# comment

text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 2:17'>Heb 2:17</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:490 24:6'>Luk 24:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:13'>Joh 19:13</a></em>.</p><p><em>Therefore in all things he had to be made like his brothers</em>- The same Greek word is used in <em><a href='B:690 3:2'>1Jn 3:2</a></em> of how finally, we shall be "made like" Him. His experiences of life, of our humanity, brought Him into identity with us- so that we might reach final identity with Him. The language of <em><a href='B:650 2:14-18'>Heb 2:14-18</a></em> may well be intended to be talking specifically about the Lord's death. This ongoing process of being 'made like' us came to particular intensity at that time. The hymn of Philippians 2 makes the same point- that the Lord was made like us mentally particularly through His experience of crucifixion and death. His death became ours, so that His resurrection and life shall likewise become ours. But "made like" implies a process, as if through His life experience He progressively came to identify with all men, and this process of identification and total understanding of all men came to a peak culmination in His time of dying. "Made like" means fundamentally 'to assimilate'. He assimilated all that there is in man, so that nobody can ever now complain that there is nobody who understands them. On earth there indeed is not, but there is the Heavenly man who does.</p><p>Moses' persecution by Pharaoh enabled him to enter into the feelings of Israel in the slave camps; and as they fled from Pharaoh towards the Red Sea, Moses would have recalled his own flight from Pharaoh to Midian. The whole epistle to the Hebrews is shot through with allusions to Moses. "In all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren" (<em><a href='B:650 2:17'>Heb 2:17</a></em>) is alluding to <em><a href='B:50 18:18'>Deu 18:18</a></em>:&nbsp;“I will raise them up a Prophet&nbsp;<em>from among their brethren</em>&nbsp;like unto&nbsp;<em>thee&nbsp;</em>(Moses)". The brethren of Christ are here paralleled with Moses; as if Moses really is representative of not only natural Israel, but spiritual too- as well as Moses being a type of Christ. For this reason he is such a clear pattern for us, and we are invited so often to identify ourselves with him by copying his example. Moses was&nbsp;<em>made like</em>&nbsp;his brethren through his similar experiences, as Christ was progressively&nbsp;<em>made like</em>&nbsp;us by his life of temptation:&nbsp;</p><p><em>So that he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people</em>- The Jewish High Priest was doing a job, and had no personal dispensation which allowed him to be merciful / compassionate (Gk:) to the offerers who came to him or to the people for whom he interceded. The Lord Jesus is a High Priest who has the capacity to show compassion, who is faithful or trustworthy to do the required work of obtaining our forgiveness. "Things pertaining to God" is an attempt to translate&nbsp;<em>pros theos</em>, the very phrase used in <em><a href='B:500 1:1'>Joh 1:1</a></em>, "with God" and <em><a href='B:500 13:3'>Joh 13:3</a></em> "to God" (also <em><a href='B:500 20:17'>Joh 20:17</a></em> "I ascend:::&nbsp;<em>pros</em>&nbsp;my Father"). The Lord is not simply "with God" in a literal sense but He is before God and with Him in the sense that He and the Father are 'together'; and the Lord Jesus is very much with us, on our side. He therefore is able uniquely to get our forgiveness. For He wants to save us::. quite simply so. He is God "with us", Emmanuel, bringing God to be on our side in the crucial area of dealing with our sins. When we read of prayer being made by believers&nbsp;<em>pros theos</em>, with or before God (e:g. <em><a href='B:510 12:5'>Act 12:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 10:1'>Rom 10:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 15:30'>Rom 15:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 13:7'>2Co 13:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 4:6'>Phi 4:6</a></em>), this is possible on account of the Lord's mediation for us there. It also explains how Paul could have a clean conscience&nbsp;<em>pros theos</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:510 24:16'>Act 24:16</a></em>), when there had been a time when he had walked against the goads of conscience. But his heavenly mediator&nbsp;<em>pros theos</em>&nbsp;brought him too&nbsp;<em>pros theos</em>, because he was "in Christ". There in heaven itself, before God, we have peace and every confidence&nbsp;<em>pros theos</em>&nbsp;on account of our Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:520 5:1'>Rom 5:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 3:4'>2Co 3:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:21'>1Jn 3:21</a></em>). For we are "in Christ", and are therefore and thereby acceptably&nbsp;<em>pros theos</em>&nbsp;in Heaven itself (<em><a href='B:590 1:8-9'>1Th 1:8-9</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 2:18'>Heb 2:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For because he himself suffered when tempted, he is able to succour those who are being tempted</em>- This succouring of tempted persons is surely psychological, seeing that temptation is internal to the human heart (<em><a href='B:660 1:13-15'>Jas 1:13-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 7:15-23'>Mar 7:15-23</a></em>). The succouring is therefore through the gift of the Spirit in the hearts / psychology of the believer. The Lord was tempted because He was human; God Himself cannot be tempted (<em><a href='B:660 1:13'>Jas 1:13</a></em>). And because He overcame, therefore He is now able to give His Spirit, the mindset He had, to those who are "in Him" and desire to truly be as Him. This verse suggests that in the heat of temptation, at the very moment of it, He is able to provide psychological strength to overcome it. And this is the path to salvation, it is how He saves us in practice. Now is the day of salvation, and so now is the time when He will provide us this "succour" or aid (see on <em><a href='B:540 6:2'>2Co 6:2</a></em>). We can boldly say that the Lord Jesus is my helper / succourer s:w:, so we need never fear a situation that could spiritually swamp us (<em><a href='B:650 13:6'>Heb 13:6</a></em>). "Suffered when tempted" doesn't mean that He simply suffered in the sense of experienced temptation. The word is used many times of the Lord's suffering on the cross, and later in Hebrews it is used in this way (<em><a href='B:650 5:8'>Heb 5:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 9:26'>Heb 9:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 13:12'>Heb 13:12</a></em>). His identity with our temptations came to a climax of total identity on account of His final sufferings, when He was the most sorely tempted:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 3:1'>Heb 3:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore holy brothers, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus</em>- Chapter 2 has emphasized that we are the "brothers" of the Lord Jesus. And yet the focus now moves on to the greatness of that supreme "brother". The argument is to counter the relatively low status assigned to the Messiah figure within the Judaism which was beckoning the Christians. Even if they accepted Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah, the view of Messiah was far too low, and was not giving due respect to the high status and work of the Lord Jesus. Judaism was at best an earthly calling; we are "partakers" in Christ (<em><a href='B:650 3:1'>Heb 3:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 2:14-18'>Heb 2:14-18</a></em>), and thereby of a calling from Heaven, i:e. of God. They were to "consider"/ 'observe or perceive fully' (Gk:) the real nature and wonder of the exalted Lord Jesus. He was a 'sent one', an Apostle, just as He sent us into the world. As the Father sent Him, so He sends us to the world in the great commission (<em><a href='B:500 20:21'>Joh 20:21</a></em>). "Confession" means literally that, and implies that faith involves a literal confession or profession of faith to others. Paul uses it three times in Hebrews (also <em><a href='B:650 4:14'>Heb 4:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:23'>Heb 10:23</a></em>).</p><p>Concentration on the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus is something which the Hebrew writer so often encourages, in his efforts to encourage the Hebrew believers. After perhaps 25 years of believing (they were probably converted at Pentecost), they were starting to get bored with God's Truth; the will to keep on keeping on was no longer what it was. But because of the cross, because&nbsp;<em>He paid dearly for you</em>, because He is now thereby our matchless mediator: hold on, hold fast,&nbsp;<em>therefore</em>&nbsp;(a watchword of Hebrews) endure to the end (<em><a href='B:650 3:1'>Heb 3:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 3:6'>Heb 3:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 4:14'>Heb 4:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:21'>Heb 10:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:23'>Heb 10:23</a></em>). For that great salvation will surely be realized one day. So, concentrate&nbsp;<em>personally</em>&nbsp;on the fact that He hung there for you, honour your solemn duty to at least try to reconstruct the agony of His body and soul.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 3:2'>Heb 3:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Who was faithful to Him that appointed him, as also was Moses in all his house</em>- "Appointed" is literally 'made'. The Lord was 'made' High Priest for us at His resurrection (<em><a href='B:650 5:5'>Heb 5:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:36'>Act 2:36</a></em>). The tense of "was faithful" implies that He was and still is. This High Priest can be trusted; the Mosaic High Priests simply did a job and it was over to God to grant forgiveness and acceptance. But our High priest has a role to play in the granting of forgiveness and mediation of blessing. The reference may be to how God 'made' or appointed Moses and Aaron (<em><a href='B:90 12:6'>1Sa 12:6</a></em>). Although Moses was not the High Priest, he effectively acted as such due to Aaron's inadequacy; hence the Lord's High Priestly role is contrasted to that of Moses, with the hint that the Aaronic High Priest was never fully adequate. One like Moses, but greater than Moses, was required; and that is how Messiah is defined in <em><a href='B:50 18:15'>Deu 18:15</a></em>. The language of Moses being faithful in God's house is quoted from <em><a href='B:40 12:7'>Num 12:7</a></em>, where "My servant Moses is not so. He is so faithful in all My house" is stated in the context of Moses' superiority over Aaron the High Priest. The house or family / people of Moses was Israel, but Messiah's house is universal in scope.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 3:3'>Heb 3:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For he has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, in that he that built the house has more honour than the house</em>- Judaism considered Moses worthy of higher glory than any Messiah figure. Again Paul is attacking their concept of Messiah as inadequate. The "house" of Messiah is different to that of Moses; Messiah built "his own house" (:6) and was and is faithful over it. Moses did not build the house of Israel; God did. Moses was placed over it. Messiah built His own house and was faithful over it. "He that built the house" doesn't mean that Christ built the house of Moses. It has a general reference to the fact that Messiah built and rules over&nbsp;<em>His&nbsp;</em>house, whereas Moses built no house but was simply placed over the house of Israel at the time. To build a house / family means to have children and raise them. This is what the Lord Jesus has done by having spiritual children of His own nature, as taught previously in <em><a href='B:650 2:13'>Heb 2:13</a></em>, where the Lord is likened to Isaiah building up his faithful family, and we are as Isaiah's children of prophetic witness. Judaism had so glorified Israel as a people that they were effectively saying that they had as much glory as God who built them. They were confusing the creator and the created, as Paul points out in Romans 1. Effectively, Judaism was making Moses equal to God. The Rabbis argued that by gematria the numerical value of “Moses our Rabbi” was 613, which is also the value of the letters of “Lord God of Israel”. Paul is seeking to refocus them upon the basics- that God is greater than Moses, and Messiah likewise is, for He has built a greater house which He is Lord over.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 3:4'>Heb 3:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Every house is built by someone; but He that built all things is God</em>- The Lord Jesus, Messiah, is the builder of the spiritual temple, the house of God (<em><a href='B:450 6:12'>Zec 6:12</a></em>). But it was God working through Him to build it, in ultimate terms. Moses was not the builder of any house, and so Hod was not in that sense manifested through Him in such work as He was through Messiah.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 3:5'>Heb 3:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And Moses indeed was faithful in all his house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were afterward to be spoken</em>- Moses was a servant over his house, whereas Messiah had God manifested through Him in building&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;house over which He therefore was and is a true Master&nbsp;<em>over</em>&nbsp;His house (:6), and not simply a servant within the house. Moses is frequently called the "servant" (<em><a href='B:60 1:1-2'>Jos 1:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 9:24'>Jos 9:24</a></em> etc:). But the builder of a house is more than a servant; as the Son of the Divine Builder of all things, He is "over" His own house in a far superior way to that in which Moses served as a servant within his house. The faithfulness of Moses was a testimony towards someone far greater, Messiah Jesus.</p><p>If Moses' God is to be ours in truth in the daily round of life, we must rise up to the dedication of Moses; as he was a faithful steward, thoroughly dedicated to God's ecclesia (<em><a href='B:650 3:5'>Heb 3:5</a></em>), so we are invited follow his example (<em><a href='B:530 4:2'>1Co 4:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:45'>Mat 24:45</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 3:6'>Heb 3:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But Christ, as a Son over his own house-&nbsp;</em>As explained above, the Messiah was to "over" His own house / family because He, on God's behalf, was the maker of it. Moses was a servant set over a household, but the Lord's household was made by Himself with God's manifestation through Him. We are that household.</p><p><em>Whose house we are if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope, remaining firm to the end</em>- Clearly enough, we must endure to the end to be saved (<em><a href='B:470 10:22'>Mat 10:22</a></em>). We can, by implication, leave the household of Christ. We need to assess any exit from a church community in that light; for so often, disaffected individuals leave a local community and go nowhere, to then fade away in their faith. "Hold fast" is the same word used for the "good ground" 'keeping the word' in their hearts (<em><a href='B:490 8:15'>Luk 8:15</a></em>). Without a written New Testament, they would have needed to quite literally remember and mentally keep hold of the word preached. They were to hold fast s:w. the confidence they had at the beginning (:14), in those heady days when thousands of Hebrews were baptized in Jerusalem. They were confident of salvation; but with the passing of the years, that joy which came from being confident of the outcome of the judgment seat had subsided. Whether we are still joyfully confident of "the hope", the&nbsp;<em>elpis</em>, the firm assurance, is what is finally the litmus test for our faith. We will be confirmed as the Lord's "house" at "the end"; He shall eternally be the master over the family which we have no joined, but which shall be eternally solidified, as it were, at the last day.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 3:7'>Heb 3:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore, even as the Holy Spirit said-&nbsp;</em>The understanding is that the words of the Old Testament are God's Spirit speaking; for this is the meaning of the Scriptures being Divinely inspired or in-spirited. The argument begun by "therefore" is picked up again in :12- therefore, "take heed".</p><p><em>Today, if you shall hear his voice</em>- The Hebrew is an appeal: "Oh that today you would hear His voice". The emphasis upon "today" is in the context of appealing for confidence in the certain hope of salvation (:6). We should be able to say with confidence that "today" if the Lord comes or if we die, we shall be saved. This is the meaning of the emphasis upon "today"; Peter has the same idea when writing of our rejoicing in "the present truth" (<em><a href='B:680 1:12'>2Pe 1:12</a></em>), the ultimate truth that today at this moment we shall be saved if the Lord returns or we die. In this sense "now is the day of salvation" (<em><a href='B:540 6:2'>2Co 6:2</a></em>). At this moment we can seek and find the Lord, "while He may be found" (<em><a href='B:290 55:6'>Isa 55:6</a></em>). The Lord repeats the same argument by saying that "If any man hear My voice::. I will come in to him" (<em><a href='B:730 3:20'>Rev 3:20</a></em>). Hebrews opened with the statement that the God who spoke by the prophets has spoken to us in His Son; and it is directly from Him that we are appealed to. Hearing the Lord's voice may well allude to the Lord's statement that His sheep hear His voice; and the context of the Psalms 95 quotation is that “He is our God, and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand” (<em><a href='B:230 95:7'>Psa 95:7</a></em> ASV). The voice of God is therefore mediated to us through the shepherd voice of the Lord Jesus:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 3:8'>Heb 3:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Do not harden your hearts, as in the rebellion, like the time of testing in the wilderness</em>- We note that it was the Jews who hardened their hearts when Paul preached to them (<em><a href='B:510 19:9'>Act 19:9</a></em>). The entire period of wilderness wanderings was characterized by Israel putting God to the test; they were not confident of their final salvation, and were ever looking for evidence from Him. He had brought them out of Egypt through the blood of the Passover lamb; and there were daily miracles of provision in the bread and water which pointed forward to the Lord Jesus. This desire for yet further proof is seen in various guises today; from the phlegmatic, wavering believer who wants more 'scientific proof' of God to those in the Pentecostal movement ever seeking visible evidence that the Lord is amongst them. The word of promise regarding salvation is to be believed and that faith and joy held on to (:6).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 3:9'>Heb 3:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Where your fathers put me to the test and saw my works for forty years</em>- See on :8. They continually tested God even though they saw His works daily; the manna, water from the rock, shekinah glory over the tabernacle, the cloud by day and the fire by night. But still they tested Him. As noted on :8, this is our warning against ever seeking 'hard proof'. Even if we were to be daily given it, this would not take away the desire to test God. It is total faith in the word of promise which is required (:6), and the confirmation is not in petty experimentation day by day which 'prooves' God, but rather has it already been provided in the Lord's death and resurrection.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 3:10'>Heb 3:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore I was displeased with this generation, and said: They do always err in their heart. They did not know My ways</em>- This 'displeasure' or 'grief' lasted 40 years (:17 s:w:); it was a daily grief that they did not trust Him. To believe in God is to trust Him. In Hebrew, belief is trust. And no amount of petty testing of God will give us that trust. Psalms 95 gives us a unique insight into God's internal thought processes. He "said" within Himself that they problem was in Israel's hearts. They had seen "His way in the Red Sea" (<em><a href='B:230 77:19'>Psa 77:19</a></em>), He had "made known His ways to Israel" (<em><a href='B:230 103:17'>Psa 103:17</a></em>), but their heart was far from Him. But "My ways" refers so often to God's commandments; israel were repeatedly asked to "walk in His ways" as they walked through the wilderness (<em><a href='B:50 10:12'>Deu 10:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:22'>Deu 11:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 26:17'>Deu 26:17</a></em> etc:). He sought not so much total legalistic obedience to His ways / commandments as to "know" them, to appreciate them, to perceive them in their hearts. The Hebrew word translated "err" is that used for Israel's "wandering" in the wilderness for 40 years (<em><a href='B:230 107:4'>Psa 107:4</a></em>). They wandered in their minds, just as humanity does today- from this passing passion to that, toying with that principle or fantasy and then with this::. and that mental lack of stability was reflected in how they literally wandered. This aimless wandering through life is the parade characteristic of the unbelieving world. Only a firm hope in Christ and our future salvation can give us this mental and emotional stability which is the work of the Holy Spirit.</p>


