. liii.
[7] I borrowed the term ‘prophetic imagination from Walter Brueggemann, The Prophetic Imagination. Revised and updated. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001).
[8] Captain Michael Ramsay, Sarah-Grace Ramsay and Rebecca Ramsay, ‘Jeremiah’, available on-line: www.sheepspeak.com./jeremiah.pdf
[9] Cf. Captain Michael Ramsay, 'Good News to the Poor: Comparing a Christian Worldview as expressed in Luke’s Gospel to Marx'. Presented to William and Catherine Booth College March 2009. Available on-line at www.sheepspeak.com
[10] God has always had a concern for the vulnerable even as is recorded in the OT: Deut 15:4 says, “However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you,” Cf. also: Exod. 23:6,11, Lev. 19:10,15, 23:22, 27:8, Deut. 15:7, 15:11, 24:12-15, 1 Sam 2:8, Pss. 22:26, 34:6, 35:10, 82:3, Isa. 61:1, Eze. 16:49, 18:12, 22:29, Amos 2:7, 4:1, 5:11-12, 8:4-6, Zec. 7:10.
[11] Covenants that are made with or before the LORD will not be broken before they are fully completed (see Judges 2:1; Matthew 5:32, 19:9; Romans 3:3-4, 7:2; 1 Corinthians 7:10-14; Luke 16:15-16; Mark 10:1-12; Matthew 5:32, 19:9)
[12] Cf. Tom Wright, ‘The Great Acquittal: Justification by Faith and Current Christian Thought’, Ed. Gavin Reid, London: Collins, 1980, p.13ff.
[13] David W. Chapman, ‘Notes on Hebrews 8:7’, (ESV Study Bible: Crossway Bibles: Wheaton, Illinois 2008) p. 2373: ‘The old covenant was not wrong; rather it was weak and ineffective (7:18-19)…’
[14] Leon Morris, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Pradis CD-ROM:Hebrews/Exposition of Hebrews/VII. A New and Better Covenant (8:1-10:39)/A. Christ's "More Excellent" Ministry (8:1-7), Book Version: 4.0.2: The author brings out the superiority of the new covenant by referring to the supersession of the old one. If there had been "nothing wrong" with the old covenant, there would have been no place for the new. That the new covenant has now been established is itself evidence that the old one was not adequate. (For the line of argument, cf. 7:11 ff.) The old covenant was lacking not so much in what its terms spelled out as in the fact that it was weak and unable to bring men to God (cf. 7:18 f.; Rom 7:10 f.).
[15] Cf. Fred B. Craddock, The Letter to the Hebrews (NIB 12: Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1998), pp. 100-101.
[16] See Captain Michael Ramsay, 'Covenant: When God is Bound... a look at Genesis 15:7-21' in the Journal of Aggressive Christianity, Issue 52 (December 2007 – January 2008). See also ‘Sarna, Genesis, PP. 114-115, Terence E. Fretheim, The Book of Genesis, p. 446. Cf. also Anet, p.532 and John H. Sailhamer, Abraham and the Covenant (15:1-21).
[17] Cf. William L. Lane, Hebrews 1-8 (WBC 47A: Word Books: Dallas Texas, 1991), p. 209 and R.A. Harrisville, The Concept of Newness in the New Testament (Minneapolis, Min.: Augsburg, 1960), pp. 48-53.
[18] Pastor Brian Craig, Emmanuel Baptist Church, in a conversation with me in 1987 made a very good argument explaining the Law and the old covenant in these terms. It has remained firmly in my mind ever since.
By Captain Michael Ramsay
Click HERE to read the scriptures
Click HERE to read a related children's story, Jeremiah.
Today we are going to be speaking about the new world order a little bit. I’m not talking about the new world order that the US Presidents have been proclaiming ever since the Soviet Union dissolved or even the one that seems to be shaping up these days with China at the helm. I’m talking about the new world order that the Lord proclaimed when Christ conquered Sin and Death (Romans 5-8, 1 Corinthians 15:20-28, see Hebrews 2:14-15). There are many parts of this new world order that the preacher of the sermon to the Hebrews (Remember that the book of Hebrews is probably a sermon and not a letter) concentrates on in this section of the scriptures (Hebrews 7:1-10:39): He speaks about a priestly order enacted in the tradition of Melchizedek (7:1-8:13), a new priestly worship (9:1-15), death and purification (9:16-28), benefits of priestly ministry and the sacrifice of Christ, and about worship in this new world order (10:19-39).[1] And a fundamental aspect of this new world order is a so-called new covenant that accompanies it. It is this new covenant that we will be focusing on today as it is expressed particularly Hebrews 8:8-13.[2] First, however, I think that there are some general things that we should look at.
What is a covenant?
Can anyone tell me what a covenant is? A covenant is an agreement or a contract. The most commonly translated word for covenant (Berit[h], diatheke in the LXX), actually refers to being bound, tied or even shackled together.[3] Some common covenants that we have in our day and age are our Soldiership covenant (full membership in The Salvation Army), our Officer’s covenant (part of our ordination process) and – of course – the marriage covenant. With the word for covenant meaning to be shackled together, the marriage covenant (and others) always makes me think of that expression, “the old ball and chain” – it isn’t really so far off the true meaning and it is actually a good thing. Maybe instead of an old chain we should more positively phrase it as a seatbelt though: same idea but a much better image. Covenants meant are to keep us safely strapped in, safely bound together before the Lord.
Being bound to God or another person is like a three-legged race where we are tied to our partner for a purpose: to run a race.[4] In a three-legged race you’ll notice that some people run it with ease while others fall and trip all over each other. I’ve seen dads tied to their kids who’ve simply picked them up and run without breaking the tie that binds.
This is very much like how a covenant works. If we tie ourselves to God or anyone else in a sacred vow and do not follow God closely, it’s impossible to even finish, let alone win the race and experience victory with Christ. If we try to go our own way, we will crash like unsuccessful partners in a three-legged race.
On the other hand, if we move in step with each other, bound together by the tie of holy covenant, the race is easy and one can often move even faster than if she were running on her own. It is like this with our covenants before God, if we remain faithful and lean on our Heavenly Father we will find life’s race a lot easier. This is in essence what a covenant is: it is a contract, an agreement, a tie that binds us to our partner in life’s three-legged race and when Lord is involved that tie will not be broken until the race is successfully completed.
What is this ‘old’ covenant?
So if a covenant is a tie that will not be broken then that raises the question, what are the new and old covenants? From our text today (Hebrews 8:8-13; cf. Jeremiah 31:31-34) we are speaking about the importance of a new covenant and if there is a new covenant then we know, of course, as Hebrews Chapters 7-13 record, there is an old covenant (See Hebrews 7:18-19; 8:6-7, 13; 10:13). We will look at the new covenant in a little bit here but first, in order to fully understand it, I think we need to look at the old covenant: what is this old covenant that the homiletician to the Hebrews is preaching about here?
We know that there are actually many old covenants made as part of the Old Testament, in the old world order. In the old covenant, in the Old Testament of the Bible some of the Big ones include God’s covenant with Noah (Genesis 9:17; Numbers 25:12). What was it that God promised Noah? Never again to flood the earth (Genesis 9:8-17). What was the symbol of this covenant? A Rainbow. Genesis 9:8-17)
Remember Genesis 6-9: the world was evil and deserved to be destroyed but God showed mercy to Noah’s family and the animals of the earth and He showed Noah how to make an Ark (a big boat), which he did, and with this humans and all the other animals of the earth were saved from extinction. Remember that God took Noah’s family and two of some of the animals and seven of others. God then made a covenant and a promise to Noah that He wouldn’t destroy the earth by flood again (see Hebrews 11:7). He left it open should He decide to destroy it some other way (fire, nuclear holocaust, plague, etc.) but He promised never to destroy the earth by flood again.