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:650 3:11'>Heb 3:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>As I swore in My anger: They shall not enter into My rest</em>- God has emotion. The generation that were promised the rest, permanence and stability of the promised land were not given it, because in their hearts they wandered. And this, as noted on :10, was reflected in their wandering in the wilderness. This implies that God changed His mind about letting Israel enter the land; for He had promised that generation "rest" in that He promised them the land (<em><a href='B:60 1:15'>Jos 1:15</a></em>). Or as <em><a href='B:40 14:34'>Num 14:34</a></em> (A. V. mg. ) says: "Ye shall bear your iniquity, even forty years, and ye shall know the altering of My purpose". These were the words of the Angel to Moses. The apparent change of plans could be seen as more appropriate if it concerned the Angel which led them; and yet the Angel all the same was manifesting God. This oath they would not "enter into My rest" was solely because they did not believe (:18). The immorality, idolatry etc. were relatively incidental to the essential issue- that they did not believe He would give them rest in the promised land. And therefore He did not give it to them. The context of all this is Paul's appeal for confident hope in our future salvation (:6). It is unbelief and a constant demand for 'proof' which was their problem which cost them salvation:&nbsp;</h4>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 3:12'>Heb 3:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Brothers, take care, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, causing you to depart from the living God</em>- The problem was in their hearts (:10), their unbelief (:18). The appeal to "take care" was not just to the Hebrew believers as individuals, but to them as "brothers" to ensure that not only in themselves personally but amongst none of them there should be this heart of unbelief. The immediate issue was of not believing in the Lord Jesus. This was the reason why they were no longer confident of salvation; because Judaism had eroded their faith in the saviour, their real confidence in salvation was waning, and likewise their joy (:6). It was this heart of unbelief in Messiah as Saviour which would cause them to depart from God, the God who is alive in His risen Son. This was the great tragedy- that Judaism which so prided itself in theism was actually turning people away from real faith in God. Because faith in Him is predicated upon faith in His Son.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 3:13'>Heb 3:13</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:530 10:21'>1Co 10:21</a></em>.</p><p><em>But encourage one another day by day, so long as it is called today, lest any one of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin</em>- See on :7 for the significance of "today". As noted on :12, the Hebrews were to not only worry about their own salvation but that of others. They were to enourage one another daily, which suggests the audience were daily with each other. This would fit the situation in the Jerusalem church, where it seems they daily encountered each other (<em><a href='B:510 2:46'>Act 2:46</a></em>). It was the deceitful nature of sin which could harden their heart; but the 'heart' problem was a disbelief in the sure salvation available in Jesus. But ultimately it was sin which was deceiving them, albeit under the guise of claiming to be more rigorously legally obedient to Judaism. The final issue is between sin and righteousness; the kingdom of this world or the eternal Kingdom of God and His Son; the life of the flesh or the Spirit. It was sin which was attractive to them, and we can infer that this was the fundamental reason they were shying away from confident faith in their salvation. For if we are sure we are to live eternally in God's Kingdom in the spiritual life, we can hardly be enthusiastic for the way of the flesh in this life. So it is the desire to sin which militates against total confidence in salvation.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 3:14'>Heb 3:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast to our original confidence, remaining firm to the end</em>- The word for "partakers" is used of how we are His "fellows" or co-partakers (<em><a href='B:650 1:9'>Heb 1:9</a></em>); we partake in the heavenly calling (:1) and in the Holy Spirit (<em><a href='B:650 6:4'>Heb 6:4</a></em>). We are saved, and yet not finally; we are partakers, but only completely so at the last day, after we have held firm unto the end. The "original confidence" implies they were totally confident of their salvation when they were first baptized; "he that believes and is baptized shall be saved" (<em><a href='B:480 16:16'>Mar 16:16</a></em>) rang so simply true to them. Salvation is on account of being "in Christ", but we must abide in Him to the end of our lives. It is then that we are "partakers of Christ". Paul envisaged the Lord's return in the lifetime of believers, and so uses "the end" as a reference to both the end of a believer's life and also to the Lord's coming. The Lord Himself several times defined "the end" as the day of His return (<em><a href='B:470 24:6'>Mat 24:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:13-14'>Mat 24:13-14</a></em>). Paul asks us to hold our faith unto "the end" (<em><a href='B:650 6:11'>Heb 6:11</a></em>), which seeing death is unconsciousness means that he intended us to hold the faith until "the end" of our lives. And yet in effect, our death is His return, for the next conscious moment for us will be His return.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 3:15'>Heb 3:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>It is said: Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts, as in the rebellion</em>- The idea of "today" as expounded on :7 is that if we right now hear the Lord's voice, we can rejoice that if today is our "end", then we shall be saved. We have heard in essence the same voice as Israel heard in that the Gospel was preached to them as well as to us (<em><a href='B:650 4:2'>Heb 4:2</a></em>). "The rebellion" is a phrase used only elsewhere in :8, where it refers to the whole period of Israel's testing of God in the desert, rather than some particular moment of rebellion. But the quotation from <em><a href='B:230 95:8'>Psa 95:8</a></em> specifically uses the Hebrew word&nbsp;<em>meribah</em>&nbsp;for "the rebellion" or "provocation". Their provocation at Meribah was that they had specifically challenged God to prove He was amongst them, despite having been given so many signs that He was; and they did this at a place called Meribah twice, at the beginning (<em><a href='B:20 17:7'>Exo 17:7</a></em>) and at the end of the forty year wanderings (<em><a href='B:40 20:2-13'>Num 20:2-13</a></em>). The observation is made in <em><a href='B:230 78:18'>Psa 78:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 78:41'>Psa 78:41</a></em> that this latter testing of God was done "in their heart", and it is the heart which is Paul's concern in this section. The hardening of hearts was therefore in refusing to perceive all the evidence which God had already given in Christ and indeed in the miraculous signs which had been witnessed by the Hebrew Christians. Perhaps Paul felt that the 40 year period from the Lord's death was coming to a close, and the Hebrew Christians likewise at the end of a similar period were testing God and desiring to return to Egypt, which is what happened at Meribah (<em><a href='B:40 20:2-13'>Num 20:2-13</a></em>). But the element of 'return' was in that they were returning to Judaism, which Paul sees as 'Egypt'. Stephen made the same connection in his speech (see on <em><a href='B:650 1:1'>Heb 1:1</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 3:16'>Heb 3:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For who, having heard, still rebelled? Was it not all those who followed Moses out of Egypt?</em>- The implication could be that having heard the message of salvation, they should not have rebelled. The argument and rhetoric is typical of one which would be used in a verbal address (see on <em><a href='B:650 13:22'>Heb 13:22</a></em>); as if to say 'And let's remind ourselves, folks, who are we talking about? Who are these rebels who heard the good news but still rebelled? Was it not all those who followed Moses out of Egypt?'. The implication was that it was Christians who had followed Christ out of the world and through the waters of baptism towards salvation (<em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>)- who were now turning back to where they had come from. The total failure of that generation is cited as a sober example of a mass collapse of faith; "your whole number" were to perish as described in :17 (<em><a href='B:40 14:29'>Num 14:29</a></em> "Your dead bodies shall fall in this wilderness; and all that were numbered of you, according to your whole number"). Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2 envisaged a great collapse of faith just before the Lord returned. And here he seems to hint at the same thing by suggesting that the Hebrews were at the point Israel were at in Meribah, at the end of their journey / 40 years, where they turned away and wished to return to Egypt.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 3:17'>Heb 3:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And with whom was He displeased for forty years? Was it not with those that sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness?</em>- The sustained series of rhetorical questions is appropriate to a verbal address- see on <em><a href='B:650 13:22'>Heb 13:22</a></em>. The displeasure for forty years could suggest that the incident of Meribah, "rebellion" / "provocation", was the one at the start of the forty years; see on :15. <em><a href='B:650 3:17'>Heb 3:17</a></em> RVmg speaks of their “limbs which fell in the wilderness”- the picture is of condemned men staggering on through the desert, discarded limbs wasted by some terrible and progressive disease. This is the picture of the condemned. Israel wandering in the wilderness until their carcasses lay strewn over the scrubland of Sinai connects with Cain also being a wanderer after his rejection. He was made a "fugitive", from a Hebrew root meaning to shake, to totter, to reel. He was to wander, shaking with fear, reeling. The word is also rendered 'to bemoan'. It's an awful scene: bemoaning his lot, shaking, wandering, reeling, nowhere. The same image is found in <em><a href='B:240 14:32'>Pro 14:32</a></em>: “The wicked is driven away Heb. to totter, be chased in his wickedness”.</p><p>God grieved over the carcasses of those wretched men whom He slew in the wilderness for their thankless rebellions against Him their saviour. The apostle makes the point: “With&nbsp;<em>whom</em>&nbsp;was He grieved?". Answer: with the wicked whom He slew A human God or a proud God would never grieve over His victory over His enemies. Even in the fickleness of Israel's repentance, knowing their future, knowing what they would subject His Son to, "His soul was grieved for the misery of Israel" (<em><a href='B:70 10:16'>Jdg 10:16</a></em>). He delays the second coming because He waits and hopes for repentance and spiritual growth from us. But He praises the faithful for patiently waiting for Him (<em><a href='B:290 30:18'>Isa 30:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 37:7'>Psa 37:7</a></em>). Here we see the humility of God's grace.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 3:18'>Heb 3:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And to whom swore He that they should not enter into His rest, but to those that were disobedient?-&nbsp;</em>Disobedience is paralleled here with "unbelief" (:19) in that faith and works are related. Faith without works is dead. If we really believe that we shall be saved, and can say at this moment of time that in this "today" I shall be saved::. then we will naturally seek to be obedient. But what was Israel's particular act of disobedience in the wilderness which led to their being excluded from entering the land? I suggest the reference is to <em><a href='B:50 1:26'>Deu 1:26</a></em>: "Yet you wouldn’t go up AV "refused to go up", but rebelled against the commandment of Yahweh your God". They were told to enter the land but refused. Refusal to accept the Kingdom of God is tantamount to disbelief we shall enter it (:19). This is where it is critical to understand "faith" as not simply belief in the rightness and logical correctness of a set of theological propositions. Faith is trust / confidence that we shall be saved. It is to say "Yes" to the command to enter the Kingdom. If we cease believing this, then we are in that sense disobedient to the command to enter the Kingdom prepared for us from the foundation of the world. We thereby judge ourselves as those who shall be rejected from the Kingdom, in that we did not wish to be there ourselves.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 3:19'>Heb 3:19</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:500 3:3'>Joh 3:3</a></em>.</p><p><em>So we see that they were not able to enter in because of their unbelief</em>- See on :18. The essential problem with Israel was not their moral failure but their disbelief that really they would be saved. They did not enter in because they chose themselves not to. But once rejected, they then did attempt to enter the land, not by faith but in their own strength; and they were not able to enter (<em><a href='B:40 14:40-45'>Num 14:40-45</a></em>). This again was a pertinent challenge to the Hebrew Christians returning to Judaism. Entry to the Kingdom of God can only be by faith that we shall do so; any attempt to enter in our own strength will leave us realizing all too late that we "were not able to enter in" because we lacked faith, even if we had belated desire and human effort. The&nbsp;<em>dunamis</em>&nbsp;('ability') to enter the Kingdom is the&nbsp;<em>dunamis</em>&nbsp;of the Spirit gift, which is predicated upon faith alone (<em><a href='B:560 3:16-20'>Eph 3:16-20</a></em>); the idea is parallel with not being able to see the Kingdom cp. Moses seeing the promised land unless we receive the birth of the Spirit (<em><a href='B:500 3:3'>Joh 3:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:5'>Joh 3:5</a></em>). "Cannot enter into" in <em><a href='B:500 3:5'>Joh 3:5</a></em> translates the very Greek phrase found here "not able to enter in".</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 4:1'>Heb 4:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore, while the promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any one of you should seem to have failed to attain it-&nbsp;</em>As explained on <em><a href='B:650 3:6'>Heb 3:6</a></em>, we should be able to say that "today" we shall be saved, and be confident in it, if the Lord returns today or we die. The promise of entering salvation in this sense remains to us; all we have to do is believe. But as in Romans 11, there is the command to fear because of the real possibility of our being like natural Israel. There is a very powerful parable in the account of the wilderness journey through life, whereby the Red Sea represents baptism, eating the manna daily corresponds to daily feeding on the word etc. This parable is alluded to in so many parts of Scripture. However, only a minority of those baptized in the Red Sea actually reached the promised land. Can we expect the parallel with the new Israel to break down at this point? Just look back at your own Christian experience if you can't believe it. Add to this the number of those who spiritually fall asleep, and the frightening similarity between natural and spiritual Israel comes abruptly into focus.</p><p>An element of fear is not wrong in itself. Israel in the wilderness had the pillar of fire to remind them of God's close presence, and to thereby motivate them not to sin: "His fear (will) be before your faces, that you sin not" (<em><a href='B:20 20:20'>Exo 20:20</a></em>). Notice how Isaac's guardian angel is described as "the fear" in <em><a href='B:10 31:42'>Gen 31:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 31:53'>Gen 31:53</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:10 48:15-16'>Gen 48:15-16</a></em>:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 4:2'>Heb 4:2</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:500 15:27'>Joh 15:27</a></em>.</p><p><em>For indeed we have had good tidings preached to us, even as also they did; but the word they heard did not benefit them, because it was not united by faith with them that heard it-&nbsp;</em>The Gospel was preached to Abraham as it is to us (<em><a href='B:550 3:8'>Gal 3:8</a></em>). That good news in its simplest form is not a set of theological propositions but the simple promise that by grace we shall receive an eternal Kingdom. The promise of inheriting the land is therefore a key part of the Gospel preached to us. They like the Hebrew believers in Jerusalem had "heard" rather than read this good news. But the message preached must be "united::. with" us. This act of unity with the promise of the Kingdom is baptism and abiding in Christ (<em><a href='B:550 3:27-29'>Gal 3:27-29</a></em>). The breaking of bread service is another opportunity to demonstrate our unity with the Kingdom promise in Christ, but unity with it is primarily in living the Kingdom life now. The ultimate "benefit" is that we enter the Kingdom of God (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 16:26'>Mat 16:26</a></em>). The word of the Spirit is what profits or benefits us (<em><a href='B:500 6:63'>Joh 6:63</a></em> s:w:). By turning away from the word of promise, the Hebrew Christians were not going to be benefitted or s:w. 'profited'. The Jewish rituals upon which they wre now relying would "profit nothing" (<em><a href='B:550 5:2'>Gal 5:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 13:9'>Heb 13:9</a></em> s:w:):&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 4:3'>Heb 4:3</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:540 4:6'>2Co 4:6</a></em>.</p><p><em>For we who have believed do enter into that rest, even as He has said: As I swore in my anger: They shall not enter into My rest-&nbsp;</em>The emphasis is upon the word "They". Because some would not enter the rest, the implication is that some would. This is a parade example of a cup half full rather than half empty attitude. It is typical of Paul's positivism, which should be seen in our thinking too. We "do enter" in the sense that we shall enter if we believe; a&nbsp;futuristic present middle indicative.</p><p><em>Although the works were finished from the foundation of the world</em>- The Kingdom has been prepared for us "from the foundation of the world" and we are to "enter" it as they were to enter the "rest" of Canaan (<em><a href='B:470 25:34'>Mat 25:34</a></em>). So the tragedy was and is that those who have heard the word of promise of the Kingdom and who do not believe it::. are missing out on a possible future that was carefully prepared for them from the beginning. It was not a question of doing enough works- all the necessary works had been done, the Kingdom prepared. They 'just' didn't believe it, didn't want it. To disbelieve in salvation is to spurn what was finished and totally prepared for us from the beginning.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 4:4'>Heb 4:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For He has spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way: And God rested on the seventh day from all His works</em>- "A certain place" is again language appropriate to a verbal address, where the reference would not be turned up in the synagogue scrolls (see on <em><a href='B:650 13:22'>Heb 13:22</a></em>). Again we see the doctrine of inspiration- for the author's comment that "God rested::." is quoted as God speaking. God's "rest" was not from exhaustion; He ceased working then. The works of creation were finished; and the finished works of :3 are our salvation. All the work of the physical creation was done with our eternal salvation in view. To spurn it is to spurn creation and all its intentions, to turn away from all things into the darkness of nothingness. This theme of works being finished and ceasing is picked up in <em><a href='B:650 4:10'>Heb 4:10</a></em>; if we have believed, and "today" have effectively entered the Kingdom rest by faith, then we too have ceased or 'rested' (s:w:) from reliance upon our works. And this was just the message needed by the Hebrews who were falling away from faith and turning to works for justification.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 4:5'>Heb 4:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And in this place again: They shall not enter into My rest</em>- The point is being made that the "rest" of <em><a href='B:10 2:2'>Gen 2:2</a></em> is the same "rest" which God intended His people to share in Psalms 95. The sabbath rest therefore speaks of the Kingdom. It is as if God invites us to identify with Himself as having laboured, but now ceasing from that labour in 'rest'. The idea has been put forward that the seventh day of creation represents the 1000 years of the Millennium, and therefore this should begin at the end of the 6th day, i:e. 6 days or 6000 years after creation, if one day is as a thousand years (<em><a href='B:680 3:8'>2Pe 3:8</a></em>). The view is therefore pushed that the Lord must return around the year 2000 AD, taking Biblical history as spanning 4000 years from creation to the Lord Jesus; and seeing His appearance as that of the sun on the fourth day. But this view whilst ingenious is problematic. Hebrews quotes almost exclusively from the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic text, and so do many of the inspired New Testament writers. But the chronology presented in the Septuagint is very different from that in the Masoretic text; and the history from creation to the Lord Jesus is significantly shorter as the ages and order of the genealogies are different from the MT. And the idea of a literal millennium is also open to serious question, as noted on Revelation 20. The "rest" in view is a cessation from work and enjoyment of God's grace.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 4:6'>Heb 4:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Seeing therefore it remains that some should enter therein, and they to whom the good tidings were earlier preached failed to enter in because of disobedience</em>- God's plan will not totally fail. Some will enter the Kingdom rest. The good news of inheriting the Kingdom was preached to the Hebrews in Egypt and afterwards, but they disbelieved. But the rest of the Kingdom is still planned, prepared from the foundation of the world. Here in :6 "disobedience" is cited as the reason for their failure to enter; but the obedience in view was obedience to the challenge to simply believe that they would enter the Kingdom. See on <em><a href='B:650 3:18-19'>Heb 3:18-19</a></em>.</p>


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:650 4:7'>Heb 4:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>He again defines a certain day, a today, saying through David a long time afterwards (in the words already quoted): Today, if you shall hear His voice, harden not your hearts</em>- As explained on <em><a href='B:650 3:6'>Heb 3:6</a></em>, that "today" is our today; in that right now at this moment, if we hear and believe His voice that promises us eternal inheritance in the Kingdom, we can be saved. We can be assured that if we die today or the Lord returns today, we shall be saved. By grace. This is the crucial importance of life and living today. And again we see the point made about Divine inspiration- God spoke through David in his Psalms. This emphasis upon inspiration was necessary because there were sectors within Judaism which denied the Divine inspiration of anything apart from the Pentateuch. The appeal to not harden hearts is of course alluding to Pharaoh and the Egyptians, who hardened their hearts and were confirmed in it by being hardened by God. The point is that the Israelites who left Egypt repeated the same attitude- they too hardened their hearts, they thought like Egyptians. Despite, like the Egyptians, having seen evidence of God's hand through the signs and wonders done. The Hebrew Christians were in the same position.</h4>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 4:8'>Heb 4:8</a></em> -see on <em><a href='B:60 22:4'>Jos 22:4</a></em>.</p><p><em>For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken afterward of another day</em>- The argument of Judaism was that Joshua-Jesus had given Israel rest. But of course Paul is arguing that a greater Jesus-Joshua offered the rest still to come. The "another day" is the "today" of :7. The today of entering the rest can be our today if we believe we are saved and shall enter into the rest. It's a case of 'now but not yet'; in a sense we are saved and have entered the rest, having ceased from justification by works; but in another sense we still await literal entry into the Kingdom of God:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 4:9'>Heb 4:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>There remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God</em>- God's people are not therefore the same as Israel after the flesh. Israel were not given "rest", their temporary possession of parts of the territory promised to Abraham was hardly entering the Sabbath rest. For they were removed from that land and did not permanently possess it, neither did they inherit the entire territory promised from the Euphrates to the river of Egypt.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 4:10'>Heb 4:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For he that is entered into His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His</em>- The sense may be that we are no longer justified by works insofar as in prospect we have entered the rest, as explained on :8. The "he" in view is the believer who is also doing part of God's creative work; as God ceased from works, so does the believer. But we are not yet entered into that rest, and must "give diligence to enter into that rest" (:11). In that sense we are continuing to work as God did during the six work day of creation. The works were finished from the foundation of the world (:3; see note there), but in another sense the Father and Son are working continually because their Sabbath rest has not yet come (<em><a href='B:500 5:17'>Joh 5:17</a></em> and context). Our work is therefore part of God's creative work, leading towards the re-creation of Eden on earth, the Kingdom of God in its full literal establishment when the Lord Jesus returns.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 4:11'>Heb 4:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Let us therefore give diligence to enter into that rest, that no one fall by the same kind of disobedience</em>- As noted on :10, we are in a sense in the rest in that our salvation at this "today" is assured, but in another sense, we have not yet entered and are to labour as God did during the six days. Our labour and diligence is not just for ourselves personally, but to the end that nobody falls as the bodies and limbs of disobedient Israel fell in the wilderness. Those who no longer relied on the works of the Law but on faith were living in the spirit of the Sabbath- they had in some sense entered the rest. But despite their reliance on faith, works were still necessary: "There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God::. let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall." (<em><a href='B:650 4:9'>Heb 4:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 4:11'>Heb 4:11</a></em>). This is a perfect cameo of the whole situation; in prospect we are in the Kingdom, but have a very real possibility of falling from grace, and still need to labour for the final entry into that Kingdom. And that labour is especially in ensuring that others do not fall after the pattern of the Hebrews' fall.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 4:12'>Heb 4:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, and pierces even to the dividing apart of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and is quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart</em>- The motivation for the receding appeals is that the word of God, as a title for the Lord Jesus, is right now "quick to discern the thoughts and intents of our hearts" in mediating for us. Such language is appropriate to a person, Jesus as the word of God, rather than to the book called the Bible. And Hebrews began by saying that as God had spoken through the words of the prophets, so He now speaks to us in His Son. But this is how He was in His mortal life here- for then He was "of quick understanding" too (<em><a href='B:290 11:3'>Isa 11:3</a></em>). He would have had a way of seeing through to the essence of a person or situation with awesome speed- and this must have made human life very irritating for Him at times. But who He was then is who He is now. It's the same Jesus who intercedes for us in sensitivity and compassion. See on <em><a href='B:650 4:15'>Heb 4:15</a></em>. The reference to the sharp knife dividing up the inner parts of the body is an allusion to the priest preparing the sacrifices, and :14-16 develops this theme in relation to the Lord Jesus as our priest. Our innermost parts are laid bare and placed on the altar before God. And it is the state of the heart which is, for this priest, the most significant part of the offering. Hence the earlier appeals not to harden our hearts but to be completely confident in our hearts that in this "today", at this moment, we shall be saved.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 4:13'>Heb 4:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And there is no creature that is not revealed to his sight, but all things are naked and laid open before the eyes of him with whom we have to give account</em>- We must see the urgency of our position as sinners; we are condemned now and yet we can repent; but not then. <em><a href='B:650 4:13'>Heb 4:13</a></em> makes the point that we right now are “naked” before the eyes of Him to whom we right now give account&nbsp;<em>logos</em>. We will give that&nbsp;<em>logos&nbsp;</em>in the last day (<em><a href='B:520 14:11-12'>Rom 14:11-12</a></em>); yet before the Word of God, as it is in both Scripture and in the person of the Lord Jesus, we face our judgment today, in essence. And we are pronounced “naked” before Him. Yet therefore, in this day of opportunity, we can come boldly before the throne because we have “such an High Priest”, as <em><a href='B:650 4:16'>Heb 4:16</a></em> continues. We must realize that we are right now revealed and laid open to the Lord Jesus; just as much as we shall be at the last day. We are to live now as if we are in His judgment presence.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 4:14'>Heb 4:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Having then a great high priest, who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession</em>- He endured our nature and temptations&nbsp;<em>so that</em>&nbsp;He might be an empathetic High Priest (consider the implications of <em><a href='B:650 2:10'>Heb 2:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 2:17'>Heb 2:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 4:14-15'>Heb 4:14-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 5:1-2'>Heb 5:1-2</a></em>); the Lord was fully consecrated as High Priest after His death, and it was then that He began to be the sympathetic, understanding High Priest which the Hebrew letter speaks of. The fact that He knows so thoroughly our feelings here and now, especially our struggles for personal righteousness, should&nbsp;<em>of itself</em>&nbsp;encourage our awareness of and relationship with Him. &nbsp;</p><p>The continuity between the mortal, human Jesus and the exalted Lord of all which He became on His ascension is brought out quite artlessly in <em><a href='B:650 4:14'>Heb 4:14</a></em>: “Our great high priest, who has passed through the heavens”. The picture is of “this same Jesus”, the man on earth, passing through all heavens to ‘arrive’ at the throne of God Himself to mediate for us there. His ascension to Heaven was viewed physically like this by the disciples, and is expressed here in that kind of language of physical ascent, to bring home to us the continuity between the man Jesus on earth, and the exalted Lord now in Heaven itself. The allusion is also to the Jewish idea of there being many 'heavens'; whether there were or not, Paul's idea is that the Lord has passed through them all. The same Jesus who was once here is now there; He who once experienced temptation can thereby strengthen us in our temptations. We need to realize that nobody can be tempted by that which holds no appeal; the Lord Jesus must have seen and reflected upon sin as a possible course of action, even though He never took it. And for the same reason, several New Testament passages (e:g. <em><a href='B:610 2:5'>1Ti 2:5</a></em>) call the exalted Lord Jesus a “man”- even now. Let’s not see these passages merely as theological problems for |Trinitarians. The wonder of it all is that Jesus after His glorification is still in some sense human. He as “the pioneer of our faith” shows us the path to glory, a glory that doesn’t involve us becoming somehow superhuman and unreal.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 4:15'>Heb 4:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in all things, yet did not sin</em>- See on :14. Note carefully the tense used: "We have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities". It doesn't say 'which could not have been touched:::', but rather "which cannot present tense be touched". It's as if He is&nbsp;<em>now</em>&nbsp;touched with the feeling of our infirmities. Which opens a fascinating window into what having God's nature is all about. When we by grace come to share it, it's not just that we will dimly remember what it was like to be human. We will somehow still be able to be touched by those feelings, in sympathy with those who still have that nature during the Millennial reign. The only other time the Spirit uses the Greek word translated "touched with the feeling::." is in <em><a href='B:650 10:34'>Heb 10:34</a></em>, where we read of how the Hebrew Christians "had compassion of me", the writer of the letter. The link, within the same letter, is surely to reflect how they had been so compelled by their Lord's fellow feelings toward them, His fellow feeling for them right now, that they in turn came to feel like this for their suffering brother. A related word is found in <em><a href='B:670 3:8'>1Pe 3:8</a></em>: "Having&nbsp;<em>compassion one of another</em>, love as brethren". The wonder of the fact that Jesus feels for us, that He can enter into our feelings, should result in our seeing to get inside the feelings of others, empathizing with them, feeling for them and with them. It's this feature of the Lord Jesus which enables Him to be such a matchless mediator. Stephen saw Him&nbsp;<em>standing</em>&nbsp;at the right hand of the throne in Heaven, when usually, Hebrews stresses, He&nbsp;<em>sits</em>. The Lord was and is so passionately, compassionately, caught up in the needs of His brethren that this is how He mediates for us. And it's the same Jesus, who walked round Galilee with a heart of compassion for kids, for the mentally sick, for oppressed and abused women::. even for the hard hearted Pharisees whom He would fain have gathered under His loving wings, such was His desire for others' salvation:&nbsp;Jesus, despite the moral splendour of Divine nature, is still able to be&nbsp;<em>touched</em>&nbsp;with the feeling of our infirmities as He intercedes for the forgiveness of our sins.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 4:16'>Heb 4:16</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:100 7:27'>2Sa 7:27</a></em>.</p><p><em>Let us therefore draw near with boldness to the throne of grace-&nbsp;</em>Coming boldly before the throne of grace in prayer is again judgment seat language (see on :13). Our attitude to God in prayer now will be our attitude to Him at the judgment; we are 'bold / confident' before Him now, and we can be 'bold' then (<em><a href='B:690 2:28'>1Jn 2:28</a></em>). Before the throne of grace we find grace to help; whereas we will “find” s:w. mercy in the day of judgment (<em><a href='B:620 1:18'>2Ti 1:18</a></em>). Each time we receive grace to help before the throne, we are anticipating the judgment day scenario. The throne&nbsp;<em>of grace</em>&nbsp;suggests that it is prayers of confession and seeking of forgiveness and salvation which are in view. Hebrews so often uses the word "therefore";&nbsp;<em>because of</em>&nbsp;the facts of the atonement, we can&nbsp;<em>therefore</em>&nbsp;come boldly before God's throne in prayer, with a true heart and clear conscience. This "boldness" which the atonement has enabled will be reflected in our being 'bold' in our witness (<em><a href='B:540 3:12'>2Co 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 7:4'>2Co 7:4</a></em>); our experience of imputed righteousness will lead us to have a confidence exuding through our whole being. This is surely why 'boldness' was such a characteristic and watchword of the early church (<em><a href='B:510 4:13'>Act 4:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:29'>Act 4:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:31'>Act 4:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 3:12'>Eph 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 1:20'>Phi 1:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 3:13'>1Ti 3:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:19'>Heb 10:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 4:17'>1Jn 4:17</a></em>).</p><p><em>That we may receive mercy and may find grace to help us in our time of need</em>- The throne of grace means the throne from whence grace is given. And if indeed it is prayers for forgiveness and strength against temptation which are in view, then the grace given is in forgiveness and the gift of the Spirit to withstand temptation; this is the 'succouring' spoken of in <em><a href='B:650 2:18'>Heb 2:18</a></em> (see note there). The allusion is to <em><a href='B:490 1:30'>Luk 1:30</a></em>. When you ask for forgiveness, be like Mary in her spiritual ambition in asking to be the mother of Messiah.<br/>The Lord Jesus is prophetically described as He “that hath boldness to approach unto me” (<em><a href='B:300 30:21'>Jer 30:21</a></em> RV). This is applied to us, who boldly approach the Father in prayer likewise. We are bidden to draw near to the Father in prayer just as the Son drew near (<em><a href='B:650 4:15-16'>Heb 4:15-16</a></em>). He wishes us to share in the loving relationship which there was between Him and His Father, and prayer is crucial to this. Really appreciating that Christ is our personal High Priest to offer our prayers powerfully to God, should inspire us to regularly pray in faith. "Time of need" is literally 'at the right time'; hence GNB "just when we need it". And it is in the moments of temptation and realization of failure that we need grace; and we are given it precisely then. Bear in mind that Paul often uses&nbsp;<em>charis</em>, "grace", to refer to the gift of internal strengthening by the Spirit.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 5:1'>Heb 5:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For every high priest, being taken from among men, is appointed for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sin</em>- "Taken from among men" continues the emphasis upon the Lord's humanity; the language recalls the Passover lamb being taken out from along the flock. The connection of thought is that the high priest was appointed "for men" because he was "from among men"; this is a repetition of the argument in <em><a href='B:650 2:11'>Heb 2:11</a></em> that the sanctifier and the sanctified are "all of one". The Lord's high priestly work is not simply to get forgiveness for our sins; but to enable us to offer our "gifts", the sacrifices of our lives, our thank offerings, in a way acceptable to God.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 5:2'>Heb 5:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>He can have compassion on those who are ignorant and going astray-&nbsp;</em>The same idea of "going astray" is found in <em><a href='B:490 11:6'>Luk 11:6</a></em> AVmg:, where the man “out of his way” comes knocking on the Lord’s door. The image of the shut door is that of rejection; but here the door is opened, and the man given “as much as he needs” of forgiveness and acceptance:&nbsp;It is the same word used of the lost sheep which had "gone astray" and left the flock of God's people (<em><a href='B:470 18:12-13'>Mat 18:12-13</a></em>). But the word is used of how the Judaists had gone astray (<em><a href='B:470 22:29'>Mat 22:29</a></em>; M. <em><a href='B:650 12:24'>Heb 12:24</a></em>), of how the Hebrews ancient and modern had gone astray (<em><a href='B:650 3:10'>Heb 3:10</a></em>) and of how Judaism would make many 'go astray' in the last days before His coming (<em><a href='B:470 24:4-5'>Mat 24:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 2:26'>1Jn 2:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:7'>1Jn 3:7</a></em>). Even though the Hebrews had been made to go astray, Paul assures them of the Lord's continued compassion, just as much as for them who did not know the true way and were "ignorant". The Lord Jesus has compassion upon those who are ignorant of His Gospel, just as He does upon those who fall out of the way to life (<em><a href='B:650 5:2'>Heb 5:2</a></em>, alluding to Christ as the good Samaritan who comes to stricken men). His current activity and range of feeling is amazing. It is He who brings men to faith in God (<em><a href='B:670 1:21'>1Pe 1:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 3:18'>1Pe 3:18</a></em>), revealing the Father to men (<em><a href='B:490 10:22'>Luk 10:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:21'>Joh 14:21</a></em>), calling and inviting them to the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:670 5:10'>1Pe 5:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 22:17'>Rev 22:17</a></em>), going out into the market place and calling labourers (<em><a href='B:470 20:3-7'>Mat 20:3-7</a></em>), almost&nbsp;<em>compelling</em>&nbsp;men to come in to the ecclesia (<em><a href='B:470 22:8-10'>Mat 22:8-10</a></em>), receiving them when they are baptized (<em><a href='B:520 15:7'>Rom 15:7</a></em>). He is the sower who sows the word in men's hearts, working night and day in the tending of the seed after it has take root (<em><a href='B:480 4:27'>Mar 4:27</a></em>); the one who lights the candle in men's spirituality so that it might give light to others (<em><a href='B:480 4:21'>Mar 4:21</a></em>). He permits and sometimes blocks preaching (<em><a href='B:530 16:7'>1Co 16:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 16:4'>1Co 16:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 16:19'>1Co 16:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 2:12'>2Co 2:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 2:24'>Phi 2:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 3:11'>1Th 3:11</a></em>).</p><p><em>Since he himself is also subject to weakness</em>- This speaks of the Mosaic high priests; the Lord likewise was "subject to weakness" and thereby qualified and motivated to be sensitive to the weak. "Subject to" in Greek really means 'impeded by', and is used of being bound with a chain (<em><a href='B:510 28:20'>Act 28:20</a></em>) or having a weight tied around the neck (<em><a href='B:490 17:2'>Luk 17:2</a></em>). The limitations, impediments and frustrations of human weakness were experienced by the Lord and motivate His sensitivity to us. And yet we notice the present tenses. He is not subject to weakness now, but in a sense the Lord “is” because of His total identification with us. In the same sense, He is described as being right now “the man Christ Jesus” (<em><a href='B:610 2:5'>1Ti 2:5</a></em>). This is so on account of His intense identification with us now, in all our aspects of weakness.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 5:3'>Heb 5:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And because of it, he is required to offer sacrifices both for his sins and also for the sins of the people</em>- The "weakness" of the high priest included moral weakness, which required him to offer also for his own sins. The references to the High Priest are to present the Lord Jesus by way of both similarity and contrast. Thus the way the high priest served standing is contrasted with the way the Lord serves sitting (<em><a href='B:650 10:11'>Heb 10:11</a></em>); and the contrast here at this point is that the Lord had no sins to offer for. The Lord indeed was subject to weakness (:2), but without the need to offer sin offerings for his own sins.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 5:4'>Heb 5:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And no one takes this honour to himself, but only when he is called by God, even as was Aaron</em>- The Lord was likewise "called" and was not self-appointed; but the similarity then turns to contrast when we realize that He was not of the tribe of Levi, and was appointed not by birth from the tribe of Levi but through having been begotten at resurrection from the dead (:5). He was 'called' by reason of being the son of God, not the son of Levi through Aaron.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 5:5'>Heb 5:5</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a></em>.</p><p><em>So Christ also did not glorify himself to become a high priest, but He that spoke to him: You are my Son. This day have I begotten you</em>- The calling to be high priest was through His resurrection, which was when He was declared God's Son in power (<em><a href='B:520 1:4'>Rom 1:4</a></em>). There is no record of the Father ever speaking these words to the Son; perhaps they were spoken in some intimate ceremony at or after the resurrection or ascension. The new kind of high priesthood in view is predicated upon sonship- but not of Aaron, but of God. God's Son was therefore high priest, on account of His begettal from the dead in resurrection. It was this which qualified Him to be High Priest, having been subject to human weakness (:2) and also to glory and power over that weakness.</p>