Another covenant: a really important covenant that God made (I would say probably the most important on the other side of the cross) would be the covenant He made with Abraham (Genesis 12-17; cf. Hebrews 11:8). What did the LORD promise Abraham? That all the nations of the earth would be blessed through him (Genesis 12:3); that his descendants would be as numerous as the sand on the seashore (Genesis 22:17) or stars in the sky (Genesis 15:5, 22:17, 26:4); and that, provided his descendants were faithful, they would occupy the land of Canaan (Genesis 15:7-21). What was the symbol of this covenant? Circumcision (Genesis 17). Who is the one through whom this covenant that all the nations of the earth will be blessed is completed? Jesus.[5]
There was also the covenant that God made with David (2 Samuel 7, 2 Samuel 23:5; 1 Chronicles 17; cf. Psalms 89:3, 28-29; 93; 110:4). This comes into play a little bit in Hebrews here as well (especially in Hebrews 3:7-4:13).[6] This covenant stated that God would build a house, a dynasty for David’s descendents and that David would never fail to have an heir sit on his throne (2 Samuel 7, 1 Chronicles 17). This covenant was eventually fulfilled/completed through Jesus, of course, who sits on this throne forever.
These covenants all intermingle a lot in the history, truth, and the prophetic imagination of the Hebrews.[7] The main covenant of which we are speaking about in our text today (Hebrews 8:8-13, 10:19-39) though is the covenant with Moses. The covenant with Moses states that the people with inherit the Promised Land if they are faithful to the Lord; this covenant with Moses includes the Decalogue [Ten Commandments] and the Law; see Exodus 20, Exodus 34, Deuteronomy 5, Deuteronomy 10).
Roughly sketched out, the covenant here is that God will be the Hebrew’s God and they will be His people and He will give them the Promised Land IF they simply remain faithful to Him and His Law (Deuteronomy 5:32, 33). This condition is important. That is some of what the prophet Jeremiah was dealing with in the children’s story we read earlier and this is most certainly what the preacher of Hebrews is dealing with here (Jeremiah 31:31-35; Hebrews 8:8-13). Jeremiah said that if they abandon their covenant with the LORD then it will be no good to them and they will need a new one if they leave their old one behind. The preacher to the Hebrews (Hebrews 8:13) says that the old one now has now become ‘obsolete’.
What were some of the features of this old covenant that is now obsolete?
This old covenant was very, very important to the Hebrews people. There whole society was founded upon it. It was more important but not entirely dissimilar to the Canadian Constitutional Acts of 1982 and 1867 or even the Magna Carta and Habeus Corpus. There were a number of activities and ceremonies that were involved in the many cultural traditions that related to this old covenant, such as circumcision (this was actually directly related to Abraham’s covenant but often seen in light of the Mosaic covenant; John 7:22, see Genesis 17:11); ceremonial hand-washing; worshipping at the Temple (They would try to go here at least once a year); priests and Levites who had various jobs relating to the covenant; Sabbath (even though this has its roots even before Moses, in creation itself; See Genesis 2:2, Exodus 20:11, Hebrews 4); the Ten Commandments (the Law and the prophets are closely associated with it too; see Exodus 20, 34; Deuteronomy 5, 10); frequent sacrifices (of course); and much more.
Between all of these things relating to Moses, the election of the Hebrews for the task of proclaiming salvation to the world (see Genesis 12:3), the Temple and the Torah – even though the Israelites did not live up to the terms of the covenant – these ceremonies were very significant to the people. They loved them. They were extremely important to them; it was like a number of things are to some of us who have been involved with The Salvation Army for a while: the band, timbrels, songsters, Soldiers, Officers, uniforms, emergency disaster work, community and family social work, evangelism, League of Mercy (Community Care Ministries), thrift stores, etc.
But even more than that – Moses, election, the Temple, the Torah and all their ceremonies and holidays were as important to them as is to us: birthday parties, Sunday church services, New Years celebrations, Christmas, Christmas Eve, and Easter. It would be as difficult for the Hebrews to imagine life without the ceremonies of the old covenant, as it would be for us to imagine winter without Christmas. What are some other things that are very important to us in our culture – that are part of our everyday life? Our national anthem at hockey games and school assemblies, our public schools themselves, Medicare, and even our own Canadian style hospitals.
The old covenant covered every aspect of the Hebrews’ lives. The old covenant was as important to people then as a child’s birthday party or Christmas holidays and all they entail are to us here today. Our text (Hebrew 8:8-13) is saying that God has taken this whole important system to the Hebrews (like Christmas trees, Easter eggs, nativity scenes, and birthday presents to us), crumpled it up like a piece of paper and thrown it into the garbage. This would be even more devastating for them than if God took all of our Canadian Christmas traditions, crumpled them up and tossed them in the same garbage can. God says that their very important covenant is old. Jeremiah says that they need a new one. The preacher of this sermon to the Hebrews says that it is obsolete and should be thrown away and even replaced. Can you imagine how difficult that would be for the Hebrews of that day and age to deal with?
What happened to this ‘old covenant’? Why is it obsolete?
So what happened then? Why was all that the people knew and loved in the old covenant simply crumpled up and tossed away? Hebrews 8:13 records that this old covenant is now obsolete and even at the time this sermon to the Hebrews was preached it was already fading away. Why was it fading away already? How is it obsolete? What happened to this covenant? The terms of the covenant were broken. The Israelites broke them. The covenant was a conditional contract and Israel broke the conditions of it. Like we saw in the children’s story today, ‘Jeremiah’ (www.sheepspeak.com./jeremiah.pdf),[8] ancient Israel turned their backs on God. Israel turned their backs on their fellow YHWH worshipers. They betrayed the Lord and they betrayed each other. It would take much too long to run through all or even many of the times that Israel (The Hebrews) defied God or how they broke their covenant. One of the key ways, however, would be their neglect of the disenfranchised[9]: the poor, the widow, the immigrant (see for example, Exodus 23:6,11, Leviticus 19:10,15, 23:22, 27:8, Deuteronomy 15:7, 15:11, 24:12-15, 1 Samuel 2:8, Psalms 22:26, 34:6, 35:10, 82:3, Isaiah 61:1, Ezekiel 16:49, 18:12, 22:29, Amos 2:7, 4:1, 5:11-12, 8:4-6, Zechariah 7:10, Matthew 6:19-21, 19:13-26, 25:31-46).[10] One comment pertaining to this that I would point us towards is in the New Testament Gospels themselves. Remember when Jesus was asked about the old covenant and the Law? What did He say summed up the whole Law and the prophets? (Matt 22:36-40; see also Luke 10:25-28, Exodus 20, 34, Leviticus 19:18, Deuteronomy 5, 10)? Love God and Love your neighbour. How does one love one’s neighbour? By Looking after the most vulnerable in society, by turning the other cheek, and by bringing others to the Lord (see Matthew 6:19-21, 19:13-26, 25:31-46). Micah 6:8 says that we are to ‘love justice, love mercy, and to walk humbly with our God’. The Hebrews didn’t do this. They did not live up to the terms of the agreement.
An important point to remember here is that this covenant wasn’t exactly cancelled (See Leviticus 26:42-44; Deuteronomy 7:9; Judges 2:1; Matthew 5:17-20, 24:35; Luke 16:17, 27:33; Romans 3:3-4, 31, 7:1-6) rather it was completed (fulfilled) by the advent of Christ (See John 19:30). Remember that we said when we were defining covenants that when they are made with the Lord, He will be faithful until they are completed[11] (See Leviticus 26:42-44; Deuteronomy 7:9; Judges 2:1; Matthew 5:17-20, 24:35; Luke 16:17, 27:33; Romans 3:3-4, 31, 7:1-6). This old covenant wasn’t forsaken. It was completed or even renewed like a library book or a rented movie. When the allotted time for borrowing a book or a movie is completed, it can be renewed. We must not forget though that, as there is a penalty to pay if we fail to live up to the rental terms – if we’re late or damage the book/video there are late fees - so too there was a penalty that Christ paid on our behalf before He renewed our covenant[12] (see Jeremiah 31:31ff, Ezekiel 36:16ff, Joel 2:28ff, and also Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4; 6:10; 9:25; Ezekiel 44:7). Let me explain by exploring a couple of more questions.
Was there anything wrong with the old agreement itself?