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:650 5:6'>Heb 5:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>As also He said elsewhere: You are a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek</em>- This spoken word of inauguration and appointment was likewise uttered in the "day" when the Lord was "begotten" in resurrection (:5). There is no evidence here for any personally pre-existent Christ. The Hebrew writer alludes to and subverts the defiant language of the Maccabees in repeatedly describing Christ as "priest for ever" (<em><a href='B:650 5:6'>Heb 5:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 6:20'>Heb 6:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 7:3'>Heb 7:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 7:17'>Heb 7:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 7:21'>Heb 7:21</a></em>)- when this was the term applied to Simon Maccabaeus in <em>1Ma_14:41</em>. See on <em><a href='B:490 20:25'>Luk 20:25</a></em>. The nature of the priesthood was to be eternal; so although there were similarities with the Aaronic priests, the priesthood of Messiah was not identical with it. It was after the order of Melchizedek.</h4>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 5:7'>Heb 5:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears to Him that was able to save him from death, and was heard for his Godly fear</em>- Verses 7-9 lead up to the climactic statement that therefore, the Lord was ordained as high priest at His resurrection and glorification. It could be argued that the prayers offered up refer to the prayers of believers which the Lord offered to the Father even in the days of His flesh. The plural "days" would encourage us to read this offering up of prayers as something which happened during His lifetime; for He did indeed pray the Father for His followers (<em><a href='B:500 16:26'>Joh 16:26</a></em>). This was as it were training and preparation for His inauguration as High Priest over God's house which occurred at His resurrection. His behaviour and experience during His mortal life was what qualifies Him for the work He now does. And yet the prayers to be saved from death, offered with crying and tears, surely also reference the Lord's praying for personal salvation in Gethsemane. He "was heard"; not in the form He wished, i:e. immediate deliverance from the crucifixion process, but in that the essence of His prayer was heard, and "for his Godly fear" He was resurrected. The Lord's humanity is so stressed here that Trinitarians really need to recalculate their positions based on these words. The Lord's prayers for others and His prayers for His own salvation from death are really part of the same nexus. This is why it's not so much a question of two possible interpretations the prayers offered being of others, or, His own prayers for salvation; but rather these two options are really part of the same picture, and this is why they artlessly merge into each other. For as Robert Roberts put it, "He died for Himself that it might be for us"; His salvation was so tied up with ours.</p><p>"With strong crying and tears" is certainly to be connected with <em><a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a></em>, which speaks of the Lord making intercession for us now&nbsp;with "groanings which cannot be uttered". One might think from <em><a href='B:650 5:7'>Heb 5:7</a></em> that the Lord Jesus made quite a noise whilst hanging on the cross or in Gethsemane. But <em><a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a></em> says that His groaning is so intense that it cannot be audibly uttered; the physicality of sound would not do justice to the intensity of mental striving. No doubt the Lord Jesus was praying silently, or at best quietly, as He hung there. The point is that the same agonizing depth of prayer which the Lord achieved on the cross for us is what He now goes through as He intercedes for us with the Father.</p><p><em><a href='B:650 5:7'>Heb 5:7</a></em> can be understood as describing the Lord on the cross as a priest offering up a guilt offering for our sins of ignorance. He did this, we are told, through "prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears". This must surely be a reference to "Father forgive them". Those were said with a real passion, with strong crying, with tears as He appreciated the extent of our sinfulness and offence of God. There is a connection between these words and those of <em><a href='B:520 8:26-27'>Rom 8:26-27</a></em>, which describes Christ as our High Priest making intercession for us "with groanings". "Groanings" is surely the language of suffering and crucifixion. It is as if our Lord goes through it all again when He prays for our forgiveness, He has the same passion for us now as He did then. Think of how on the cross He had that overwhelming desire for our forgiveness despite His own physical pain. That same level of desire is with Him now. Surely we can respond by confessing our sins, by getting down to realistic self-examination, by rallying our faith to truly appreciate His mediation and the forgiveness that has been achieved, to believe that all our sins, past and future, have been conquered, and to therefore rise up to the challenge of doing all we can to live a life which is appropriate to such great salvation. See on <em><a href='B:490 23:34'>Luk 23:34</a></em>.</p><p>Oscar Cullmann translates <em><a href='B:650 5:7'>Heb 5:7</a></em>: "He was heard in his fear (anxiety)". That very human anxiety about death is reflected in the way He urges Judas to get over and done the betrayal process "quickly" (<em><a href='B:500 13:28'>Joh 13:28</a></em>); He was "straitened until it be accomplished" (<em><a href='B:490 12:50'>Luk 12:50</a></em>). He prayed to God just as we would when gripped by the fear of impending death. And He was heard. No wonder He is able therefore and thereby to comfort and save us, who lived all our lives in the same fear of death which He had (<em><a href='B:650 2:15'>Heb 2:15</a></em>). This repetition of the 'fear of death' theme in Hebrews is surely significant- the Lord Jesus had the same fear of death as we do, and He prayed in desperation to God just as we do. And because He overcame, He is able to support us when&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;in our turn pray in&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;"time of need"- for He likewise had the very same "time of need" as we have, when He was in Gethsemane (<em><a href='B:650 4:16'>Heb 4:16</a></em>). Death was "the last enemy" for the Lord Jesus just as it is for all humanity (<em><a href='B:530 15:26'>1Co 15:26</a></em>). Reflection on these things not only emphasizes the humanity of the Lord Jesus, but also indicates He had no belief whatsoever in an 'immortal soul' consciously surviving death. The Lord had a quite genuine "fear of death" which enables Him now to save us from the bondage of fearing death (<em><a href='B:650 2:15'>Heb 2:15</a></em>). This "fear of death" within the Lord Jesus provides a profound insight into His so genuine humanity. We fear death because our human life is our greatest and most personal possession::. and it was just the same with the Lord Jesus. Note that when seeking here to exemplify Christ's humanity, the writer to the Hebrews chooses His fear of death in Gethsemane as the epitome of His humanity.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 5:8'>Heb 5:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Though he was a Son, yet he learned obedience by the things which he suffered</em>- A difficult verse for Trinitarians. This learning of obedience doesn't suggest there was ever any disobedience, but rather that the Lord progressed spiritually to the point when He was made fully mature, or "perfect" (:9). That point of final completeness was the same point at which He authored eternal salvation, and that point was at His death. The Lord's Divine Sonship cannot be used as any reason to think that the Lord somehow had spirituality easy; He still had to learn obedience in a progressive manner. And "<em>a&nbsp;</em>Son" rather than&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;Son suggests that for the purposes of spiritual growth, His Sonship functioned in a similar way that our sonship to the Father does.</p><p>But the learning of obedience through suffering may not necessarily refer to a progressive lifetime of obedience. <em><a href='B:520 5:19'>Rom 5:19</a></em> uses the word in speaking of how through the Lord's one act of obedience, in contrast to Adam's one act of disobedience, many are made righteous. That specific moment of obedience was in the death of the cross; <em><a href='B:570 2:8'>Phi 2:8</a></em> makes this explicit, in calling for us to have the mind of the crucified Christ and to follow Him in His obedience to death, even the death of the cross. This all leads on to the same word being used in :9 in calling for our obedience to Him- to He who was in turn obedient, asking us to follow His pattern. The things which He suffered would then refer to His final crucifixion sufferings rather than to the sufferings of His life. And Hebrews uses the word for "suffering" specifically in the context of the Lord's suffering at the time of His death (<em><a href='B:650 9:26'>Heb 9:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 13:12'>Heb 13:12</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 5:9'>Heb 5:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And having been made perfect, he became to all those that obey him the author of eternal salvation</em>- The authoring of salvation was on account of the Lord's death; as noted on :8, the final suffering of the cross brought the Lord to the point of total obedience and completion / perfection. The obedience in view in :8 was to the call to be obedient to the death of the cross, as in <em><a href='B:570 2:8'>Phi 2:8</a></em>. There in the naked body of the Lord on a stake of wood outside Jerusalem, covered in blood and spittle and apparently defeated and forsaken by all::. was the mind which was finally and totally obedient and perfected in every way. This was the moment the Lord had in mind when speaking of all how He aimed to finish or perfect God's work (<em><a href='B:500 4:34'>Joh 4:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 5:36'>Joh 5:36</a></em>). It explains why the same word is used of how the Lord finished or perfected all at the moment of His death (<em><a href='B:500 19:28'>Joh 19:28</a></em>), leading to the cry "It is finished". His moment of total moral perfection and completion was as it were eternally set in stone; for the same word is used of how the Son is perfected AV "consecrated" for evermore (<em><a href='B:650 7:28'>Heb 7:28</a></em>). And for those in Him, He shares that acme of spiritual triumph and achievement; for we in Him are "perfected for ever" (<em><a href='B:650 10:14'>Heb 10:14</a></em>). We too are on a path towards our spiritual perfection or maturing (<em><a href='B:650 12:23'>Heb 12:23</a></em> "the spirits of just men made perfect"). In this lies the huge significance of old age and the time of dying; whereas in secular terms, life is seen as closing down once old age is reached, and significance of existence decreases rather than increases, as it does for those who are being led towards a point of completion or 'perfection'.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 5:10'>Heb 5:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Pronounced by God a high priest-&nbsp;</em>The Levitical priests became such by reason of age and birth; whereas the Lord's high priesthood was as it were created, He was pronounced a high priest rather than becoming one by default.</p><p><em>After the order of Melchizedek</em>- A non-Levitical priest, greater than Abraham, whose office did not depend upon genealogy, who was both a King and a priest.</p><p>In the commentary on Melchizedek in Hebrews Paul admitted he was going deep, speaking of things which could only be grasped by very mature believers (<em><a href='B:650 5:10-11'>Heb 5:10-11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 5:14'>Heb 5:14</a></em>). It is therefore not wise to base fundamental doctrine on the teaching of such verses; nor should the Melchizedek passages loom large in the minds of those who are still coming to learn the basic doctrines of Scripture. “This Melchizedek, King of Salem (Jerusalem), priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him” is spoken of as being “without father, without mother, without descent (genealogy), having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God” (<em><a href='B:650 7:1'>Heb 7:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 7:3'>Heb 7:3</a></em>). From this it is argued by some that Jesus literally existed before his birth, and therefore had no human parents. Jesus has a Father (God) and a mother (Mary) and a genealogy (see Matthew 1, Luke 3 and cp. <em><a href='B:500 7:27'>Joh 7:27</a></em>). ‘Melchizedek’ therefore cannot refer to Him personally. Besides, Melchizedek was “made&nbsp;<em>like</em>&nbsp;unto the Son of God” (<em><a href='B:650 7:3'>Heb 7:3</a></em>); he was not Jesus himself, but had certain similarities with Him which are being used by the writer for teaching purposes. “After the similitude of Melchizedek there arises another priest”, Jesus (<em><a href='B:650 7:15'>Heb 7:15</a></em>), who was ordained a priest “after the order of Melchizedek” (<em><a href='B:650 5:5-6'>Heb 5:5-6</a></em>). The language of Hebrews about Melchizedek just cannot be taken literally. If Melchizedek literally had no father or mother, then the only person he could have been was God Himself; He is the only person with no beginning (<em><a href='B:610 6:16'>1Ti 6:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 90:2'>Psa 90:2</a></em>). But this is vetoed by <em><a href='B:650 7:4'>Heb 7:4</a></em>: “Consider how great&nbsp;<em>this man&nbsp;</em>was”, and also by the fact that he was seen by men (which God cannot be) and offered sacrifices to God. If he is called a man, then he must have had literal parents. His being “without father, without mother, without descent” must therefore refer to the fact that his pedigree and parents are not recorded. Queen Esther’s parents are not recorded, and so her background is described in a similar way. Mordecai “brought up::. Esther, his uncle’s daughter: for she had neither father nor mother::. whom Mordecai, when her father and mother were dead, took for his own daughter” (<em><a href='B:190 2:7'>Est 2:7</a></em>). The author of Hebrews was clearly writing as a Jew to Jews, and as such he uses the Rabbinic way of reasoning and writing at times. There was a Rabbinic principle that "what is not in the text, is not" (See James Dunn,&nbsp;<em>Christology In The Making</em>&nbsp;(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980) p. 276 note 59)- and it seems that this is the principle of exposition being used to arrive at the statement that Melchizedek was "without father". Seeing no father is mentioned in the Genesis text, therefore he was "without father"- but this doesn't mean he actually didn't have a father. It's not recorded, and therefore, according to that Rabbinic principle, he effectively didn't have one.</p><p>The book of Genesis usually goes to great lengths to introduce the family backgrounds of all the characters which it presents to us. But Melchizedek appears on the scene unannounced, with no record of his parents, and vanishes from the account with equal abruptness. Yet there can be no doubt that he was worthy of very great respect; even great Abraham paid tithes to him, and was blessed by him, clearly showing Melchizedek’s superiority over Abraham (<em><a href='B:650 7:2'>Heb 7:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 7:7'>Heb 7:7</a></em>). The writer is not just doing mental gymnastics with Scripture. There was a very real problem in the first century which the Melchizedek argument could solve. The Jews were reasoning: ‘You Christians tell us that this Jesus can now be our high priest, offering our prayers and works to God. But a priest has to have a known genealogy, proving he is from the tribe of Levi. And anyway, you yourselves admit Jesus was from the tribe of Judah (<em><a href='B:650 7:14'>Heb 7:14</a></em>). Sorry, to us Abraham is our supreme leader and example (<em><a href='B:500 8:33'>Joh 8:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:39'>Joh 8:39</a></em>), and we won’t respect this Jesus’. To which the reply is: ‘But remember Melchizedek. The Genesis record is framed to show that such a great priest did not have any genealogy; and Messiah is to be both a king and a priest, whose priesthood is after the pattern of Melchizedek (<em><a href='B:650 5:6'>Heb 5:6</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:230 110:4'>Psa 110:4</a></em>). Abraham was inferior to Melchizedek, so you should switch your emphasis from Abraham to Jesus, and stop trying to make the question of genealogies so important (see <em><a href='B:610 1:4'>1Ti 1:4</a></em>). If you meditate on how much Melchizedek is a type of Jesus (i:e. the details of his life pointed forward to him), then you would have a greater understanding of the work of Christ’:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 5:11'>Heb 5:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Of him we have much to say and hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing</em>- "Much to say and hard to explain" is language appropriate to the transcript of a verbal speech; see on <em><a href='B:650 13:22'>Heb 13:22</a></em>. As the Hebrew writer spoke and wrote to brethren who were not as spiritually mature as they ought to be for their time in Christ, he saw the similarity between himself and the Lord Jesus talking to the crowds, those crowds of very human people who at that time comprised God's ecclesia (<em><a href='B:470 13:15'>Mat 13:15</a></em> = <em><a href='B:650 5:11'>Heb 5:11</a></em>). The Hebrews failed to break into this upward spiral because they were "dull of hearing" the word (<em><a href='B:650 5:11'>Heb 5:11</a></em>). The Greek word for "dull" implies 'lazy', and yet comes from the same root as the Greek for 'bastard' ('<em>nothros</em>' cp. '<em>nothos</em>'). Thus because they were not being properly born again by the word of the Gospel they were unable, in subsequent spiritual life, to receive the real power of the word. The fact they had "become" dull of hearing suggests a spiritual collapse amongst them. Their return to Judaism would have meant plenty of attention to the letter of God's word; but this made them dull of hearing to the things of the Lord Jesus. The word for "dull" is only used again in <em><a href='B:650 6:12'>Heb 6:12</a></em> where they are exhorted not to be lazy or slow to follow the examples of the faithful. It is a mental, spiritual laziness which seems in view; the idea was that they had not been quick to respond to the things of the Spirit, and their return to legalism was actually lazy man's spirituality rather than a zeal for God. The spiritual life moves at such a pace that it is not for the lazy.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 5:12'>Heb 5:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For when by reason of the time, you ought to be teachers-&nbsp;</em>Paul assumes that every believer over time moves towards a position of being a teacher. Teaching is therefore not just for some; we should be holding forth the knowledge we have for others.</p><p><em>You have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God; and have become as those in need of milk and not solid food</em>- The basic principles were those about Jesus, the word and oracles of God made flesh. For it was this which they had turned away from by returning to Judaism. The things of the Lord Jesus, therefore, are the elementary principles of the Gospel; the focus is upon Him rather than upon teachings about the Kingdom of God on earth, which both Christianity and Judaism at the time were broadly agreed upon.</p><p>The phrase "elemntary principles of the oracles of God" is better rendered in the RVmg. "the beginning of the oracles…". The truth we learn and teach before baptism is but a springboard so much further. The writer seems to perceive the tendency to forever be digging up the foundations to make sure they are still there; for he says: "Wherefore let us cease to speak of the first principles of Christ, and press on…" (<em><a href='B:650 6:1'>Heb 6:1</a></em> RV). Sadly, as he goes on to say, he does have to speak to those particular readers of those basics again, but in a healthy spiritual life this shouldn't be the case. They should have used those basic doctrines to lead them further in following the example of He who was also "made perfect", who reached 'perfection'. As He was "made perfect" (<em><a href='B:650 5:9'>Heb 5:9</a></em>), so we should strive to go on unto a like 'perfection' (<em><a href='B:650 5:14'>Heb 5:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 6:1'>Heb 6:1</a></em>). Paul doesn't balk at the height of this calling, unattained as it has been by us all. But it is the lofty height towards which the power of the Gospel can propel us. See on <em><a href='B:650 6:1'>Heb 6:1</a></em>.</p><p>Paul likewise lamented the immaturity of the Corinthians in similar terms: “I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for solid food” (<em><a href='B:530 3:2'>1Co 3:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 5:12-14'>Heb 5:12-14</a></em>) surely alludes to <em><a href='B:500 16:12'>Joh 16:12</a></em>, although it doesn’t verbally quote it: “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now”.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 5:13'>Heb 5:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For everyone that partakes of milk is without experience of the word of righteousness, for he is a babe</em>- It's evident to me, from the very way the Bible is written, that an understanding of the deeper parts depends upon a correct understanding of the basic doctrines. The milk of the word leads on to the meat; <em><a href='B:650 5:13-14'>Heb 5:13-14</a></em> implies you can only understand the meat if for some time you have been properly feeding on the milk. This means that those who don't understand the basic doctrines of the true Gospel can't really understand the meat of the word. But "the word of righteousness" speaks specifically of the Gospel of imputed righteousness through faith in Christ, by grace and not legal obedience. The Hebrews had not personally experienced that, they had perhaps never fully believed it, and so they needed to be fed with that "milk" of the basic Gospel until they accepted it.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 5:14'>Heb 5:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But solid food is for the mature, those who by experience of use have their senses exercised to discern good and evil</em>- The "solid food" in view initially is an exposition of Melchizedek. And yet Paul does give this, in chapter 7. But he is prefacing that here by saying that he knew it was beyond most of them. The "experience of use" doesn't mean they were experienced Bible students; for Bible study alone will not lead to maturity. The experience is as explained on :13; that of feeling and knowing imputed righteousness without legal obedience.</p><h4>If we stay as babes, taking only milk, we will be unable to discern good and evil. The idea is that as a baby will put anything in its mouth, so does the immature convert. Those who don’t mature on from the milk of the word run the risk of poisoning their spirituality. In the Hebrew context, it meant accepting Judaist false teaching. The drive to maturity isn’t optional; if we lack it, our spiritual health will suffer. And by contrast, the more we grow, the more we will be able to discern what is harmful and what is nutritious. As noted on :13, it is the experience of imputed righteousness by grace which actually increases, rather than decreases, our sensitivity to good and evil. The allusion is to Adam in Eden attracted by the knowledge of good and evil offered through taking the forbidden fruit; and Paul is presenting that fruit as Judaism, which through endless legal codes still didn't give the sense of good and evil as God intended.</h4>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 6:1'>Heb 6:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore leaving the doctrine of the first principles of Christ, let us press on to completion-&nbsp;</em>The "us" would refer to Paul and his team. He wants to press on beyond teaching or re-teaching "doctrine" = teaching of the "first lessons" of Christ (GNB). They had heard those "first lessons" from Peter and the apostles when the Gospel was first preached to the Hebrews in Jerusalem. Paul felt that "completion" or "perfection" was to be pushed on towards after the first teachings had been believed. 1 Corinthians 13 and Ephesians 4 likewise envisage a point of "perfection" or completion. It seems Paul expected the Lord's return in the first century, and saw it is as coming when the fruit was ripe to harvest, i:e. when the believers had spiritually matured into the image of Christ.</p><p>We must not see the learning of the basic doctrines and baptism as an end rather than a beginning. It is a tragedy if a man dies knowing and appreciating little more than he did at his baptism. Sunday School Christianity isn't the stuff of the Kingdom of God. We must go on unto perfection. "Let us cease to speak of the first principles of Christ, and press on unto full growth" (<em><a href='B:650 6:1'>Heb 6:1</a></em> RV). It almost implies that the Hebrews were so busy&nbsp;<em>talking</em>&nbsp;about the first principles that they had omitted to use them as the springboard to&nbsp;<em>growth</em>. See on <em><a href='B:650 5:12'>Heb 5:12</a></em>.</p><p><em>Not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works, faith toward God</em>- "Dead works" could refer to the idea that works of legalistic obedience could bring salvation, without the life of the Spirit. Their "repentance" would have been a re-thinking about such justification by works. Likewise "faith toward God" does not imply that previously the Hebrews were atheists, but rather that the first principle of Christ was of faith in God's justification through His Son, rather than by works.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 6:2'>Heb 6:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The teaching of baptisms and of laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead and of eternal judgment</em>- These "first lessons of Christ" which they had forgotten were perhaps taught to the Hebrew Christians during Peter's sermon, the account of which in Acts 2 is certainly abbreviated (it can be spoken out loud in just a few minutes). Or it could be that the regular gatherings of the newly baptized believers in the temple afterwards included this kind of instruction. That judgment will be "eternal", that there is an eternity we may miss, was a first lesson in the faith in Christ. The serious consequence of faith and unbelief were to be accepted and seen clearly.