Was there anything wrong with the old covenant, the old agreement itself that is now obsolete? Yes and no.[13] No, in that the old covenant was certainly fair: God promised that He would look out for His chosen covenant partners and He did. He let them enter His rest so long as they loved Him and their brothers and sisters. It is like any of us who are parents saying, “all right children, we can all go for a milkshake at the ‘Land of Milk and Honey’ ice cream parlour after dinner so long as you kids don’t fight and don’t give me a bad time.” This seems fair.[14] The problem is that the children of Israel just wouldn’t stop fighting and they weren’t very nice to their Father either. They were always fighting. They were always hurting each other. And they didn’t even bother to obey their curfew. They were likely to not even come home at all. Instead they’d hang out all night in the hill country with the Baals when they should have been spending the night safely in the protection of their Father’s house. And when they did come home the children of Israel would fight amongst themselves about all of this and more too. They didn’t show their love for their Father or for their brothers or their sisters.
A big part of the problem with Israel’s disobedience was that God promised them the metaphorical milkshakes from the ‘Land of Milk and Honey’ ice-cream shop IF they would JUST be good. And even though they didn’t deserve it, God really still wanted to give them their ‘Land of Milk and Honey’ milkshakes (See for examples Isaiah 3:1-6; 8:16-22; 9:1-7; Jeremiah 31, Amos 9, Micah 2:1-11-13; 5:1-4). Not only that: He wanted to drink the milkshakes with them in the ‘Land of Milk and Honey’ ice-cream shop, Himself. He wanted to spend this quality time with His children. He wanted to have fun with them. He wanted to give them all of this and much more but they just wouldn’t stop fighting and they just wouldn’t listen to Him so He just wouldn’t give them their reward.
This was the purpose of the milkshake incentive: the purpose of the Law, the old covenant, was to bring people closer to God so that they could experience His Salvation. God’s Law, His old covenant – that He set up so that His children could come for the eternal ice-cream with Him – this Law, that was created for good, actually wound up preventing His children from getting the ice-cream that God wanted to share with them. Because they were bad and they didn’t deserve this ice cream, God was very sad. God kept His part of the covenant. God wanted to enjoy that milkshake with them in the ‘Land of Milk and Honey’ ice-cream parlour but they just wouldn’t co-operate (See Romans 3:3,4). This old covenant failed to bring people into a Salvific relationship with God (Hebrews 8:7-9; See Hebrews 4, Numbers 14 and Deuteronomy 1; See also Galatians 3-4). God’s chosen people, the children of Israel failed Him; the Law therefore did not provide for their (our) salvation (see Galatians 3 and Romans 2:1-14).
What is this new covenant?
Since this old covenant did not give us the Heavenly milkshake, what about the new covenant? What is it? Can God use the new covenant as a way to share the milkshake of eternal life with us? What is this new covenant that is God’s seemingly new idea? Firstly we should note that it’s not really a new idea at all.[15] God knew all along that He would eventually implement this new covenant. He knew this even before He put the old one in place but this new one comes into place with Jesus’ incarnation, death, and resurrection (cf. Genesis 15:7-21; Jeremiah 34:18-20; Romans 7:1-7).[16] Jesus’ death fulfils the old covenant: it is finished (John 19:30). The old one – as bad as we were at living up to it - was not thrown out before it was finished; it was only discarded after it was completed on the cross.
It is like with our children. Our girls are only 7 and 8 right now but we know that someday there will be curfews and guidelines for using the car but there is no need for those to come into place just yet. We know this new order will eventually be coming to our home; it is not here yet but it is inevitable. Likewise, God knew that this new covenant was inevitable even before He made the old one.[17]
As far as my children are concerned, even further down the road (and probably an even better analogy to God’s new covenant), relating to these curfews and guidelines for driving the car that we will eventually have for our girls: there will come a time when even these rules will no longer be needed. Our children will grow up and be ready to have a relationship with us, and the world, as responsible adults. If we do our job as parents, then our children will grow up to love God, read their Bibles, love their neighbour and clean up after themselves – all on their own, without our rules to make them do it. They will do their chores and assignments as adults living and working in the world without us needing us to enforce our old house rules. (If we try to enforce our old house rules after our children have moved out, it will not work: our whole relationship with our children will inevitably fail.) This is what the Law and the old covenant is like; it was only good until the enactment of the new covenant at the advent of Christ (Galatians 3:24-25). The advent of Christ is like humanity’s coming of age – it is our growing up, our leaving home for the final time (Galatians 4:4).[18]
Paul tells us in Galatians 3:23-25 that the old covenant and the Law was needed but that the people were being imprisoned and guarded by the Law. He says that the Law –depending upon your translation -was our guard, our disciplinarian, our custodian, or some translations even say our schoolteacher. In Galatians 4, the Apostle Paul goes on to explain the Law as if it were this guardian servant who is the tutor of a small child. The guardian servant only has any authority until the child is grown, then the child has authority over her servant. And now we are here today; we are like the twenty-something year-old son or daughter who is making her way in the world today without our tutor, without our teacher, without our parents’ house rules but still with our Heavenly Father’s very real love. This is what the new covenant is. We no longer have the house rules to follow but because God raised us well, we can read our family history (the Bible) and because we are His children we can live the way He would have us live and this is good (1 Thessalonians 5:12-24). And the really good thing too is that – just like a Christian parent of an adult child – if for some reason we do become confused in life, we can always come to God. God is even closer than a phone call away; God is as close as a prayer.
Let us call upon Him now.
http://www.sheepspeak.com/
---
[1] Thomas G. Long, Hebrews (Interpretation: a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching: Louisville, Kentucky: John Knox Press, 1997), p. 82. Tom Long presents this in an easy to read chart.
[2] Leon Morris, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Pradis CD-ROM:Hebrews/Exposition of Hebrews/VII. A New and Better Covenant (8:1-10:39)/B. The Old Covenant Superseded (8:8-13), Book Version: 4.0.2 : The idea of the new covenant is not confined to this epistle. It is implied in the narratives of the institution of the Lord's Supper in the first two Gospels (Matt 26:27-28; Mark 14:23-24). What is the meaning of "covenant" in these passages unless the new covenant is in mind? And it is explicit in Luke's longer narrative (Luke 22:20) and in Paul's account (1Cor 11:25). Paul also saw Christian ministers as "ministers of a new covenant" (2Cor 3:6). The new covenant is thus one of the strands in the NT teaching about what Christ has done for us. While it emphasizes radical novelty, we should not overlook the fact that it also points to continuity. The new arrangement retains the term "covenant" and it is established on the basis of sacrifice. It refers to the fulfillment of what is superseded rather than outright opposition to it.
[3] Leon Morris, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Pradis CD-ROM:Hebrews/Exposition of Hebrews/VI. Melchizedek (7:1-28)/C. Christ's Priesthood Superior Because of:/2. The divine oath (7:20-22), Book Version: 4.0.2 has a good discussion on the meaning of the word ‘diatheke’ in this context and argues well for its equivalence to Berit[h].
[4] See my article by this title in The Officer Magazine. Captain Michael Ramsay ‘The Three-Legged Race’ The Officer Magazine (September – October 2008) on-line at: http://www.sheepspeak.com/images/Three%20Legged%20Race_doc.pdf
[5] Cf. Commissioner J. Edward Read, Keepers of the Covenant. (Whitby, Ontario: J. Edward Read, 1995) p. 15. Sarna, Genesis, pp. 114-115, Terence E. Fretheim, The Book of Genesis, 446. See also John H. Sailhamer Abraham and the covenant (15:1-21) and Ronald F. Youngblood, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Pradis CD-ROM: Second Samuel/Exposition of Second Samuel/II. Epilogue (21:1-24:25)/A. The Lord's Wrath Against Israel (21:1-14)
[6] Thomas G. Long, Hebrews (Interpretation: a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching: Louisville, Kentucky: John Knox Press, 1997), pp. 3&28. See also Fred B. Craddock, The Letter to the Hebrews (NIB 12: Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1998), p. 5. and William L. Lane, Hebrews 1-8 (WBC 47A: Word Books: Dallas Texas, 1991), p. liii.