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 6:3'>Heb 6:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And if God permits, this will we do</em>- Not in the rest of the letter, but through a visit to Jerusalem to teach them these things again. Paul's last recorded visit to Jerusalem led to his rejection by the Hebrew Christians, betrayal by those he came to give aid to, and his imprisonment and subsequent exile in Rome. So God's will or permission for this was apparently not granted.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 6:4'>Heb 6:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For as touching those who were once enlightened and tasted the heavenly gift and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit</em>- Enlightenment is something done to another; we do not make ourselves see, for we are helpless as spiritually blind persons. The light comes through grace, through having our mental eyes opened by God's initiative upon our hearts. We likewise are "made" to partake in the Spirit, the gift from God to us, the power of change and transformation unto salvation which is placed in the heart of each believer. They were all "partakers" of the heavenly calling (<em><a href='B:650 3:1'>Heb 3:1</a></em>), "the heavenly gift", but would only be "partakers in Christ" if they remained firm in their faith in salvation (<em><a href='B:650 3:14'>Heb 3:14</a></em>). The Corinthians likewise received the Spirit, but were "not spiritual" (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 6:5'>Heb 6:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Who tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come</em>- The tasting of the Spirit (:4) is related to but not totally identical with tasting the goodness of God's word. These were the things promised in the word of God's goodness, and they had tasted them as real; and thus had had a foretaste of the Kingdom age. For the current experience of the Spirit is an earnest, a foretaste given "in our hearts", of our future salvation in the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:540 1:22'>2Co 1:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 5:5'>2Co 5:5</a></em>). It is by the Spirit now in us that we shall be immortalized in the age to come (<em><a href='B:520 8:11'>Rom 8:11</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 6:6'>Heb 6:6</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:480 15:15'>Mar 15:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 2:28'>1Jn 2:28</a></em>.</p><p><em>But then fell away- it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame</em>- It is not impossible for anyone to repent. But a person cannot be spiritually renewed to repentance whilst they are crucifying the Lord afresh. Paul is addressing the Hebrews who have fallen away and is urging their repentance. So he clearly means that they cannot be renewed again whilst they are re-crucifying the Lord. He uses a related word in saying that how the Hebrews 'fell' in the wilderness is a warning to the Hebrews of his day (<em><a href='B:650 3:17'>Heb 3:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 4:11'>Heb 4:11</a></em>). It could be that by "then fell away" Paul is speaking from the perspective of judgment day; those who fall condemned in that day cannot be renewed again to repentance. We noted on <em><a href='B:510 3:26'>Act 3:26</a></em> that the gift of the Spirit involved not only forgiveness but repentance itself; they were led to repentance, renewed to it. But whilst the giving of the Spirit is not just at baptism and can continue throughout mortal life, it cannot operate on those who were once enlightened but refuse to stop crucifying the Son of God and shaming Him. They had been once renewed- the new life of the Spirit had been given them, they had become a new creation, the gift of the Spirit after baptism had been for them "the washing of regeneration" by the Spirit; but that regeneration / renewing could not again happen whilst they were shaming the crucified Christ.</p><p>In the Lord's death we see the heart that bleeds, bared before our eyes in the cross. It is written of Him in His time of dying that He "poured out his soul unto death" (<em><a href='B:290 53:12'>Isa 53:12</a></em>). The Hebrew translated "poured out" means to make naked- it is rendered as "make thyself naked" in <em><a href='B:310 4:21'>Lam 4:21</a></em> (see too <em><a href='B:30 20:18-19'>Lev 20:18-19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 3:17'>Isa 3:17</a></em>). The Lord' sensitivity was what led Him to His death- He made His soul naked, bare and sensitive, until the stress almost killed Him quite apart from the physical torture. To be sensitive to others makes us open&nbsp; and at risk ourselves. A heart that bleeds really bleeds and hurts within itself. And this was the essence of the cross. It seems to me that the Lord was crucified naked- hence those who turn away put Him to “an open Gk. ‘naked’ shame”. In being sensitive to others, we make ourselves naked. The heart that bleeds is itself in great risk of hurt and pain. The Lord Jesus is not passive in Heaven; He has sensitivity and pain, He can be shamed and crucified afresh by those who turn away to legalism and Judaism. This of itself opens a window onto what it may mean to have Divine nature.</p><p>It was this same category who in <em><a href='B:650 10:29'>Heb 10:29</a></em> trod underfoot the Lord's blood and treated it as&nbsp;<em>un</em>holy. These one time Christians had become so influenced by Judaism that they considered Him&nbsp;<em>un</em>holy and despised His sacrifice, supporting the same Jewish authorities and mentalities which had crucified Him. They re-crucified Him by coming to agree that what the Sanhedrin had done was correct. It was as if by such an attitude, they too were guilty of His crucifixion. This falling away was all a matter of the heart; for no man or human organization can pluck us from the Lord's hand; we shall "never perish" because of that, but only from our own internal lack of faith (<em><a href='B:500 10:28'>Joh 10:28</a></em>)</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 6:7'>Heb 6:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For the earth which drinks in the rain that often comes upon it, and bears herbs useful for those by whom it is cultivated, receives blessing from God</em>- The land which has drunk in the rain gives forth “herbs meet for them by whom it is tended” (<em><a href='B:650 6:7'>Heb 6:7</a></em> RV). The parallel is intended with "those who have tasted the good word of God" (<em><a href='B:650 6:5'>Heb 6:5</a></em>). If the land represents those who respond to the Gospel, as in the sower parable, who are those who tend it? Surely the preachers and pastoral carers. They benefit, they are encouraged, by those whom they have cared for and converted. I've seen this so very often- one goes to exhort, and comes back home exhorted. But this is all part of the intended upward spiral in functional ecclesial life. But the cultivation still depends upon the rain of blessing from God, which has been defined in <em><a href='B:650 6:4-5'>Heb 6:4-5</a></em> as the gift of the Spirit in our hearts. The Spirit is given not just once at baptism, but "often". For our fruitfulness is God's intention; He gives us the Spirit in order to bring forth the fruits of the Spirit. The husbandman produces fruit which is appropriate to his labours, and so our eternal future and being will be a reflection of our labours now (<em><a href='B:650 6:7'>Heb 6:7</a></em>). Not that salvation depends upon our works: it is the free, gracious gift of God. But the nature of our eternity will be a reflection of our present efforts and the efforts of others for us. The ground brings forth fruit appropriate to those who have worked on it. Does this not suggest that we each bring forth a unique and personally appropriate form of spiritual fruit?</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 6:8'>Heb 6:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is rejected and in danger of being cursed, whose end is to be burned</em>- The parable of the wheat and weeds teaches that at the time of Christ's coming, there will be weeds actively growing in the ecclesia. Those are the "thorns and briers" of <em><a href='B:650 6:8'>Heb 6:8</a></em>, the 'thorns' who crucify Christ again (<em><a href='B:100 23:6-7'>2Sa 23:6-7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 6:6-8'>Heb 6:6-8</a></em>). Yet we will, in some sense, rub shoulders with this category if we are in the latter day ecclesia (<em><a href='B:470 13:27-30'>Mat 13:27-30</a></em>). In the last days, the true Christian community simply won't be (isn't?) the spiritually safe place, where error is impossible, which we may have felt it to be in the past. The man of sin, the wicked one, will sit in the very&nbsp;<em>temple of God</em>, the ecclesia. The "end" of the rejected is to be later "burnt", as if rejection occurs in the mind of God now, but will articulate the punishment later, at the judgment. There is a play on ideas here, in that "thorns and thistles" were part of the curse; but if we bear them instead of spiritual fruit, then we shall be cursed. If we act as sinners, as the cursed, rather than seeing our potential to rise above- then we shall remain cursed.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 6:9'>Heb 6:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But beloved, though we speak in this manner, we are confident of better things for you; things that accompany salvation</em>- This is the kind of positivism Paul employs to the Corinthians. He convicts them of serious failure and tendencies towards condemnation, and then states that he has every confidence in them and rejoices over them (<em><a href='B:540 2:3'>2Co 2:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 7:16'>2Co 7:16</a></em>). "Better" is a common word in Hebrews, used of how the new covenant in the Lord Jesus is "better" than the Mosaic system (<em><a href='B:650 1:4'>Heb 1:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 7:7'>Heb 7:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 7:19'>Heb 7:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 7:22'>Heb 7:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 8:6'>Heb 8:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 9:23'>Heb 9:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:34'>Heb 10:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 12:24'>Heb 12:24</a></em>). Paul wishes to be persuaded that they are going to be saved; he uses the same term "better things" of our final salvation in <em><a href='B:650 11:40'>Heb 11:40</a></em>. We too cannot condemn our brethren, so we are to assume that all baptized believers shall be eternally saved.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 6:10'>Heb 6:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For God is not unrighteous to forget your work-&nbsp;</em>They were tempted to think that God did not notice the great love which the Hebrew Christians had shown to their fellow believers in selling their possessions and giving to the poor. Perhaps now in later life they were regretting their past generosity. But Paul encourages them that God would not forget what they did; to think that would be to suggest He is unrighteous.</p><p><em>And the love which you have shown toward His Name, in that you serve the saints and still do</em>- Serving other believers is love toward the Lord's name in that these who needed help were baptized into His Name. Our attitude towards those in Christ is our attitude to Him. "Serve the saints" is a Greek phrase used only elsewhere in <em><a href='B:520 15:25'>Rom 15:25</a></em>, again specifically concerning serving the poor believers in Jerusalem. The generosity of the Hebrew Christians towards their poor had been significant and perhaps the greatest ever display of Christian financial generosity:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 6:11'>Heb 6:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And we desire that each one of you may show the same zeal to have the full assurance of hope until the end</em>- The great devotion and generosity of the Hebrew believers (see on :10) was zeal indeed; but it was not works of generosity to the poor which would save. They needed to show the same zeal as they had in giving their wealth to the poor in maintaining their assurance of salvation, their "hope" in the sense of utter assurance. The joy they had once had in that assurance was waning, because their faith in Jesus as their saviour was fading and being replaced by dependence upon their own works. Their great works of generosity had earlier been motivated by faith and joy in an assured salvation, but now their works were motivated by a fear they were not saved and thinking that works could bring them salvation.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 6:12'>Heb 6:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Do not be lazy, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises</em>-The laziness in view is not regarding works, for they are commended for continuing to care practically for "the saints" (:10). See on <em><a href='B:650 5:11'>Heb 5:11</a></em>. Paul's concern was that they would continue to totally believe that the promise of eternity in the Kingdom would be fulfilled to them. To maintain a real faith and confident assurance in future salvation, that if the Lord returns now or I die now, I shall be saved::. this requires huge mental effort. For it requires our all. If I am sure of my salvation, this takes all my passion, thinking and living. It would be fair to say that this is demanding, so much so that the human tendency to laziness kicks in; we want a quieter, less mentally and practically demanding life, and so laziness can lead to a lack of faith in our future salvation. We must take for live templates those others who believed the promises of salvation and patiently endured in that faith.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 6:13'>Heb 6:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For when God made a promise to Abraham, since He could swear by none greater, He swore by Himself</em>- We are to be followers of Abraham's example (:12) because in essence, the very same promises have been made to us. The good news of eternal salvation in the Kingdom was preached to Abraham as much as to us (<em><a href='B:550 3:8'>Gal 3:8</a></em>). We ought to believe that we will be saved because God made the promise of salvation "by Himself". the whole of God is as it were staked on our being saved. To doubt it is to doubt God and all God stands for.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 6:14'>Heb 6:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Saying: Surely blessing I will bless you and multiplying I will multiply you</em>- The emphasis is upon "Surely". The blessing is that of eternal salvation, and that a multitude of men and women would become in Christ and be saved in Him, thus bringing about the multiplication of Abraham's seed. The program, the plan and purpose, was "surely" going to work out; and we should be "sure" of this great salvation for ourselves.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 6:15'>Heb 6:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And thus, having patiently endured, he obtained the promise</em>- See on :12. This patient endurance was not just a waiting, a sitting it out. Abraham's life was active, and motivated by his belief that the promises of future salvation and inheritance really would come true for him. Abraham received the promise in a limited sense in this life, just as the Holy Spirit is our foretaste of the future inheritance (<em><a href='B:540 1:22'>2Co 1:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 5:5'>2Co 5:5</a></em>). Abraham is our example in that he received in his lifetime the promise, to an extent. We have been saved, we should be able to rejoice at this "today" that we will eternally live if the Lord comes for us today. In this sense Abraham is our example of obtaining the promise in this life. Indeed all the faithful "obtained promises" (<em><a href='B:650 11:33'>Heb 11:33</a></em> s:w:). Abraham's patient endurance is that of :12, he kept on and on believing that the salvation promises would come true; and they did.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 6:16'>Heb 6:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For men swear by something greater, and in every dispute of theirs, the oath is final for confirmation</em>- The fact God has promised our salvation on oath should end any dispute within our own minds, or theologically with others such as Judaists, that we really can be saved by faith through grace. The greatest possible assurance has been given; oaths have to be made upon some higher source entity, and that entity is God. The confirmation should therefore be seen as "final", all our wonderings and hopping between certainty and uncertainty should be no more; the assurance is total and final. This oath is "an end of all strife" (AV), what cannot be contradicted (s:w. <em><a href='B:650 7:7'>Heb 7:7</a></em> "without contradiction"). There can be no argument against the proposition that we are saved in Christ right now. The confirmation is in the Lord's death (<em><a href='B:520 15:8'>Rom 15:8</a></em>) and the gift of the Spirit in our hearts (<em><a href='B:540 1:21-22'>2Co 1:21-22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 13:9'>Heb 13:9</a></em> s:w:). But His word of promise is itself confirmed. The arguments every way are for our total assurance that His promise of salvation shall come true for me, today.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 6:17'>Heb 6:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore God, determined to show more abundantly to the heirs of the promise the immutability of His purpose, confirmed with an oath</em>- The word of promise was enough, seeing it came from God; but God confirmed it with an oath, because He was "determined" to show us the certainty of the promise. Despite having promised us eternal inheritance, as promised to Abraham, God is eager for us to accept it. He has not just made promises and left us to do our part by believing them. He comes to meet us, using every logical, intellectual and spiritual instrument to do so, and crowning them all with the death of His Son to confirm the word of promise to Abraham which comprised the new covenant. God discerned that we fear His promise might change; the oath showed it was immutable. Perhaps our wide experience of failed promises and agreements is the psychological root of our difficulty in accepting the most simple truth- that we really shall be saved if we have said 'Yes' to God's purpose of salvation for us. The Galatians like the Hebrews had been "removed" from the Christian Gospel to another (<em><a href='B:550 1:6'>Gal 1:6</a></em>); and "immutable" here translates the negative of this word, the 'not-removable' nature of God's promise. The priesthood was "changed" (<em><a href='B:650 7:12'>Heb 7:12</a></em>), but the new covenant promises of God to Abraham of our salvation will not be "changed" as they are not-changeable, "immutable".</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 6:18'>Heb 6:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So that by two immutable things-&nbsp;</em>The promise of God and the oath confirming it.</p><p><em>In which it is impossible for God to lie-&nbsp;</em>To doubt our salvation is to effectively accuse God of being a liar. But that is impossible.</p><p><em>We may have a strong encouragement-&nbsp;</em>God not only promised our salvation but confirmed the promise with an oath. Paul says the same in different terms in <em><a href='B:520 5:8'>Rom 5:8</a></em>: "God commends His love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for the ungodly".</p><h4><em>Who have fled for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before us</em>- The allusion is to how the person who found they had committed a sin worthy of death, yet without as it were wishing to have done so, could flee to a city of refuge and be saved there by the death of the high priest. The curse upon Levi was that the members of this tribe were to be scattered in Israel (<em><a href='B:10 49:7'>Gen 49:7</a></em>). However, this resulted in the cities of the Levites being scattered throughout the land, thus providing accessible cities of refuge to all who wished to escape the consequences of sin. Those cities were evidently symbolic of the refuge we have in Christ (<em><a href='B:650 6:18'>Heb 6:18</a></em>). Again and again, the curses and consequences of human sin are used by the Father to mediate blessing. It is the sure hope before us which is our refuge. "Hope",&nbsp;<em>elpis</em>, is a confident knowledge of a future reality, rather than a hoping for the best. We should be confident in our salvation.</h4>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 6:19'>Heb 6:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast and passing into the presence beyond the veil</em>- The certainty that we shall be saved is what give us spiritual and personal stability, as an anchor. But the "anchor" in view is not simply that of a moored boat. This anchor enables us to pass beyond the veil into the most holy place, the very presence of God. The allusion is to how the high priest entered the most holy each year to make atonement for Israel with a rope attached to him in case he were to die there and need to be pulled back out of the most holy, so that no man needed to enter the most holy to retrieve the body. The height of the challenge for first century Hebrews is hard to appreciate; we are called not simply to salvation but to the very status of the high priest on the day of atonement. For we are in Christ. We are to go into God's very presence, in Christ, to do the work of atonement for others. This is the spirit in which we should pray for others. And we need no human anchor- for our sure knowledge of future salvation is our anchor.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 6:20'>Heb 6:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Into which as a forerunner Jesus entered for us, having become a high priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek</em>- As noted on :19, it is us who are called to enter the holiest place and God's presence. The Lord Jesus has entered there, but He has done so as a forerunner, whose steps we are to follow. Priestly work is therefore to be our eternal occupation- seeking salvation and blessing for others. He is like the boy who brings the ship's line to shore ("forerunner"), and then guides the ship to dock. But that dock for us is the most holy place, the presence of God personally, when God Himself shall dwell amongst us in the Kingdom of God on earth.</p><p>Here in Hebrews alone in the New Testament is the Lord's simple, human name “Jesus” used so baldly- not ‘Jesus Christ’, ‘the Lord Jesus’, just plain ‘Jesus’ (<em><a href='B:650 2:9'>Heb 2:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 3:1'>Heb 3:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 4:14'>Heb 4:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 6:20'>Heb 6:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 7:22'>Heb 7:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:19'>Heb 10:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 12:2'>Heb 12:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 12:24'>Heb 12:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 13:12'>Heb 13:12</a></em>). And yet it’s Hebrews that emphasizes how He can be called ‘God’, and is the full and express image of God Himself:&nbsp; I observe that in each of the ten places where Hebrews uses the name ‘Jesus’, it is as it were used as a climax of adoration and respect. For example: “… whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus” (<em><a href='B:650 6:20'>Heb 6:20</a></em>). “But you are come unto… unto… to… to… to… to… and to Jesus the mediator” (<em><a href='B:650 12:22-24'>Heb 12:22-24</a></em>). The bald title ‘Jesus’, one of the most common male names in first century Palestine, as common as Dave or Steve or John in the UK today, speaking as it did of the Lord’s utter humanity, is therefore used as a climax of honour for Him. The honour due to Him is exactly due to the fact of His humanity. The juxtaposition of the Lord’s humanity and His exaltation is what is so unique about Him. And it’s what is so hard for people to accept, because it demands so much faith in a man, that He could be really so God-like. The juxtaposition of ideas is seen in Hebrews so powerfully.