[7] I borrowed the term ‘prophetic imagination from Walter Brueggemann, The Prophetic Imagination. Revised and updated. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001).
[8] Captain Michael Ramsay, Sarah-Grace Ramsay and Rebecca Ramsay, ‘Jeremiah’, available on-line: www.sheepspeak.com./jeremiah.pdf
[9] Cf. Captain Michael Ramsay, 'Good News to the Poor: Comparing a Christian Worldview as expressed in Luke’s Gospel to Marx'. Presented to William and Catherine Booth College March 2009. Available on-line at www.sheepspeak.com
[10] God has always had a concern for the vulnerable even as is recorded in the OT: Deut 15:4 says, “However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you,” Cf. also: Exod. 23:6,11, Lev. 19:10,15, 23:22, 27:8, Deut. 15:7, 15:11, 24:12-15, 1 Sam 2:8, Pss. 22:26, 34:6, 35:10, 82:3, Isa. 61:1, Eze. 16:49, 18:12, 22:29, Amos 2:7, 4:1, 5:11-12, 8:4-6, Zec. 7:10.
[11] Covenants that are made with or before the LORD will not be broken before they are fully completed (see Judges 2:1; Matthew 5:32, 19:9; Romans 3:3-4, 7:2; 1 Corinthians 7:10-14; Luke 16:15-16; Mark 10:1-12; Matthew 5:32, 19:9)
[12] Cf. Tom Wright, ‘The Great Acquittal: Justification by Faith and Current Christian Thought’, Ed. Gavin Reid, London: Collins, 1980, p.13ff.
[13] David W. Chapman, ‘Notes on Hebrews 8:7’, (ESV Study Bible: Crossway Bibles: Wheaton, Illinois 2008) p. 2373: ‘The old covenant was not wrong; rather it was weak and ineffective (7:18-19)…’
[14] Leon Morris, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Pradis CD-ROM:Hebrews/Exposition of Hebrews/VII. A New and Better Covenant (8:1-10:39)/A. Christ's "More Excellent" Ministry (8:1-7), Book Version: 4.0.2: The author brings out the superiority of the new covenant by referring to the supersession of the old one. If there had been "nothing wrong" with the old covenant, there would have been no place for the new. That the new covenant has now been established is itself evidence that the old one was not adequate. (For the line of argument, cf. 7:11 ff.) The old covenant was lacking not so much in what its terms spelled out as in the fact that it was weak and unable to bring men to God (cf. 7:18 f.; Rom 7:10 f.).
[15] Cf. Fred B. Craddock, The Letter to the Hebrews (NIB 12: Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1998), pp. 100-101.
[16] See Captain Michael Ramsay, 'Covenant: When God is Bound... a look at Genesis 15:7-21' in the Journal of Aggressive Christianity, Issue 52 (December 2007 – January 2008). See also ‘Sarna, Genesis, PP. 114-115, Terence E. Fretheim, The Book of Genesis, p. 446. Cf. also Anet, p.532 and John H. Sailhamer, Abraham and the Covenant (15:1-21).
[17] Cf. William L. Lane, Hebrews 1-8 (WBC 47A: Word Books: Dallas Texas, 1991), p. 209 and R.A. Harrisville, The Concept of Newness in the New Testament (Minneapolis, Min.: Augsburg, 1960), pp. 48-53.
[18] Pastor Brian Craig, Emmanuel Baptist Church, in a conversation with me in 1987 made a very good argument explaining the Law and the old covenant in these terms. It has remained firmly in my mind ever since.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Hebrews 4:1-13: a much needed rest.
Presented to Swift Current Corps, 20 September 2009
By Captain Michael Ramsay
Hebrews 4 is an important part of Hebrews for Salvationists and all others who believe in holiness but, like much in this book, this is somewhat confusing. I know personally in researching this, I read through the text a number of different times and consulted quite a few Biblical journals and commentaries. You remember –of course- that the book of Hebrews is (probably) really a sermon[1] and right in the midst of this sermon here is another 3-point mini-sermon on King David’s Psalm 95.[2] It is a sermon about a sermon. So then today we are all listening to a sermon about a sermon within a sermon. That would seem to be 3 sermons for the price of one. Not a bad deal – but that doesn’t mean you can skip out the next two weeks’ sermons – and you can probably see why this might be somewhat confusing.
This part of the mini-sermon that we are looking at today (Hebrews 4:1-11,12&13) deals with rest.[3] I have recently discovered ‘youtube’, though I confess that I haven’t quite figured out how to use it. Carlye Morris (our Salvation Army War College practicum student this summer) showed Susan, the girls and I this clip about rest…
The Pink Panther in this clip did finally enter into some rest but it isn’t entirely the rest that the preacher to the Hebrews here is speaking about. The preacher of Hebrews in his sermon on David’s Psalm 95 mentions God’s rest as it pertains to three different groups: God himself at the time of the creation of the world (4:4,10); we ourselves, today (4:3, 6-11); and the Hebrews with Moses and Joshua when they stood at the precipice of the promised land (4:1-3, 8-10).
Israel failed to obtain rest
The preacher begins this section of his mini-sermon by reminding us that, with the exception of Joshua and Caleb, the Israelites who left Egypt didn’t enter the land that was promised to them. They did not enter the rest that God had prepared for them (Hebrews 4:1,3,5,8, Numbers 14).
It was all sitting there for the taking. God had provided this amazing meal for them, metaphorically speaking. These people had been living off of bread (from heaven mind you, Exodus 16, Numbers 11, Deuteronomy 8, Nehemiah 9:20, Psalm 78:24, John 6) and water (It would be even twice from a rock, Exodus 17:1-7; Numbers 20:1-13; Deuteronomy 8:15; Nehemiah 9:15; Psalms 78, 105:41, 114:8, Isaiah 48:21) and now they have the opportunity to have fresh food (see Exodus 16, Numbers 11, Joshua 5:12 and also Revelation 2:17). Grapes as big as can be imagined – better than any GM foods – and picked right off the vine (Numbers 13:27). God had grown all the produce in this land here, preparing this great meal for His invited guests. While they were just spending time wandering around the desert, God was preparing this great feast to welcome them home into their promised rest from all that wandering. The people were tired and cranky and very hungry. God takes 400 years (Genesis 15) to make this great feast for them and when they finally get there, God offers them this great feast in ‘the land of milk and honey’ they say… ‘No thanks we’ll pass’. Can you imagine?
I remember years ago I owned a tutoring company and I even did some private educational instruction for a family on Vancouver Island, myself. Many nights of the week I would be working late at their place so the mom would often make these amazing meals and invite me to join the family before I headed off to my next appointment. One time, to repay the favour, we decided to invite the family to our house for dinner. Susan spent the day cooking this amazingly fancy meal and making the house look presentable while I was at the office. I returned and then Susan and I both went all out making this whole fancy dinner set-up for our chosen guests and they were late (not the 40 years late that the Israelites were for God’s meal but they were late). We were waiting for them and waiting for them and waiting for them. We had gone to all this trouble and then when they finally arrive and sit down for dinner the teenage sons let us know why they are late: “We’re not hungry; we just ate at McDonald’s.”
This I think must be about how God feels. He invited the Israelites to this special feast of ‘milk and honey’ that he took 400 years preparing (see Genesis 15) and by the time they finally arrive, God invites them in and tells them to help themselves to the best food that they have ever seen and they say ‘no thanks’. Of the first Hebrews to see the land, all except for Joshua and Caleb say that no, they don’t want it. They’ll just eat at McDonald’s. They’ll just return to Egypt (Numbers 14:3,4).
God is understandably a little bit upset and says to them. If you’re going to be that way than I don’t want you here either. Go away (Number 14:20-25). I’ll invite Caleb and Joshua and another generation of people back. Your kids can come without you to this promised feast, this promised rest, after the rest of you have died (Numbers 26:65, Numbers 32:12, Joshua 14).
God prepared this promised rest for the Hebrews who had been wandering around the desert. They said ‘no’ to the rest so God withdrew the offer until after they had all died. Hebrews 4:3: “So I declared on oath in my anger, ‘They shall never enter my rest.’”
How does this apply to us?