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 7:1'>Heb 7:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For this Melchizedek, king of Jerusalem, priest of God Most High, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him</em>- As noted on <em><a href='B:650 5:14'>Heb 5:14</a></em>, Paul doesn't consider the Hebrews mature enough for this exposition. But he still gives it. The material in chapter 6 is therefore almost in parenthesis, which is very typical of Paul. There is no hint that Abraham and Melchizedek were personally acquainted before this meeting, although they both were servants of the true God. We might wonder why God didn't connect them earlier. In His wisdom He doesn't always force believers to regularly fellowship with each other, indeed He made Abraham travel all around Canaan rather than telling him to settle near Melchizedek and form some kind of ecclesia or community of believers. And clearly the implication is that Abraham maintained a legitimate relationship with God without needing to use a human priest, even one as good and exalted as Melchizedek. For more on Melchizedek, see on <em><a href='B:650 5:10'>Heb 5:10</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 7:2'>Heb 7:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>To whom also Abraham divided a tenth part of all. He was first, by interpretation, King of righteousness, and then also, King of Jerusalem, which is, King of peace</em>- "King of righteousness" connects with Paul's appeal for the Hebrews to accept the word or Gospel of imputed righteousness in Christ; see on <em><a href='B:650 5:13'>Heb 5:13</a></em>, remembering that here in chapter 7 Paul is picking up from <em><a href='B:650 5:13'>Heb 5:13</a></em> after the parenthesis of chapter 6. The connection between righteousness and peace is a feature of Messiah- in Him, they kiss each other (<em><a href='B:230 85:10'>Psa 85:10</a></em>), and are the mainstay of the Messianic Kingdom on earth (<em><a href='B:230 72:3'>Psa 72:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 32:17'>Isa 32:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 14:17'>Rom 14:17</a></em>). Righteousness is emphasized before peace- "then also::. king of peace". "The work of righteousness shall be peace" (<em><a href='B:290 32:17'>Isa 32:17</a></em>). But in Paul's theology, it is the righteousness of King Jesus which is imputed to us and thereby creates peace with God. This is the much laboured message of Romans 1-8. So we can understand his enthusiastic perception that Melchizedek, a type of Messiah, was king of righteousness "and then also::. king of peace".</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 7:3'>Heb 7:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>He was without recorded father or mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life but presented as being like the Son of God, abiding a priest continually</em>- Without doubt God frames the Biblical record in order to highlight certain facts. Thus there is a marked lack of information concerning the father and mother of Melchizedek in Genesis. God is providing us with an interpretation of how He worded the account in Genesis, making the point that Melchizedek typified Christ. But although we are not to read <em><a href='B:650 7:3'>Heb 7:3</a></em> at face value, there is no explicit indication to this effect. The objection that the New Testament does not warn us against reading the ‘casting out of demons’ language literally is therefore not valid. <em><a href='B:650 7:3'>Heb 7:3</a></em> is one of many examples of where it is imperative to understand the way in which God is using language if we are to correctly understand His word, but there is no explicit warning about this in <em><a href='B:650 7:3'>Heb 7:3</a></em></p><p>Jesus has a Father (God) and a mother (Mary) and a genealogy (see Matthew 1, Luke 3 and cp. <em><a href='B:500 7:27'>Joh 7:27</a></em>). ‘Melchizedek’ therefore cannot refer to Him personally. Besides, Melchizedek was “made&nbsp;<em>like</em>&nbsp;unto the Son of God” (<em><a href='B:650 7:3'>Heb 7:3</a></em>); he was not Jesus himself, but had certain similarities with Him which are being used by the writer for teaching purposes. “After the similitude of Melchizedek there arises another priest”, Jesus (<em><a href='B:650 7:15'>Heb 7:15</a></em>), who was ordained a priest “after the order of Melchizedek” (<em><a href='B:650 5:5-6'>Heb 5:5-6</a></em>). The language of Hebrews about Melchizedek just cannot be taken literally. If Melchizedek literally had no father or mother, then the only person he could have been was God Himself; He is the only person with no beginning (<em><a href='B:610 6:16'>1Ti 6:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 90:2'>Psa 90:2</a></em>). But this is vetoed by <em><a href='B:650 7:4'>Heb 7:4</a></em>: “Consider how great&nbsp;<em>this man&nbsp;</em>was”, and also by the fact that he was seen by men (which God cannot be) and offered sacrifices to God. If he is called a man, then he must have had literal parents. His being “without father, without mother, without descent” must therefore refer to the fact that his pedigree and parents are not recorded. Queen Esther’s parents are not recorded, and so her background is described in a similar way. Mordecai “brought up::. Esther, his uncle’s daughter: for she had neither father nor mother::. whom Mordecai, when her father and mother were dead, took for his own daughter” (<em><a href='B:190 2:7'>Est 2:7</a></em>). The author of Hebrews was clearly writing as a Jew to Jews, and as such he uses the Rabbinic way of reasoning and writing at times. There was a Rabbinic principle that "what is not in the text, is not" (See James Dunn,&nbsp;<em>Christology In The Making</em>&nbsp;(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980) p. 276 note 59)- and it seems that this is the principle of exposition being used to arrive at the statement that Melchizedek was "without father". Seeing no father is mentioned in the Genesis text, therefore he was "without father"- but this doesn't mean he actually didn't have a father. It's not recorded, and therefore, according to that Rabbinic principle, he effectively didn't have one.</p><p>The book of Genesis usually goes to great lengths to introduce the family backgrounds of all the characters which it presents to us. But Melchizedek appears on the scene unannounced, with no record of his parents, and vanishes from the account with equal abruptness. Yet there can be no doubt that he was worthy of very great respect; even great Abraham paid tithes to him, and was blessed by him, clearly showing Melchizedek’s superiority over Abraham (<em><a href='B:650 7:2'>Heb 7:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 7:7'>Heb 7:7</a></em>). The writer is not just doing mental gymnastics with Scripture. There was a very real problem in the first century which the Melchizedek argument could solve. The Jews were reasoning: ‘You Christians tell us that this Jesus can now be our high priest, offering our prayers and works to God. But a priest has to have a known genealogy, proving he is from the tribe of Levi. And anyway, you yourselves admit Jesus was from the tribe of Judah (<em><a href='B:650 7:14'>Heb 7:14</a></em>). Sorry, to us Abraham is our supreme leader and example (<em><a href='B:500 8:33'>Joh 8:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:39'>Joh 8:39</a></em>), and we won’t respect this Jesus’. To which the reply is: ‘But remember Melchizedek. The Genesis record is framed to show that such a great priest did not have any genealogy; and Messiah is to be both a king and a priest, whose priesthood is after the pattern of Melchizedek (<em><a href='B:650 5:6'>Heb 5:6</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:230 110:4'>Psa 110:4</a></em>). Abraham was inferior to Melchizedek, so you should switch your emphasis from Abraham to Jesus, and stop trying to make the question of genealogies so important (see <em><a href='B:610 1:4'>1Ti 1:4</a></em>). If you meditate on how much Melchizedek is a type of Jesus (i:e. the details of his life pointed forward to him), then you would have a greater understanding of the work of Christ’:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 7:4'>Heb 7:4</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:650 1:5'>Heb 1:5</a></em>.</p><p><em>Now consider how great this man was, to whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth of the spoils</em>- Melchizedek was a man, not a pre-existent God. The argument is that tithes are given to someone greater. Hence Jacob offers to give tithes to his father's God if He will preserve him (<em><a href='B:10 28:22'>Gen 28:22</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 7:5'>Heb 7:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And they indeed of the sons of Levi that receive the priest's office-&nbsp;</em>Paul doesn't call them Aaronites because he wants to make the point that the tribal head, Levi, was not the ancestor of Melchizedek; and as one of the patriarchs, he as it were paid tithes in Abraham to Melchizedek.</p><p><em>Have the commandment according to the law to take tithes from the people, that is, of their brothers; even though they are also descendants of Abraham</em>- Levi's sons could take tithes of their brothers, but this did not make them 'greater' than their brothers. They were 'brothers' on the same level as those who tithed to them. But payment of tithes to an unrelated person was a more impressive evidence of the greatness of that person over the tithe payers.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 7:6'>Heb 7:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Melchizedek was not descended from Levi by genealogy-</em>&nbsp;There is no evidence that he was even from within the Abraham family; he was effectively a Gentile, the king-priest of Jerusalem. But the fact he was not a Levite is emphasized because this was a reason some were giving for not accepting the priesthood of the Lord Jesus.</p><p><em>But he took tithes of Abraham and blessed him that had received the promises</em>- The blessing was given from Melchizedek to Abraham in response to tithes. Yet Abraham is the one who was to be a blessing in the land, according to "the promises" received. But actually, the blesser had himself first to be blessed. This definitely places Melchizedek on the level of manifesting God to Abraham.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 7:7'>Heb 7:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But without any dispute the less is blessed of the better</em>- To suggest anyone was "better" than Abraham was radical for Hebrews, who considered Abraham the father of their race. And to rub the point in by saying that he was "less" was to suggest that the entire metanarrative of descent from Abraham being so important was being overwritten- and had in fact been overwritten by any sensitive to the brief details given about Melchizedek. That the ministry of the Lord Jesus was "better" than that of the Mosaic law is stressed in Hebrews (<em><a href='B:650 1:4'>Heb 1:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 7:19'>Heb 7:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 7:22'>Heb 7:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 8:6'>Heb 8:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 9:23'>Heb 9:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 12:24'>Heb 12:24</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 7:8'>Heb 7:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And here mortal men receive tithes; but there one received them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives</em>- The argument here might appear somewhat forced, but it was all legitimate within the style of Rabbinic midrash. Melchizedek "lives" in that there is no record of his death; we noted on :3 the Rabbinic principle that "what is not in the text, is not". And Paul goes on to reason that the priesthood of Melchizedek continues still, in that Messiah was to have this priesthood eternally. "That he lives" can also be understood as meaning that Melzhizedek had a lifelong priesthood, that was not replaced by others because he had reached a certain age. McKnight observes that the Greek verb&nbsp;<em>ze¯&nbsp;</em>here is not in the present, but the imperfect of the indicative, and he translates "that he lives" as " lived, a priest all his life, in contradistinction from those who ceased to be priests at a certain age".</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 7:9'>Heb 7:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And, so to say-&nbsp;</em>Another usage of language which suggests we are reading a transcript of a spoken address; see on <em><a href='B:650 13:22'>Heb 13:22</a></em>.</p><p><em>When Abraham paid the tithe, Levi, whose descendants receive the tithe, also paid a tithe</em>- Abraham is seen as representing his descendant Levi. The Levitical priests did indeed pay a tithe of their tithes- to God. But Paul argues here that Levi, in Abraham, paid a tithe to Melchizedek, thus making him a manifestation of God.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 7:10'>Heb 7:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For Levi was yet in the loins of his ancestor Abraham when Melchizedek met Abraham</em>- This kind of argument may appear forced, but it was quite legitimate within the milieu of Jewish midrash.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 7:11'>Heb 7:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now if there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be reckoned after the order of Aaron?</em>- The argument is that the whole mention of Messiah having a priesthood after the order of Melchizedek would have been unnecessary if the Levitical priesthood and legal system could bring "perfection". Paul forces through the logic of his position by reasoning that the "need" for the Melchizedek priesthood meant that this new priest must actually not be "after the order of Aaron" and therefore must not be a descendant of Aaron. I have previously noted that this kind of apparently forced argumentation would have been acceptable to those used to this kind of reasoning in the rabbinical interpretations of the Old Testament. But it is all the same logically forced, although from our Christian perspective it all makes good sense. I suggested on expounding Paul's obsession with the Jerusalem Poor Fund in 2 Corinthians that he had an obsessive streak within him, whereby he marshalled all possible evidence to support his positions and at points his logic and reasoning bears the hallmark of the obsessive. It could well be that we have a case of that here.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 7:12'>Heb 7:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For the priesthood being changed requires also a change of the law</em>- This verse is a stubborn problem for those who consider that the Mosaic law has not been changed nor abrogated. The reasoning here is logically sound, but it depends upon the assumption that the Melchizedek priest has in fact come; and only in that case could it be reasoned that the priesthood had been changed from the Aaronic to that of Melchizedek, this requiring a change of the law. The argument only had and has force for those who accept Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. It is therefore highly relevant to the Hebrew Christian audience but would lack logical power with Hebrew non-Christians.</p><p>The whole Law of Moses is described as an everlasting covenant (<em><a href='B:290 24:5'>Isa 24:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 29:29'>Deu 29:29</a></em>), but it has now been done away (<em><a href='B:650 8:13'>Heb 8:13</a></em>). The feasts of Passover and Atonement were to be “an everlasting statute unto you” (<em><a href='B:30 16:34'>Lev 16:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 12:14'>Exo 12:14</a></em>); but now the Mosaic feasts have been done away in Christ (<em><a href='B:580 2:14-17'>Col 2:14-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 5:7'>1Co 5:7</a></em>). The Levitical priesthood was “the covenant of an everlasting priesthood” (<em><a href='B:20 40:15'>Exo 40:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 25:13'>Num 25:13</a></em>), but “the priesthood being changed (by Christ’s work), there is made of necessity a change also of the law” (<em><a href='B:650 7:12'>Heb 7:12</a></em>). There was an “everlasting covenant” between God and Israel to display the shewbread in the Holy Place (<em><a href='B:30 24:8'>Lev 24:8</a></em>). This “everlasting covenant” evidently ended when the Mosaic Law was dismantled. But the same phrase “everlasting covenant” is used in <em><a href='B:100 23:5'>2Sa 23:5</a></em> concerning how Christ will reign on David’s throne for literal eternity in the Kingdom. In what sense, then, is God using the word&nbsp;<em>olahm</em>, which is translated “eternal”, “perpetual”, “everlasting” in the Old Testament? James Strong defines&nbsp;<em>olahm&nbsp;</em>as literally meaning “the finishing point, time out of mind, i:e. practically eternity”. It was God’s purpose that the Law of Moses and the associated Sabbath law were to continue for many centuries. To the early Israelite, this meant a finishing point so far ahead that he couldn’t grapple with it; therefore he was told that the Law would last for ever in the sense of “practically eternity”. For all of us, the spectre of ultimate infinity is impossible to intellectually grapple with. We may glibly talk about God’s eternity and timelessness, about the wonder of eternal life. But when we pause to really come to terms with these things, we lack the intellectual tools and linguistic paradigms to cope with it. Therefore there is no Hebrew or Greek word used in the Bible text to speak of absolute infinity. We know that death has been conquered for those in Christ, therefore we have the hope of immortal life in his Kingdom. But God speaks about eternity very much from a human viewpoint.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 7:13'>Heb 7:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For he of whom these things are said belongs to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar</em>- The "He" refers to the Melchizedek priest who was to be Messiah. "Has ever" makes the point that a new priesthood is now in view. The Lord Jesus serves at<em>&nbsp;the</em>&nbsp;altar; this is the altar at which the Levitical priests have no right to eat / fellowship, but we Christians do (<em><a href='B:650 13:10'>Heb 13:10</a></em>), suggesting that we in Christ are likewise there, serving at and eating at the heavenly altar which features so strongly in Revelation, as part of the Heavenly sanctuary which the tabernacle was a dim reflection of. The Lord Jesus is actively 'serving' there; He is not passive in Heaven, just waiting to return to earth.</p>


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:650 7:14'>Heb 7:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For it is evident that our Lord originated from the tribe of Judah. Regarding this tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood</em>- The Lord being descended from Judah was "evident" or obvious- presumably from the genealogies which connected Mary to the tribe of Judah. But again as noted on :11, Paul's enthusiasm seems to be carrying him away, for it was far from obvious that Jesus of Nazareth was from Judah. However he may have meant instead that Messiah had to come from Judah; this much was indeed "evident" from the Old Testament and undisputed.</h4>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 7:15'>Heb 7:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And what we say is even more abundantly evident, if after the likeness of Melchizedek there arises another priest</em>- The abundantly obvious argument was that the Melchizedek priest had to be eternal (see :16,17); and the only candidate was Jesus, whom Christians believed had been resurrected and given eternal life. He was the only person who had then been immortalized. But this argument again was logically powerful only to a Hebrew Christian, and not to a Hebrew non-Christian. The 'arising' of this 'other priest' may be a hint at His resurrection to immortality.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 7:16'>Heb 7:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Who has been appointed, not on the basis of a law about physical descent, but according to the power of an endless life</em>- The Levitical priests became priests by reason of their age and descent, whereas the Melchizedek Messiah priest had to be "appointed". The basis of the Lord's appointment was His immortality- because the priest had to have an eternal ministry, so it was necessary that he was immortal. And the only immortalized human was Jesus of Nazareth.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 7:17'>Heb 7:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For it is witnessed: You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek</em>- "For ever" is being interpretted as meaning that the priest would be immortal, making the resurrected, immortalized Jesus the only possible candidate. The 'witnessing' by God in <em><a href='B:230 110:4'>Psa 110:4</a></em> is understood as the priest being "appointed" (:16).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 7:18'>Heb 7:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>On the other hand, there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness</em>- This new priesthood required a new law; a changed priesthood meant a changed law (:12). And this required an "annulling" of that law, and that was because it was weak and unprofitable. Such language appears to deprecate the law, although Paul elsewhere says that the law was "holy, just and good" (<em><a href='B:520 7:12'>Rom 7:12</a></em>); it was weak and not profitable because it was unable to bring salvation or perfection to those under it. The strong language used here about the law of Moses must be given its full weight by those who argue that it should still be kept today.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 7:19'>Heb 7:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>(For the law made nothing perfect)-&nbsp;</em>Likewise :11 has argued that the Levitical priesthood had to be changed because it could not bring "perfection". The law convicted men of sin and offered some mechanism of patching up the broken relationship caused by it. But it did not enable moral perfection. By being in Christ, we can be counted as Him, the only perfect human. Faith in Christ could therefore make perfect in that the Lord Jesus was 'made perfect' by His sufferings, particularly on the cross (<em><a href='B:650 5:7-9'>Heb 5:7-9</a></em>).