This is a key point that the preacher is making. God promised rest to the Hebrews in the desert and He provided rest for them but they rejected it and so they did not receive it (Hebrews 4:3, Numbers 14). The homiletician applies this promise to us now as well saying that this offer that they refused (and was thus no longer open to them, Numbers 14:26-45) if we have not rejected it, it is still open for us to take advantage of.[5]
Hebrews 4:1 and 2: “Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith.”
There are a couple of things that the preacher to the Hebrews goes on to examine from here in his sermon. The first thing he explains to us is how this promised rest can still be available to us. How can this rest that Israel didn’t experience it under Joshua (Jesus) – how can this rest that their generation rejected and so died in the wilderness of Sin (Exodus 16:1, Numbers 13:21) - how can this rest still be available to us today?[6]
The preacher gives us some things to think about. He says, Hebrews 4:3a, “Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said, “So I declared on oath in my anger, ‘They shall never enter my rest.’” The preacher says we enter that rest – so long as we act on our faith in His faithfulness and don’t reject that rest like Israel did in the desert. He says they shall NOT enter His rest but we can still enter His rest if we choose to do so.[7]
This rest is a little bit like a warm bed waiting for us on a cold night. We have been involved in The Salvation Army for a while now in quite a few different communities. Some of the communities that we have been involved in were big urban centers like Vancouver that have an horrific amount of people suffering from homelessness and some of the communities we served in were small communities with really cold winters like Nipawin and Tisdale (and I believe that it is cold here too, we’ll find out soon) and then – of course, there was Winnipeg – it is big, urban, plagued with homelessness AND it is really, really, very, very cold! There are many people who really struggle and suffer from every evil of homelessness in the big cities. It is bad enough to be homeless in Vancouver (I would not wish this on anyone!). It is even worse to be homeless on the streets of Winnipeg when it is –40 (before the wind chill is factored in) and where it seems that every year some people freeze to death. There are shelters open to people so that they can have a night’s rest but there are never enough beds. In Vancouver, I remember seeing people lining the streets for hours waiting for the shelters to open to make sure that they are one of the ones who are able to enter that rest. They want to make sure that they don’t miss it (even if that ‘bed’ is just a mat upon a floor in the DTES). In Winnipeg I remember walking the streets with The Salvation Army on cold nights looking for people to point them to open beds so that they need not freeze to death. On really cold nights if there isn’t a bed available the police will even help by arresting some people as a means of getting them off the street and ultimately saving their lives. Inevitably though, there are some people who still refuse that rest of the shelter. There are some who choose to die outside of that rest – even though there may be a bed open and waiting for them. This is some of what the preacher of Hebrews is talking about.
What exactly is God’s rest?
That then raises the question, what exactly is His rest. What exactly is God’s rest? It must be more than simply that land that He promised to Abraham, Isaac and Israel that the generation under Moses did not enter (Numbers 14). The preacher of this sermon to the Hebrews argues here that this rest they rejected is even more than that land. The preacher explains it in terms of creation. He explains it terms of the creation of the world. He says, Hebrews 4:3b-5, “And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world. For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: ‘And on the seventh day God rested from all his work.’ And again in the passage above he says, ‘They shall never enter my rest’” (See also Genesis 2:1-2; Exodus 20:8-11). He speaks about us entering into the same kind of rest that God has experienced since creation but what does that really mean?
Have you ever asked yourself: ‘what does it mean that God rested on the seventh day?’[8] What does it mean that He rests? Does God go to sleep?[9] Does He turn off the alarm? Does God just spend a day at the lake or watching football? Does God stop working? Does not the Bible say that our very breath comes from God and therefore if He withholds His breath, if He takes the day off and takes His spirit from us, then we will surely die? (Psalm 104:29-30; See Genesis 2:7, 2 Samuel 22:16, Job 27:3, Job 33:4, Psalm 18:15, Ezekiel 37, Revelation 11:11.) Let us not forget too that, John 5:17, when Jesus got in trouble for healing on the Sabbath that “Jesus said to them, ‘My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working.”’ Jesus said that his Father is always working – not periodically with some catnaps here and there: not taking a break to go to the lake. God and Jesus, Jesus says, are always working. They don’t (He doesn’t) take Sundays off (or the Sabbath which is Saturday, for that matter). Jesus tells us that God is always working.
So if God is always working and we are to join Him in his rest, how can we do this? How can we be always working with God and be in a state of rest? How can we always be resting with a God who is always at work? What is the preacher of Hebrews getting at? (I’m sure you can see now why I said this passage was a little bit confusing for me and why I consulted no shortage of commentaries and journal articles in preparing for today.) So what exactly is this rest of God’s that the Israelites turned down and so perished in (the wilderness of) Sin?
William Lane reminds us that rest for those with Moses and Joshua referred to relief from turmoil and secured borders that were to accompany entrance to the Promised Land - not idleness (Deuteronomy 12:9-10; see Numbers 14 and Psalm 95:7-11).[10] He further emphasizes that the preacher of the sermon to the Hebrews here is connecting God’s act of creation to Psalm 95:11[11] and Simon J. Kistemaker says, “Rest for God does not mean idleness; rather it is a cessation from the work of creation; God continues to enjoy this rest now that the work of his creation is completed.”[12] The book of Jubilees from the second century CE even tells us that God invites both people and angels to join him in this celebration of His rest.[13] God’s rest means that He has finished His creation and that is good (Genesis 1:31-2:2). God’s rest is not a temporary state of ‘taking time off work’ – because we know that God never stops working (John 5:17). God’s rest is rather a cause for a celebration that we are invited to join. God’s rest is this ‘perfect Sabbath rest’[14]
How do we enter into this rest?
So then how do we enter into this perfect Sabbath rest? How do we enter into this celebratory rest while we are still running the race (1 Corinthians 9:24-27) and while we are still pressing on towards the goal (Philippians 3)? How do we enter this rest while we are still fighting the good fight (1 Timothy 6:12)? How do we enter this rest, without giving up and falling short of the prize as Hebrews 4:11 warns us (see Luke 9:62)? What does it look like to enter God’s rest? Is it simply a time after we die and go to heaven or even after that at the ultimate resurrection of the dead, at the Eschaton? Is that all it is? I don’t think so. I think it relates to something here and now in our own lives as well.[15] I think it refers to something that we in The Salvation Army, and many in the Methodist, Anglican, and Holiness traditions refer to as entire sanctification. The Kingdom of God, after all, is at hand. Pfeiffer says that, “This ‘Sabbath rest’ does not mean the end of service to God and works which are the fruit of the Spirit. On the contrary, this rest [is what] makes such works possible. It is not simply the rest of Heaven but the rest of the spirit in Christ…’[16] The Heidelberg Catechism states “that every day of my life I rest from my evil ways, let the Lord work in me through his Spirit, and so begin already in this life the eternal Sabbath.”[17]
The Salvation Army’s Officers are called to give up all secular employment and work for God alone. All of us as Christians are called to serve God and serve God alone. In this way, by putting off the old self (Romans 6:6, Ephesians 4:22, Colossians 3:9) and clothing ourselves fully with Christ (Romans 13:14, Galatians 3:27), by serving him and not ourselves, I believe that we too can experience God’s rest and the Kingdom of God that the Gospels of Matthew (Matthew 12:28, 21:32), Mark (Mark 1:15, Mark 4:11) Luke (Luke 9:27, 10:9, 10:11, 11:20, 17:21, 21:31), and John (John 3) tell us about that is at hand right now (See also Acts, Romans 13:11-14, 1 Corinthians 6:2, 1 Corinthians 15:2, Ephesians 2:8, 1 Peter 1).[18] The Salvation Army’s tenth doctrine states, “We believe that it is the privilege of all believers to be wholly sanctified, and that [our] whole spirit and soul and body may be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”[19] We can all enter that rest today (Hebrews 4:7, Psalm 95:6-9).[20]
Hebrews 4:12, 13 records, “For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.”
So for those of us here today who are here standing at the precipice of God’s promise, we should not be afraid like the Israelites who did not enter the promised rest. We should not to turn down God’s salvation and die in the wilderness. Rather today as Hebrews 4:11 says, “Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall…” Today, please let us all follow God into that celebration, into that rest and into that holy peace and security of complete fellowship with our Lord Jesus Christ.
Let us pray.
http://www.sheepspeak.com/
---
[1] William L. Lane, Hebrews 1-8 (WBC 47A: Word Books: Dallas Texas, 1991), p. liii. Cf. Thomas G. Long, Hebrews (Interpretation: a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching: Louisville, Kentucky: John Knox Press, 1997), p. 3 and Fred B. Craddock, The Letter to the Hebrews (NIB 12: Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1998), p. 5.
[2] Thomas G. Long, p. 58.
[3] Simon J. Kistemaker, Hebrews (NTC: Thessalonians, the Pastorals, and Hebrews: Baker Academic: Grand Rapids Michigan, 2007), p.103; Thomas G. Long, p. 58. Long suggests that the sermon begins at Hebrews 3:12. But Cf. Fred B. Craddock, pp.44-45, 51. Craddock points out that 4:1-11 is a distinct unit within the greater section of 3:1-4:13 about the faithfulness of Christ.
[4] Blake Edwards. ‘In the Pink of the Night’ Available on-line at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rV5VgME5XPQ
[5] Ann Hoch Cowdery, "Hebrews 4:1-13" in Interpretation 48 no 3 (July 1994), p.283: “If one agrees with Ernst Käsemann that the principal motif of Hebrews is the wandering people of God (The Wandering People of God [Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1984]), then rest can be interpreted as spatial and eschatological. Christians are pilgrims on a journey of faith, and rest is a heavenly blessing. The author's use of Psalm 95, according to Käsemann, implies that Canaan was a way station for the Israelites who were on their way toward a heavenly Jerusalem. Christians similarly receive no earthly promised land, but do live in the promise of divine rest. The Christ event is the fulfillment of the exodus. The pilgrim's life is characterized by a faithfulness that is manifested in obedience to God's Word, and God's promise is consummated when one has been led through the suffering of this world to a heavenly future.”
[6] Cf. Charles F. Pfeiffer, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Everyman’s Bible Commentary: Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1962), p.36. The preacher of Hebrews refers to Jesus (which is a Greek name) by his Hebrew name, Joshua. This serves to emphasize the comparison.
[7] Luke Timothy Johnson, "The Scriptural World of Hebrews" in Interpretation 57 no 3 (July 2003), p.246: Thus, when the Holy Spirit speaks through Psalm 95 that “they did not enter into my rest,” the careful reader must conclude both that the Holy Spirit is correct concerning the generation of old—Canaan is not “God’s rest”—and must inquire further into what God’s rest might be. The psalm verse, after all, creates a contradiction in scripture that must be resolved, for LXX Josh 1:13 and 23:1 declare that the Lord had given a rest to the people by means of their entry into the land. Help is provided by a third text that serves to resolve the apparent contradiction, namely LXX Gen 2:2, which states that God rested (katepausen) from all his works on the seventh day. The people’s entry into the land was a rest for them, but it was not an entry into “God’s rest.” According to Hebrews, Psalm 95 therefore extends a rest for God’s people that Joshua could not enter but Jesus already has, namely, God’s own rest on the seventh day of creation: “Therefore, a sabbath rest (sabbatismos) remains for God’s people” (Heb 4:9).
[8]Ann Hoch Cowdery, "Hebrews 4:1-13" in Interpretation 48 no 3 (July 1994), p.285: “Based on Jewish tradition, the sabbath designates God's rest on the seventh day at the completion of creation. It is also a symbol for the eschaton with the priestly people of God celebrating the eternal sabbath. Sabbath instruction for the Jews suggests in addition, however, that rest and praise belong together and are to be practiced in the worship of the community as a remembrance of the past and a foretaste of the future (cf. Attridge, p. 130-31, and Lane, p. 101-02). The emphasis on "today" in verses 7 and 8 seems to present just such a challenge to the new people of God for their worship.”
[9] This would be in essence the Deists point of view: God created the world and then just disappeared so everything is left to us now. Many of the intellectual leaders of the American Revolution who weren’t Atheists were in fact Deists. Practically speaking they are almost the same. Neither believes that God is relevant to our daily lives. Both reject his help and so the author of Hebrews would argue that both, like that generation of Israel, declined their salvation.
[10] William Lane, p. 98.
[11] William Lane, p. 95.
[12] Simon J. Kistemaker, p. 108.
[13] Jubilees 2:18-21. Cited in Fred B. Craddock, p. 53.
[14] Charles F. Pfeiffer, p. 37.
[15] Cf. Fred B. Craddock, p. 53.
[16] Charles F. Pfeiffer, p. 37, cf. Ernst Käsemann, The Wandering People of God (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1984)
[17] Zacharius Ursinus and Caspar Olevianus, The Heidelberg Catechism, answer 103. Cited in Simon J. Kistemaker, p. 11.
[18] Michael Ramsay, 'Victory: The Final Whistle (Romans 13:11-14)' Presented to Nipawin and Tisdale Corps on December 02, 2007 and presented to Swift Current Corps on August 16, 2009. Available on-line at: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.com/2007/12/victory-final-whistle-romans-1311-14.html
[19] Read ‘Salvation Story: Salvationist Handbook of Doctrine’ – an explanation of and an elaboration upon Salvation Army doctrines on line at: http://www.salvationarmy.org/ihq/www_sa.nsf/50f73564cddae39480256cf4005d2262/f46673a32c86611a80256e4e00477c1f/$FILE/sastory.pdf
[20] John B. Rogers, Jr., "Hebrews 1:1-4" in Interpretation 57 no 3 (July 2003), p. 293: “There remains before us a challenge and a choice. It is not the choice of whether we shall permit God's sovereign purpose to be accomplished in our life. It is rather, as Paul suggested to the Philippians, the matter of "working out" the implications of God’s saving purpose for us "with fear and trembling," ever mindful that God is at work in us for [God's] good pleasure (Phil 2:12-13). We choose, therefore, how we shall live in response to this gospel of our salvation. How, in the living of our days, shall we choose to express the gratitude, obedience, confidence, and courage appropriate to those who inhabit God's sovereign purpose thus declared?”
Friday, September 4, 2009
What’s the Point? An Introduction to Hebrews
Presented to Swift Current Corps, 05 September 2009
By Captain Michael Ramsay
Today’s sermon is a bit of an experiment for me. I was involved in the field of education for quite a while and have taught many different classes, seminars and the like. In my experience the most effective ways of communicating to a class are somewhat different than what appears to be the most effective ways to proclaim the Gospel to a congregation (through a homily). Today I will attempt to combine the two styles somewhat but the first part of this morning’s encounter will be much more of a ‘teach’ than a ‘preach’ – so let me know what you think. If this is effective, we will probably introduce the other books of the Bible in a similar fashion.
Before we even start with any of that, I want to encourage us all to read our Bibles. We will be looking at the book of Hebrews for the next six weeks. Hebrews should take you no more than an hour to read as whole and I really encourage you to do this at least once every week, if you can. We will also be looking at Hebrews in the advanced adult Bible study class on Thursdays at 7PM at the church beginning September 15th. I invite you all to join us for that. If you can’t join us and find it a challenge to set aside time to read all of Hebrews in the week if you could remember to pre-read what we are going to discuss each Sunday that would be wonderful. The following is our preaching schedule for the next month.
Schedule:
Sept 6 – Introduction to Hebrews
Sept 13 – Hebrews 1 and 2
Sept 20 – Hebrews 3 and 4
Sept 27 – Hebrews 5, 6, 7, and 8
October 4 – Hebrews 9, 10, and 11
October 11 – Hebrews 12 and 13
Title of the Book
Traditionally in the Authorized Version, the King James Version of the Bible, this book is called “St. Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews”. In contemporary English, of course, ‘epistle’ means ‘letter’. Interestingly enough, though this book actually is probably NOT a letter and it is almost certainly NOT written by the Apostle Paul.
Who wrote the book of Hebrews?