</p><p><em>And a bringing in thereupon of a better hope, through which we draw near to God</em>- By being counted as in Christ, having His perfection as ours due to our status in Him, we have the sure hope of future salvation. The<em>&nbsp;elpis</em>&nbsp;or hope in view is a solid expectation regarding the future, not a mere hoping for the best. And it is by having this hope that we find strength against materialism and "draw near to God". The Hebrew readership would have understood this as meaning 'drawing near in priestly service' (cp. <em><a href='B:20 19:22'>Exo 19:22</a></em>). The Hope we have compels us to God's service:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 7:20'>Heb 7:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And the Melchizedek priesthood was not without the taking of an oath</em>- The oath taken was by God (<em><a href='B:230 110:4'>Psa 110:4</a></em>), vowing by Himself to honour the eternally powerful priesthood of Messiah. Such Divine underwriting was not given to the Levitical priesthood.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 7:21'>Heb 7:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The Levitical priests were made priests without an oath, but he with an oath: The Lord swore and will not change His mind; you are a priest for ever</em>- The eternal nature of the Lord's Melchizedek priesthood is at the basis of the certainty of our hope for future salvation (:19). God Almighty guarantees that the Lord Jesus will be our eternal priest. Our standing before Him is therefore eternal; we have such a priest who is not simply a mediator between God and men, a conduit allowing us to offer to Him and approach Him, but a priest who on His own agenda eternally secures our salvation:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 7:22'>Heb 7:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>By this also has Jesus become the surety of a better covenant</em>- The sure hope of :19 is underpinned by the way the Lord is the surety or guarantor of the better covenant. The Greek for "surety" occurs only here in the NT and LXX. The idea is of a guarantor who promises his self sacrifice in the case that the party to the covenant is unfaithful. It literally means 'the pledge of a limb'. The "surety" could offer his own limbs, or himself into bondage as a slave, if the person being guaranteed somehow failed. The Lord's death confirmed God's promises as being for real. But did God's side of the covenant need such a surety? Perhaps we are better to think of the Lord's being a surety as being a guarantee for our faithfulness to the covenant. But we have not been faithful to it; and so He died, gave His all, His limbs, and became the preeminent servant of Yahweh on the cross. This was to the end that the new covenant between God and us might still stand, despite our infraction of it.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 7:23'>Heb 7:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And they indeed have been made priests many in number, because that by death they are hindered from continuing</em>- The eternal priesthood required for the Messianic Melchizedek priest could not be attained by mortal priests.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 7:24'>Heb 7:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But he, because he abides for ever, has his priesthood unchangeable</em>- The eternal priesthood of the Melchizedek priest meant that His priesthood can never be changed. He has obtained eternal redemption for us, and that can never be liable to any renegotiation. Our hope for eternity is therefore sure (:19) because the One who obtained it is immortal, and His work for us is in this sense eternal.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 7:25'>Heb 7:25</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:650 2:3'>Heb 2:3</a></em>.</p><p><em>Therefore he is able to save for ever those that draw near to God through him, seeing he lives forever to make intercession for them</em>- The Lord's intercession for us is eternal. We are in Him, and His drawing near to God in priestly service is therefore ours (see on :19 for 'drawing near' as priestly language). It is our desire to serve others and thereby serve God which is what propels us to draw near to God; and in this desire we shall be eternally empowered.</p><p>The Lord Jesus eternally intercedes for us, even after our death. The risen and exalted Lord is spoken of as being shamed, being crucified afresh, as agonizing in prayer for us now just as He did on the cross (<em><a href='B:520 8:24'>Rom 8:24</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:650 5:7-9'>Heb 5:7-9</a></em>). On the cross, He made intercession for us (<em><a href='B:290 53:11-12'>Isa 53:11-12</a></em>); but now He ever liveth to make such intercession (<em><a href='B:650 7:25'>Heb 7:25</a></em>). There He bore our sins; and yet now He still bears our sins (<em><a href='B:290 53:4-6'>Isa 53:4-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 53:11'>Isa 53:11</a></em>). The fact that the Lord "ever lives to make intercession" for us (<em><a href='B:650 7:25'>Heb 7:25</a></em>) is an allusion back to <em><a href='B:290 53:12'>Isa 53:12</a></em>, which prophecies that on the cross, Christ would make intercession for the transgressors. His prayer for us then, that we would all be forgiven (and see the prophecies of this in Psalms 22, 69 etc:) was therefore His intercession for our salvation. His whole death was His prayer / intercession for us. But it was of His own freewill; He was not relaying our words then. And His intercession for us on the cross is the pattern of His intercession for us now. This ought to be a humbling thought.</p><p>He made one mediatory offering for all time (<em><a href='B:650 5:7'>Heb 5:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 7:27'>Heb 7:27</a></em>); therefore He has nothing to offer now. The High Priest going into the Holiest is also a type of Christ entering Heaven. He is in a sense permanently in the Holiest, He bears our names&nbsp;<em>always</em>&nbsp;before Yahweh; He ever lives, all the time, to make intercession for us, always. This of course opens up the interesting question as to in what sense the Lord will eternally intercede for us, once we are immortalized. Perhaps the 'eternal' nature of His intercession is relative to the temporary work of the Levitical priests who died, and refers to eternity only in a relative sense; see on :12. But the Greek for "intercession" does not of itself require the idea of reconcilliation or mediation. Through the ministry of the Comforter, we do not need that even now (<em><a href='B:500 14:16'>Joh 14:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:26-27'>Joh 16:26-27</a></em>). The idea can simply be that He will confer with the Father about us eternally; and that is how the word is used in <em><a href='B:510 25:24'>Act 25:24</a></em> and <em><a href='B:520 11:2'>Rom 11:2</a></em>. This is a wonderful thought; that the Lord Jesus shall be talking eternally to the Father about you and me.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 7:26'>Heb 7:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For such a High Priest was fitting for us- holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners-&nbsp;</em>He was and is “harmless” in His priestly mediation; the same word is translated “simple” in <em><a href='B:520 16:8'>Rom 16:8</a></em>. He was an intellectual beyond compare, morally and dialectically He defeated the most cunning cross-questioning of His day; and yet He was a working man surrounded by masses of daily problems. But He was and is “simple” in the sense of single-mindedly committed to His priestly work. We are on earth and God is in Heaven, and therefore our words should be few (<em><a href='B:250 5:2'>Ecc 5:2</a></em>). Not few in the sense that we don’t pray for very long, but few in terms of their simplicity and directness. The Lord warned us against the complicated prayer forms of the Pharisees; and asked us to&nbsp;<em>mean&nbsp;</em>our words of ‘yes’ and ‘no’ rather than use more sophisticated assurances. The heart is deceitful and so wicked we cannot plumb its depths (<em><a href='B:300 17:9'>Jer 17:9</a></em>); and yet the pure in heart are blessed. This must surely mean that the “pure” in heart are those who despite the intrinsic self-deception of the human heart, are nonetheless “pure” or single hearted in their prayer and motives and desire to serve God.</p><p>The Lord Jesus was in His life "separate from sinners". The Greek word very definitely means 'to actively depart from'- it's used about a partner walking out of a marriage. Yet the Lord is always pictured as mixing with sinners, to the extent that they felt they could come to Him easily, and actually liked to do this. So how was He "separate" from them in the way the Hebrew writer understood? Here again we see one of the profoundest paradoxes in this supremest of personalities. He was with sinners, then and now; His solidarity with us, the roughest and the most obvious and the subtlest of us, is what attracts us to Him. And yet He is somehow totally separate from us; and it is this in itself which brings us to Him. &nbsp;</p><p>It needs to be noted that the Lord Jesus had human nature, and yet was holy, harmless and separate from sinners, and attained 'perfection'. Human nature is not, therefore, an inevitable source of sin and separation from God. The Father is not made at us for being human; it's no sin to be alive.</p><p><em>And has been exalted higher than the heavens</em>- The allusion is to the common Jewish idea of there being various "heavens". Paul doesn't specifically criticize the idea, but just states that whatever we understand about this, the Lord Jesus has been exalted higher. The Gospels take a similar approach to the wrong ideas about demon possession; the power of the Father and Son is infinitely greater than that of 'demons', however we wish to understand the term.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 7:27'>Heb 7:27</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Who needs not to offer up sacrifices daily, like those high priests, first for his own sins and then for those of the people. For this he did once for all, when he offered up himself</em>- "This he did once" is a contrast with how the old High Priest offered "this" daily Jesus did it only "once". The reference to "first for his own sins, then for the people's" is as it were in parenthesis, a throw away comment, to indicate again the inferiority of the old High Priests who themselves were sinners and therefore needed to offer for their own sins as well as those of God's people. My own suspicion that Paul was the author of Hebrews is based upon the style of writing we have there which we see in Paul elsewhere- so often, a comment is made in passing like this example of commenting that the old Priests had to offer for their own sins too. This kind of style is typical of Paul, Ephesians and Colossians are full of this kind of thing- making an argument, but throwing in a comment in the midst of it, a kind of aside, which often phases the reader.</p><p>It is not the day of atonement which is in view here, because the contrast is with the "daily" offerings of the priests. A sincere priest would have offered daily sin offerings for himself as well as for the people. The Lord Jesus didn't need to do this; the parallels with the Levitical priesthood are by way of both contrast and similarity. They stood; He sits. They offered animals, He offered "Himself". But as He offered for "the people" so too did the mortal priests; but He did so once, whereas they did so daily. They offered for their own wins too; He did not. If the Lord in any sense had needed to offer for His own "sins", He would have had to do so daily. But He offered only one offering, for us. That Christ died for&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;sins according to the scriptures is the clear emphasis of the entire Biblical revelation. "<em>This</em>&nbsp;He did" refers to His offering for the people, for us; and not for His own 'sins'. This point is underlined in the next verse, which notes that the priests were morally weak, whereas the Son of God is perfect and shall be forever, unable to sin.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 7:28'>Heb 7:28</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever</em>- See on :27. Sin brings death, so the eternal priest appointed by the word of God's oath in <em><a href='B:230 110:4'>Psa 110:4</a></em> had to be not only eternal but also sinless. There could therefore be no other candidate for this priest than the Lord Jesus. The contrast between the moral weakness of the priests and the perfection of God's Son is further reason to understand "<em>this&nbsp;</em>He did" in :27 as referring solely to His sacrifice for "the people". The Lord's 'perfecting' was in the supreme moral perfection He achieved on the cross (see on <em><a href='B:650 5:8-9'>Heb 5:8-9</a></em>). That acme of utter perfection, attained within a body covered in blood and spittle, dying in agony on a tree trunk, tormented by flies and barking dogs on a hill outside Jerusalem on a Friday afternoon, on a day in April, 2000 or so years ago::. has as it were been set in stone eternally. The perfection attained is "forever". Our far weaker spiritual growth will likewise be eternally set in stone.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 8:1'>Heb 8:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now in the things of which we are talking, the chief point is this-&nbsp;</em>This is language appropriate to a transcript of a talk or sermon; see on <em><a href='B:650 13:22'>Heb 13:22</a></em>.</p><p><em>We have such a high priest who sat down on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens</em>- The way the Lord&nbsp;<em>sits&nbsp;</em>rather than&nbsp;<em>stands</em>&nbsp;is emphasized, and is another connection with Stephen who saw the Lord standing, passionate in His defence (see on <em><a href='B:650 1:1'>Heb 1:1</a></em>). The personal existence of God is taught here clearly enough; Jesus is at His right hand, and He has location, rather than being an abstraction or puff of 'spirit'.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 8:2'>Heb 8:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>A servant of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man</em>- The Lord Jesus is actively working in Heaven for us. The allusion is to priestly 'service', which was always focused upon bringing others to God and enabling their service. The "true" tabernacle doesn't suggest the Mosaic tabernacle was untrue; but it was but a figure of the ultimate, 'true' Heavenly reality.</p><p>There is great emphasis in Exodus 26 that the tabernacle was "one", joined together in such a way that taught the lesson of unity. The spiritual tabernacle, the believers, was "pitched" by the Lord God- translating a Greek word which suggests 'crucifixion' (<em><a href='B:650 8:2'>Heb 8:2</a></em>). Through the cross, the one, united tabernacle was pitched. To tear down that structure by disuniting the body is to undo the work of the cross.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 8:3'>Heb 8:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For every high priest being appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, it is therefore necessary that this high priest also have these to offer</em>- The train of thought about offering gifts and sacrifices is somewhat interrupted until <em><a href='B:650 9:9'>Heb 9:9</a></em>, creating a parenthesis which is typical of Paul's style. The argument is that He did offer, but one offering- of Himself, and not of endless gifts and animals (<em><a href='B:650 9:27-28'>Heb 9:27-28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:12'>Heb 10:12</a></em>). He was not so much offering the gifts of others, but offering Himself.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 8:4'>Heb 8:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, seeing there are those who offer the gifts according to the law</em>- Clearly this was written whilst the Jerusalem temple was still functioning, before AD70. Because His mediation was a one-off act, the Lord would not be a priest if He were now on earth. He is given the&nbsp;<em>title</em>of priest, as He is given the title "the man Christ Jesus" (<em><a href='B:610 2:5'>1Ti 2:5</a></em>), even though He is not now a man. And the Lord was from Judah, not Levi. Paul is stressing the two different kinds of priesthood, and by noting that there were still Aaronic priests operating, he is implying that their service is worthless compared to that of the Messianic Melchizedek priest.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 8:5'>Heb 8:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, even as Moses is warned when he is about to make the tabernacle. For He said: See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain</em>- The "pattern" is therefore taken by Paul to imply that the tabernacle system was a copy or reflection of the heavenly tabernacle (<em><a href='B:650 9:23-24'>Heb 9:23-24</a></em>), with the priests reflecting the work of the Angels; hence&nbsp;<em>elohim</em>&nbsp;is used of both priests and Angels. Judaism even called the tabernacle 'the heavenlies', but Paul's point is that it was only a "copy and shadow" of them, and the Lord Jesus is dealing with the ultimate realities which were only dimly reflected in the tabernacle system. The priests 'served' the copy of these things; but the Lord serves us.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 8:6'>Heb 8:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But now has he obtained a more excellent service, as he is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted upon better promises</em>- The old covenant was mediated by Moses (<em><a href='B:550 3:19'>Gal 3:19</a></em>); the Lord Jesus mediates the new covenant to us. That covenant was based upon the promises made to Abraham, but they were only mediated to us in Christ. Those promises envisaged eternal inheritance of the earth for Abraham and his singular seed, Jesus (<em><a href='B:550 3:16'>Gal 3:16</a></em>). By baptism into Him we become part of the seed, and heirs according to those promises (<em><a href='B:550 3:27-29'>Gal 3:27-29</a></em>). The new covenant is therefore based upon the promises to Abraham. Those better promises already existed, before the time of the law; but they were only mediated to us when we could become in Christ, part of the seed. And that required the Lord's death as a representative for all men. Now that He has mediated that covenant to us, He continues to serve those within that covenant.</p>


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:650 8:7'>Heb 8:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second</em>- "Faultless" doesn't mean it was faulty of itself; the failure was that it could not bring perfection / salvation to men. Who was seeking a place for a second covenant? The reference may be to God, seeking salvation for us (see on :8); or to believers under the first covenant, who sought salvation and moral perfection but not finding it under the first covenant, searched for another. God didn't seek for a second covenant but for a place for it, a way in which it could operate for all men. And that place was in the work of His Son, the seed of Abraham who was the perfect Messianic priest, in whom all men could find a place and have the promises to Abraham's seed, the new covenant, mediated to them. It was God who sought for a man to empower this, and found Him only in Christ (<em><a href='B:300 5:1'>Jer 5:1</a></em> etc:).</h4>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 8:8'>Heb 8:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For finding fault with them, He said-&nbsp;</em>The ensuing quotation is from God's words in Jeremiah 31. So it would be God who was the one seeking a place for the second covenant, and who found fault with the old covenant- in that it could not bring about the human salvation He sought. But it could equally be that the "them" with whom God "found fault" were the Judah of Jeremiah's day, which would better account for the plural "them". The answer to the "fault" of the law being unable to bring salvation for sinful man was in the new covenant.</p><p><em>Behold, the days come, says the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-&nbsp;</em>The mention of both the houses of Israel and Judah would imply that unity between God's people is achieved on the basis of them all being within the new covenant. The cup of the new covenant / testament is therefore the symbol of unity between the redeemed; to refuse it to those who are within the house of God's people is serious indeed, an undoing of God's intention of unity upon the basis of the covenant. The new covenant system of salvation was designed for sinners; those with whom God had "found fault".</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 8:9'>Heb 8:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in My covenant, so I paid no attention to them</em>- The old covenant between God and Israel was a two way agreement. God took the initiative in it, He took Israel by the hand. But they refused to remain within the covenant, so it was unable to save them. In order to save God's people, there therefore needed to be another covenant which could save them by grace. The promises to Abraham were just such a one-sided agreement, where God swore to Abraham, passing between the cut pieces of the covenant victim; whilst Abraham was not required to make any response. He just had to believe in God's love. Once the old covenant was broken by Israel refusing to remain within it, it was broken; and God therefore could not look toward them, seeing they had broken the connection between God and themselves. The idea of not continuing in the covenant uses the same word as in <em><a href='B:550 3:10'>Gal 3:10</a></em>: "For as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse. For it is written: Cursed is everyone who does&nbsp;<em>not continue&nbsp;</em>to do all things that are written in the book of the law". Israel did not continue in obedience, so they did not continue in the covenant.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 8:10'>Heb 8:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord. I will put my laws into their mind and in their heart also will I write them, and I will be to them a God and they shall be to Me a people</em>- A new covenant was needed because Israel had not kept the old covenant, they had broken their covenant relationship (see on :9); God had "found fault" with them (:8). The covenant proposed here was to be written by God in human hearts rather than on tables of stone, to which obedience was demanded. God would "be to them a God" in that this was part of the promises to Abraham (<em><a href='B:10 17:7-8'>Gen 17:7-8</a></em>) which are the "better promises" forming the new covenant (see on :6). This new covenant which was to be made with Israel has now been made with us in this life (cp. :13). The promises which comprised the new covenant were those made to Abraham; but they referred only to Abraham and his one singular seed (<em><a href='B:550 3:16'>Gal 3:16</a></em>). Once the seed had come, we are able to be baptized into Christ so that all that is true for Him becomes true for us (<em><a href='B:550 3:27-29'>Gal 3:27-29</a></em>). As the full and totally inclusive representative of all humans, the Lord Jesus thereby opened the way for the promises to Abraham to actually become the new covenant in practice for all who become in Him. The promise to Abraham and his Messianic seed just two people that "I will be their God" thereby becomes true for an entire people; "they who are in Christ shall be to Me a people". Entry into the new covenant therefore involves God writing upon our hearts, which is done through the work of His Spirit operating directly upon the hearts of all those baptized into the seed (<em><a href='B:540 3:3'>2Co 3:3</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 8:11'>Heb 8:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>None of them shall teach his neighbour, and none his brother, saying: Know the Lord. For all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them</em>- Under the new covenant, we are in Christ. We relate to the Father as He does, being in Him. 