So then, who wrote Hebrews? Scholars and historians have put forth many different possible names for the authorship of the book of Hebrews: Luke (who wrote both Luke and Acts), Clement of Rome, Priscilla (we know Priscilla and Aquilla from a number of places in the Biblical record: Acts 18, Romans 16:3, 1 Corinthians 16:19, 2 Timothy 4:19), and there’s also Paul’s companion Silvanus[1] (2 Corinthians 1:19, 1 Thessalonians 1:1, 2 Thessalonians 1:1, 1 Peter 5:12). Famous church fathers such as Tertullian have argued in favour of Barnabas (Acts 9- 15, 1 Corinthians 9:6 , Galatians 2, Colossians 4:10) as being the author[2] and Martin Luther preferred to believe that Apollos wrote Hebrews (Acts 18:24-19:1; 1 Corinthians 1:12, 3, 4:6, 16:12; Titus 3:13). The best answer to the question, ‘who wrote the book of Hebrews?’ I think was offered by Origen in the 3rd Century, when he was asked “But who wrote the epistle, in truth God alone knows.”[3] We really don’t know who wrote it but we can be pretty sure who didn’t write it and that is Paul: contemporary scholarship is in near 100% agreement on that issue.
When was the book written?
When was the book written? The range of possible dates for the writing of this book is from 60 AD[4] to 100 AD. Some scholars will shrink the range from 60 – 70 AD because in 70 AD, in response to a violent revolt by the Hebrews, Rome destroyed the temple in Jerusalem.[5] But, really, we don’t know when Hebrews was written other than it was written sometime after 60 AD and probably before 95 or even 90 AD.[6]
To recap, what have we learned so far?
Who wrote the book of Hebrews? (We don’t know – but it probably wasn’t Paul.)
When was the book written (We don’t know – but it probably was written between 60-95 AD)
To whom was the book of Hebrews written?
That brings us to our next question: to whom was Hebrews written? "To the Hebrews" is acknowledged as the title of this book by both Pantaenus in the East (Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 6.14.4) and by Tertullian in the West (De Pudicitia 20), among others. It is in the oldest MSS that we have of the New Testament.[7] Therefore we can probably safely assume that this book was actually written to a group of people called Hebrews.
But who were these Hebrews? Who are Hebrews? Originally the term ‘Hebrews’ referred to descendents of Abraham. The Hebrew word for ‘Hebrews’ first appears in the Bible in Genesis 14:13 and the term probably means something along the lines of ‘from across the Euphrates’[8] – This word was used to distinguish Abraham and his family from the people who were already living in Canaan (Palestine) when he arrived and later it was used to distinguish his children from his family who still lived back home. (It would be like referring to the Ramsays of Saskatchewan or the Ramsays of Victoria, BC. Abraham was not from Canaan, of course. He was from across the river. He comes from the area of the world that we now refer to as Iraq (show map).
The word ‘Hebrews’ then refers to descendents of Abraham who migrated westward from what is present day Iraq. (Interestingly enough, later on when some of Abrahams’ descendants -those descended from Israel- started to call themselves ‘Israelites’, people from other lands still referred to them as ‘Hebrews’.)[9] The word ‘Hebrews’ also refers to the language in which much of the Bible is written and the language that the ancient Hebrew people spoke.[10] Much the way today English people speak English; French people, French and Germans, German; Hebrews spoke Hebrew. This book (Hebrews) then is most likely addressed to Christians who were people of the Hebrew (Jewish) culture.[11] And in all likelihood these Hebrew Christians lived in the capital city of the Roman Empire: Rome.[12] Though of course like everything else this is somewhat debated too.
To recap what we’ve covered so far:
* Who wrote Hebrews? (We don’t know – but it probably wasn’t Paul.)
* To whom was it written? (We don’t know – but most likely it written to Christians who were culturally and ethnically Hebrews.)
* To where was it written? (We don’t know – but most contemporary scholars favour Rome.)
* When was Hebrews written? (We don’t know – but it was sometime between 60 and 100 AD. Most probably between 60-70 AD).[13]
The Reverend Tom Long sums up some of this introductory information about ‘Hebrews’ this way: “So we peer into the depths of the text unsure as to who wrote it, to whom, from where, or when. Imagine being handed a book today with the comment, ‘Here, you may enjoy this. It was written in America or Russia or France, I’m not sure, by a Jew – or was it a Gentile? – anyway, it was written sometime between 1920 and 1970. Enjoy.”[14] It’s not a lot to go on. But it is all we’ve got.
Where the book is placed in the Bible and why?
That brings us to another question and this one is neat and this one does have an answer. Does anyone know how it was decided in which order to place the books of the New Testament?
*The First four books: what are they? They are the Gospels, (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John / the life and times of Jesus).
*We then have Acts, which is a history of sorts.
*Then we have a series of letters and they are organized in a neat way. Does anyone know what that is? First we have all the letters that the early church leaders believe the Apostle Paul wrote and these are organized in descending order from the longest letter we have that he wrote, Romans, through to the shortest, Philemon.
*Then we have Hebrews and all the other non-Pauline letters and, of course, we finish off with the Apocalypse, John’s Revelation, which we looked at briefly last week.
The New Testament books are all organized in a neat and orderly fashion. This is good.
Hebrews as Sermon
We’ve gone through a number of introductory questions so far and we are just now coming up on some of the more important ones but first I should explain something that I said earlier. I had mentioned that traditionally in the King James Bible this book is titled ‘the Epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews’ and we have already mentioned that this book was not written by Paul and we have already mentioned that the word ‘epistle’ means ‘letter’ and that this book is probably not a letter. Now I am not going to bore you today too much with how we know this is not a letter except to say that just like today there are various conventions we follow when we write a letter – how we address it and sign it for example – there were also letter-writing conventions in Paul’s day and even though he does follow those conventions quite nicely in his letters, the originator of Hebrews doesn’t follow them at all so we can be very sure that it was not a letter at all. Many people actually think that Hebrews is in reality a sermon.[15]
As you sit down and read Hebrews through in one sitting (you can do it in less than an hour) you will notice that it does read nicely as a sermon. The author follows certain themes and comes back to them in ways one can easily do while speaking but that a grammatician would not be very pleased with at all if she saw it in a written work. Hebrews is very likely one of the earliest complete Christian sermons that we have. That makes this document very interesting and very important for us to study to see what exactly the early Christian Church thought and preached about God, Jesus, and their faith.
Why was Hebrews written?
Why then was this sermon spoken and/or this book written? These first hearers obviously knew the originator of these words (Hebrews 13:17-23) and they were very likely members of a small group or house church no larger than our assembly here today.[16] In this small group, they had a number of problems that they were facing that should be very familiar to Canadian Christians[17]:
* They had some people leaving their group and even turning their backs on their faith (Hebrews 10:25);
* They had other people who were still coming out regularly but who had grown apathetic about their faith. They didn’t act like they even cared about their salvation (Hebrews 2:1-14);[18]
And worse than not getting together regularly like this and worse than stopping to come out altogether to meetings and worse than growing apathetic about their whole faith, some of them stopped listening to God.[19]
* Some who used to come out regularly and meet as part of this congregation of the Hebrews Christian Church, some of this small group have even slid into apostasy (Hebrews 3:12).
These are very real problems not only for the Hebrew Christian Church in Rome but also I think for the Canadian Christian churches all across this country today.
Like with the Hebrew Christian Church, in Canada Christians are apparently taking their faith less seriously and even ceasing to meet together. The percentage of the Canadians attending religious services on a regular basis has declined significantly over the past 20 years alone. According to Statistics Canada only 21% of Canadians older than 15 reported they attended regular religious services in 2005.
At the same time, the number of Canadians that never attend religious services of any religion (not just Christianity!) has the increased in the past couple of decades to around 33%.[20] About 1/5 of Canadians attend church less than regularly and 1/3 of Canadians have never gone to church at all. Just like with the Hebrew Christian Church, the Canadian Christian Church is apparently growing apathetic about its faith and people are leaving. We are no longer listening to God and we are even slipping into apostasy, into atheism.
Prior to 1971, less than 1% of the Canadian population reported having no religion or atheism. In 2001,that percentage increased to 16% of the population, or just under 4.8 million people and that number is growing. About 37% of people in the Yukon by 2001 reported they had no religion, 35% in British Columbia and 23% in Alberta.[21] Even in Saskatchewan, where we Protestants have traditionally made up the largest part of the population, we are now a minority.[22]
Many people used to go to church until very recently across this country. We don’t anymore and that is starting to be reflected in our society. It is no coincidence that pornography use, violence and crime are more prevalent in this country than before. Like some people in the Hebrew Christian Church, members of the Canadian Christian Church are stopping to meet together regularly, we are growing apathetic about our faith, and we are already stopping to listen to God, and people in Canada are quickly becoming apostate.
Supreme Court Justice Charles Gonthier remarked not too long ago that: “…nothing in the Charter, political or democratic theory, or a proper understanding of pluralism demands that atheistically based moral positions trump religiously based moral positions on matters of public policy. I note that the preamble to the Charter itself establishes that ‘… Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.’”
However, things change and are changing quickly, just last month we saw the Supreme Court strip some of the more conservative Hutterites of their religious freedom. When I taught in the public schools (a long time ago now) and when I ran the tutoring programme in the schools for at risk kids in BC, I was told in no uncertain terms not to mention Christ in the classroom.[23] Secularists and Atheists have been tracking down civic politicians in Ontario and charging them with a crime if they dare to pray in their town hall meetings.
This is not different from the problems that are addressed in the book of Hebrews and in our society these problems are gaining momentum very quickly. A few years ago, even at the repatriation of our constitution, a generation of Canadians deferred to God. Now, because of that generation’s apathy towards educating our children, the next generation has been reared in the apostasy that we see across spreading across this country. Saskatchewan is still very much a Christian province but so was BC and so was Ontario.[24] It will continue to get worse if we in the Canadian Christian Church just continue making those same mistakes that prompted someone to write Hebrews so long ago. Hebrews is a very important sermon for us to read and re-read in this country. We have to avoid corporate spiritual apathy that is growing here. We must raise our children and grandchildren up right so that they know how to pray, read their Bibles and listen to God. Our children represent the future of our society (Cf. Mark 9:42; Luke 18:15-17; Matt 19:13-14; 10:13-16; Mark 9:42-50; John 8:31; Dt. 4:9-10; Dt. 11; Ps 34:11; 78:5; Eph 6:4; Tit 1:6; 2 John 1:4, 3 John 1:4).
The central theme of Hebrews, according to William L. Lane is “the importance of listening to the voice of God in Scripture and in the act of Christian preaching.”[25] This is true and if we are faithful in this, if we learn from the mistakes of the Hebrews, if we listen to the voice of God then perhaps we in Canada can still return to God, and perhaps we in Canada, even now, perhaps we in Canada – even now – we can still all be saved.
Let us pray.
www.sheepspeak.com
---
[1] Silvanus is referred to as Silas in some translations.
[2] Fred B. Craddock, The Letter to the Hebrews (NIB 12: Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1998), 6. Also there is a good discussion of this by Lenski in RCH Lenski, The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Epistle of James (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House, 1966), 10-14.
[3] RCH Lenski, p. 6. Thomas G. Long, Hebrews (Interpretation: a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching: Louisville, Kentucky: John Knox Press, 1997), 1.
[4] I prefer the traditional-historical method of dating (BC/AD) to the contemporary trend (BCE/CE). Certainly in a homily, in particular, the audience is more familiar with the traditional-historical terms of BC and AD.
[5] Charles F. Pfeiffer, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Everyman’s Bible Commentary: Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1962), 8.
[6] Fred B. Craddock, p. 8.
[7] Leon Morris, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Pradis CD-ROM:Hebrews/Introduction to Hebrews/Destination of Hebrews, Book Version: 4.0.2
[8] James Strong, “Eber – Ibriy (OT: 5677-5680),” in The New Strong’s Complete Dictionary of Bible Words. (Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Publishing, 1966), p. 467.
[9] William Smith, ‘Hebrew’ in Smith’s Bible Dictionary. (Flemming H. Revel Company, Tappan, New Jersey, 1982), 228.
[10] James Strong, “Eber – Hebraisti” (NT: 1443-1447),” in The New Strong’s Complete Dictionary of Bible Words. (Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Publishing, 1966), p. 607.
[11]Leon Morris, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Pradis CD-ROM:Hebrews/Introduction to Hebrews/Destination of Hebrews, Book Version: 4.0.2. See also RCH Lenski, p. 14 and Fred B. Craddock, 8.
[12] William L. Lane, Hebrews 1-8 (WBC 47A: Word Books: Dallas Texas, 1991), lviii. Cf RCH, Lenski, p. 15 and Charles F.Pfeiffer, p. 8.
[13] WBC lxi, lxxii and Pfeiffer 7,8.
[14] Thomas G. Long, p. 2.
[15] William L. Lane, p. liii. Cf. Thomas G. Long, p. 3 and Fred B. Craddock, p. 5.
[16] William L. Lane, p. liii.
[17] Cf. William L. Lane, p. lxi.
[18] Cf. Charles F. Pfeiffer, p. 9.
[19] Cf. Fred B. Craddock, p. 9.
[20] Colin Lindsay, “Canadians attend weekly religious services less than 20 years ago,” Prepared for Statistics Canada: June 2008. Cited 13 08 2009. Online: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-630-x/2008001/article/10650-eng.pdf pages 1,2.
[21]Statistics Canada, “2001 Census: analysis series: Religions in Canada”: May 2003. Cited 13 08 2009 Online: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/english/census01/products/analytic/companion/rel/pdf/96F0030XIE2001015.pdf , p. 9.
[22]Statistics Canada, “2001 Census: analysis series: Religions in Canada,” p. 14-12.
[23]Cfwww.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1040356828066_95///?hub=TopStories cf. also Christianity Today: Parents Flee Public Schools: "Christians in British Columbia, Canada, are worried that courts are undermining their religious rights in the classroom.” http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/march/12.23.html Cf. also the Atheist website, nodeity.com: http://nodeity.com/chamberlain_v_SD36.html re 'One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dads, Blue Dads' - You can read the Supreme Court Decision re. Questionable books: http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/index.html - The following phrase is interesting - 'The School Act's insistence on secularism;' this begs the question why must our be subjected to the secularist Worldview; neither BC not Canada were settled or founded upon that mythology. There were other problems with the books as well. CBC.ca: "This story has problems with punctuation and grammar throughout. The spelling of 'favourite' is inconsistent, switching from the Canadian to the American," said board chair Mary Polak about Asha's Mums. The board also criticized the book's depiction of men.(http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2003/06/13/samesex_books030613.html).It is serious that even though the book is unsatisfactory for education young people, that it was deemed necessary for our children to be exposed to it. The courts it appears are more interested in promoting a secular-atheist worldview than they are about providing a quality education for our children. The federal government has the jurisdiction to make laws to protect its citizens. The Supreme Court is only allowed to interpret the laws in theory. Cf. The National Post: ‘Gay couple gets input into school curriculum’, http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=80dd8007-ef56-40a7-809d-37936b9d4179&k=51593&p=1. Cf. also ‘Secular-Atheist's religion secures making the promotion of Homosexuality mandatory in the BC school system.’ Lifesite.net: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jun/06060101.html cf. also 'Documents Reveal Government Signed Over Control of Education to Homosexual Activists': http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jun/06061907.htmlcf. also: Peter Corren (né Cook) and Murray Corren (né Warren) — 'Corren is a combination of their former names — are LGBT-rights activists from Vancouver, British Columbia whose complaint before the BC Human Rights Tribunal led to an agreement by which the provincial Ministry of Education will consult them on how gays are presented in the school curriculum': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_and_Murray_Corren. Cf. http://www.secularontario.ca/peterbexam06dec13.html, CBC.ca: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2007/01/26/prayer.html , CanadianChristianity.com: http://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/na.cgi?nationalupdates/070201prayer
[24] No religion / Atheism is now the largest religion / World View in BC: StatsCan: http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/Products/Analytic/companion/rel/bc.cfm
[25] William L. Lane, p. cxvii.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