'Knowledge' in Hebrew thought often effectively means 'relationship'. The relationship possible under the new covenant is not therefore dependent upon the teaching of men, but is a direct relationship with the Father. This kind of knowledge / relationship with God is on the basis that sin has really been dealt with and forgiven (:12).</p><p>If we know God in an experiential sense (and not just knowing theological theory about Him), we know that our sins are forgiven. We preach to others "Know the Lord", exactly because "I will be merciful to their iniquities" (<em><a href='B:650 8:11-12'>Heb 8:11-12</a></em>). It is our knowledge of God's mercy to us which empowers us to confidently seek to share with others our knowledge, our relationship, our experience with God. Forgiveness inspires the preacher; and yet the offer of forgiveness is what inspires the listener to respond:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 8:12'>Heb 8:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will not remember against them</em>- As noted on :11, this forgiveness is the basis upon which those under the new covenant know / have relationship with the Lord. The sins of men will not be remembered under the new covenant; whereas there was a remembrance of sins made each year by the old covenant (<em><a href='B:650 10:3'>Heb 10:3</a></em>). So God's way of dealing with His sinful people with whom He "found fault" (:8) was to instill obedience to His principles into their hearts, and to not remember their sins. This is all the work of the Spirit. The "blessing" promised to Abraham, in the "better promises" which comprise the new covenant (:6), was of not only forgiveness but also in turning away human hearts from sin (<em><a href='B:510 3:25-26'>Act 3:25-26</a></em>). This work of the Spirit is the only way to bring about human salvation, seeing that giving them laws and demanding obedience thereto just didn't work out in practice.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 8:13'>Heb 8:13</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:230 102:26'>Psa 102:26</a></em>.</p><p><em>In that He said: A new covenant, He has made the first redundant. Now what is becoming redundant and growing old is ready to vanish away</em>- The very concept of a new covenant means that an old covenant has been "made redundant". There is now no purpose in attempting to keep the Mosaic law, because it achieves nothing. The old covenant was "ready to vanish away" in that the temple was soon to be destroyed; but there is also perhaps a reference here to how by grace, God allowed there to be a changeover period. He recognized the deep conservatism within human nature, and allowed this changeover period during which the old covenant 'became redundant'; even though it was replaced by the new covenant when the Lord's blood was shed to confirm that new covenant and bring it into operation. As soon as the new covenant was in operation, the previous covenant became 'old'. That happened in a moment, and yet Paul generously says that it is becoming or growing old, as if a process is in view. Likewise in <em><a href='B:650 1:11'>Heb 1:11</a></em>, the same word used here for "becoming redundant" is applied to how the 'heavens' of the Jewish system were 'becoming old'. And yet the Lord had clearly warned of how the old and new wine cannot be mixed or confused and they are mutually exclusive. The allowance of a changeover period was by grace alone, and it could be argued that the Hebrew had abused it and were turning back to the "old" rather than progressively forsaking it as intended.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 9:1'>Heb 9:1</a></em><em>&nbsp;Now even the first covenant had regulations for Divine service and an earthly sanctuary</em>- The implication is that the second or new covenant also has a sanctuary and a structure for service. But that is all ongoing in Heaven, thus declaring the attempt at "Divine service" through the temple system to be redundant. The same word is used of how each believer is to do "service" to God in the new order, by presenting their own bodies as sacrifices, acting as both priest and offering (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>). The priests did God's "service" in the first tabernacle, i:e. the holy place (:6); we in Christ do His service in the most holy place, associated with heaven itself.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 9:2'>Heb 9:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For there was a tabernacle prepared, the first section, wherein was the candlestick, the table and the bread of the Presence, which is called the Holy Place</em>- The presentation of the Most Holy as being sectioned off by the Holy place is to emphasize how the tabernacle system did not give entrance into God's presence, but rather created barriers. It was the priests who served in the Holy Place who effectively stood between God and man, rather than enabling ordinary worshippers to come into the Most Holy place. However, it could be argued that the candlestick speaks of the church (as in Revelation), and the table and bread refer to the breaking of bread; as if after the laver cp. baptism and the regeneration of the Spirit, we must pass through the experience of church life before we enter the direct fellowship with God in the Most Holy. This raises serious questions over the attitude that we can be 'out of church Christians', walking with the Lord in splendid isolation because of various crotchets of interpretation or past hurts. Perhaps the term "bread of the presence" is used to suggest a connection between the holy place (church life now) and the presence of God in the Most Holy place.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 9:3'>Heb 9:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies</em>- The Holy and Most Holy places are presented as two distinct tabernacles or tents. The old and new covenants are presented in :1 as the first and second covenants although the promises to Abraham forming the new covenant were in fact given before the Mosaic legislation, although that new covenant was only ratified and brought into operation for men through the Lord's death. The flow of thought is presumably that the new or second covenant is to be associated with the second tabernacle, the Most Holy place, in which believers in Christ are now located. We are therefore described often in Paul's thought as "the heavenlies", sitting in heavenly places in Christ (<em><a href='B:560 1:3'>Eph 1:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 2:6'>Eph 2:6</a></em>). The rending of the veil into the Most Holy at the Lord's death made the same point- the way into the Holiest was now opened.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 9:4'>Heb 9:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>This had the golden altar of incense-&nbsp;</em>This could be translated "censer" as AV. The censer was only in the most holy place on the Day of Atonement (<em><a href='B:30 16:12'>Lev 16:12</a></em>), so perhaps that is the situation Paul is presenting here (see on :5). The incense altar was in the holy place, not the holy of holies (Exodus 31); and so "censer" is likely the correct translation option, although that was only in the most holy on the Day of Atonement. The argument will develop that we are now with the Lord Jesus in the Most Holy, for we are "in Christ"; and so Paul takes a picture, as it were, of the situation as it was on the Day of Atonement, the only time when the high priest entered the Most Holy.</p><p><em>And the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was a golden pot holding the manna and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant</em>- It has been complained that the golden pot of manna and Aaron's rod were not within the ark, but "before the testimony" (<em><a href='B:20 16:34'>Exo 16:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 17:10'>Num 17:10</a></em>). I suggest that "the testimony" refered to the tables of the covenant, which were within the ark (<em><a href='B:20 25:16'>Exo 25:16</a></em>). However, Israel were not obedient to this, for in Solomon's temple "there was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone" (<em><a href='B:110 8:9'>1Ki 8:9</a></em>). The actual temple system never matched up to what it was supposed to be anyway, and Paul appears to be making this point. That manna symbolized the Lord Jesus, as did the budding rod, with its message of resurrection of the Messianic "rod". But Judaism was without the awareness of these things.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 9:5'>Heb 9:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And above it were cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat-&nbsp;</em>The reference may be to the shining forth of the&nbsp;<em>shekinah</em>&nbsp;glory from between those cherubim on the Day of Atonement, which is the situation being described here; see on :4.</p><p><em>Of which things we cannot now speak in detail</em>- This sounds similar to the comment on <em><a href='B:650 5:11'>Heb 5:11</a></em> that Paul could not speak as he could have done about some things because of the immaturity of the audience. But the Greek could also imply that he was running out of time and so had to skip talking about the cherubim- which would be appropriate to a spoken address (see on <em><a href='B:650 13:22'>Heb 13:22</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 9:6'>Heb 9:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now these things having been thus prepared, the priests went in continually into the first tabernacle, performing the services</em>- The 'continual' entry is in contrast with the way the Lord Jesus entered once- and not into the Holy but the Most Holy place, and remains there. The Holy Place is called the "first" tabernacle, associating it with the first or old covenant (:1; see on :3).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 9:7'>Heb 9:7</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:500 12:24'>Joh 12:24</a></em>.</p><p><em>But into the second only the high priest went, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins of the people</em>- As noted on :6 and so often in Hebrews, Paul is comparing and also contrasting the Lord's priesthood with that of the Levitical priests. Indeed, most of the points of contact are in terms of dissimilarity rather than identity. And the difference here is that the High Priests were sinners and needed to atone for their own sins as well as the peoples; whereas the clear emphasis of Scripture is that "Christ died for&nbsp;<em>our&nbsp;</em>sins", and His work was and continues to be for our forgiveness and salvation rather than His own:&nbsp; Likewise the Lord did not enter once / year, but once for all- and remained there. So the points of contact with the Levitical High Priests are in the dissimilarity rather than similarities. See on <em><a href='B:650 7:27-28'>Heb 7:27-28</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 9:8'>Heb 9:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The Holy Spirit indicating that the way into the Holy Place was not yet made manifest whilst the first tabernacle remained</em>- As noted on :3, the Holy place is associated with the "first" covenant and the Most Holy with the new or second covenant (:1). The Holy Place is therefore presented here as a barrier to entry into the Most Holy; and the priesthood are therefore framed as standing between God and man rather than as a conduit whereby men could come to God's presence. That first tabernacle no longer "remained", according to Paul's logic; the Mosaic system was over. The tearing of the veil at the Lord's death showed in visual terms what is being explained here- the way into the Holiest was made open to all.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 9:9'>Heb 9:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>(Which is symbolic for the present age)-&nbsp;</em>The idea may be that the present age, that of the Christian dispensation, was symbolized or pointed forward to by the arrangements of the tabernacle. It was all a&nbsp;<em>parabole&nbsp;</em>("symbolic"), a parable to be interpreted. But now that age had come, they are of no practical value apart from as symbols of the reality we are now in<em>.</em></p><p><em>According to this system, both gifts and sacrifices were offered which could not make the worshiper perfect as relates to the conscience</em>- This is parallel with the thought of :8, that the tabernacle system was actually a barrier between God and man, stopping men coming into the Most Holy, the presence of God. No worshipper could come into the Most Holy, the presence of God, because all within him would cry out that he was imperfect; his conscience wouldn't allow him to seek to enter, even if it were legally possible. The "system" in Christ enables our complete forgiveness and cleansing; we are counted as "in Christ", as righteous as He, thereby cleansing the conscience and allowing our entry into the very presence of God. The Lord's teaching about the Comforter speaks of similar things; through the sanctifying work of the Spirit in our hearts, we can come directly to God without mediation (<em><a href='B:500 14:16'>Joh 14:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:26'>Joh 16:26</a></em>), to the extent that the Lord's physical absence is not felt and we live as in His very personal presence.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 9:10'>Heb 9:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Being merely foods, drinks and various washings, earthly ordinances imposed until a time of reformation</em>- The inadequacy of the rituals in allowing man to come into the Most Holy place of itself implies that there had to be a "time of reformation". The word for "reformation" is found again in <em><a href='B:650 12:13'>Heb 12:13</a></em>: "Make straight 'reformed' paths for your feet", lest any stumble. The idea is of making a path straight and direct (LXX <em><a href='B:300 7:3'>Jer 7:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 7:5'>Jer 7:5</a></em>). The way of Judaism caused men to stumble; there was no direct path into the Most Holy. No amount of ritual could cleanse the conscience; a radical reformation was required, a straightening out of the path between God and man.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 9:11'>Heb 9:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But Christ having become a high priest of the good things to come, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation</em>- The "good things to come" may be from the perspective of the old covenant; the tabernacle system was parabolic of the good things to come (:9). And they had now come, Paul is saying; the Greek can be rendered "the good things realized", or "come to pass". It was as if the good news was too good to believe; the Hebrews preferred to shrink back from the good things because the goodness of them was too demanding. And that is the attraction of legalism; it allows us to feel still connected to God, but the reality of the good news, of salvation by pure grace, has passed us by. As the High Priest passed into the Most Holy, the Lord Jesus has passed into Heaven itself (<em><a href='B:650 4:14'>Heb 4:14</a></em>). This greater tabernacle was pitched by God and not man (<em><a href='B:650 8:2'>Heb 8:2</a></em>), not of "this creation", made with the material things of this world.</p>


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:650 9:12'>Heb 9:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, he entered in once for all into the Holy Place, having obtained eternal redemption</em>- The Lord not only entered once and then left, as the priests did; He entered and remained, "once for all". And the Most Holy is Heaven itself. As noted earlier, the scene here is the Day of Atonement, when goats were offered for the sins of the people and a bull calf for the sins of the High Priest (<em><a href='B:30 16:6'>Lev 16:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 16:15'>Lev 16:15</a></em>). The plural is because these animals were offered each year. The redemption achieved by the Lord was "eternal", not temporary. Paul appears to be quoting here from the midrash of Jonathan ben Uzziel on <em><a href='B:10 49:18'>Gen 49:18</a></em>; ben Uzziel would have been contemporary with Paul: "Jacob said, when he saw Gideon the son of Joash, and Samson the son of Manoah, who should be redeemers; not for the redemption of Gideon am I waiting, nor for the redemption of Samson am I looking, for their redemption is a temporal redemption; but for thy redemption am I waiting and looking, O Lord, because thy redemption is "an everlasting redemption"". The redemption in view is clearly of others rather than of Himself; for the Lord was the redeemer of God's Israel (<em><a href='B:490 1:68'>Luk 1:68</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:38'>Luk 2:38</a></em>). He gave His life as a redemption for many (<em><a href='B:470 20:28'>Mat 20:28</a></em>); He gave Himself for us that He might redeem us from our sins (<em><a href='B:630 2:14'>Tit 2:14</a></em>). That redemption worked out in redeeming us from the curse of the law (<em><a href='B:550 3:13'>Gal 3:13</a></em>). The AV defines the eternal redemption as "for us"; and the Cambridge Bible comments: "The “for us” is rightly supplied; but the middle voice of the verb shews that Christ in His love to us also regarded the redemption as dear to Himself". So the inference that the Lord 'obtained for Himself' our eternal redemption doesn't mean that He obtained redemption for Himself plus for us; rather does the Greek mean that He obtained our redemption for Himself, He wanted it to be his. The allusion may be to the language of a man 'redeeming' a wife for himself, just as God redeemed His people for Himself. But this does not mean that He redeemed Himself.</h4>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 9:13'>Heb 9:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling them that have been defiled, could sanctify to the cleansing of the flesh</em>- The ashes of the heifer were sprinkled in the water of the laver to create water used for cleansing (<em><a href='B:40 19:1-10'>Num 19:1-10</a></em>). The laver speaks of the baptism into Christ which leads to the regeneration of the Spirit (<em><a href='B:630 3:5'>Tit 3:5</a></em>). The Lord's blood makes our baptism into Him have meaning far beyond the cleansing rituals of the tabernacle system. Our very conscience can be cleansed (:14). "The cleansing of the flesh" refers to some surface level 'cleansing' which did not touch the conscience; the contrast is between the flesh and the heart or conscience. They experienced forgiveness on a technical level, but remained with a bad conscience, knowing they were likely to sin again, and with no means of feeling that sin had not only been removed but that they would surely be saved and washed in their inward parts. The individuals such as David who came to such a realization in Old Testament times did so through their faith in God's grace rather than through the legal processes of the law of Moses. The sanctification was not a sham, however ("how much more::.", :14). But there was internal cleansing of the spirit, even though forgiveness was granted on one level. The defilement that was cleansed or sanctified was ritual defilement; but the defilement of the spirit and conscience was not addressed by the sacrificial system. But the Lord's priesthood enables that too to be addressed, through the ministry of the Spirit in human hearts. Those who deny the work of the Spirit are in effect in the position of those who were technically forgiven and cleansed from legalistic defilements by the Mosaic sacrifices.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 9:14'>Heb 9:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God-&nbsp;</em>As noted on :13, ritual defilement and legalistic infringements could be cleansed by the Mosaic sacrifices, but the sacrificial system did not address the spirit or conscience. The work of the Lord is on the conscience, on the spirit through His Spirit. His sacrifice is therefore described here as having been one of the Spirit; His Spirit or mind was and is eternal, in that the mind He achieved by the end of His mortal life has been eternally preserved (see on <em><a href='B:650 5:7-9'>Heb 5:7-9</a></em>), and is given to His people eternally. The Mosaic sacrifices had to be repeated, and related to the flesh ("the cleansing of the flesh", :13). The Lord's sacrifice pertained to the Spirit, and was eternal rather than of only temporary consequence. He did not offer an animal, but Himself; as the animal was to be "without blemish" in the flesh (<em><a href='B:30 1:10'>Lev 1:10</a></em>), the Lord was "without blemish" morally, in His Spirit. The animal had no choice in being offered; the Lord "offered Himself" as an act of conscious volition. He was&nbsp;<em>spiritually&nbsp;</em>without blemish whereas the animal sacrifices were only unblemished in the&nbsp;<em>flesh</em>. His cleansing of our spirit / conscience was<em>&nbsp;dia</em>&nbsp;or on account ofHis spirit. And His spirit is eternal; for He is now immortalized, His personality, mind, spirit, character lives on eternally, both in Himself and ultimately in us to whom He gives His Spirit. He is a priest who operates now according to the power / spirit of an endless life (<em><a href='B:650 7:16'>Heb 7:16</a></em>).</p><p>The Lord offered Himself on the cross "through the eternal spirit" in that it was the Spirit of God, understanding from His word what God really wanted, what He is really like and thereby demands of us, which led the Lord Jesus to the cross. And why the odd phrase "the eternal spirit"? Surely to show that this same Spirit operates today, and if we follow it, will lead us likewise to the same death of the cross. These things are challenging to the very core of our being, the very fabric of our self-understanding. We who cower in the dentist's chair, who fear and avoid pain, who would sooner die than have a surgery without anasthetic::. are called to die with Jesus, the death of the cross. God was manifested in the flesh of Christ, but now Christ is living "in the Spirit", thus justifying God's righteousness (<em><a href='B:610 3:16'>1Ti 3:16</a></em>). He was "put to death in the flesh, but quickened by (on account of) the Spirit", the Spirit-man within Him (<em><a href='B:670 3:18'>1Pe 3:18</a></em>). Thus Christ's sacrifice was acceptable by reason of his "eternal Spirit" (<em><a href='B:650 9:14'>Heb 9:14</a></em>); his perfect spiritual character was what enabled his physical blood and death to win our salvation. His resurrection was due to his "spirit of holiness" (<em><a href='B:520 1:4'>Rom 1:4</a></em>). We can only relate to Him now as a spiritual being. We can not now know Him after the flesh. Now his mortal flesh has been destroyed, He is "the Lord the Spirit" (<em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em> R:V:); He is called "the Spirit" in Revelation because the spiritual character He developed in his mortal life is now what He is.</p><p><em>Cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?</em>- The "dead works" are those which can be turned away from by baptism into Christ and forgiven (<em><a href='B:650 6:1'>Heb 6:1</a></em>). The contrast is with how the sprinkling of blood and water cleansed the flesh, getting technical forgiveness for legal infringements, but could not cleanse the conscience or spirit of the offerer. <em><a href='B:670 1:2'>1Pe 1:2</a></em> states that the sprinkling of the blood of Christ is to be associated with our sanctification by the Spirit, referring to the internal cleansing of the heart by the gift and operation of the Spirit there. As explained in Romans 1-8, we are "in Christ", counted as Him, with His righteousness imputed to us; and therefore we can be confident that if He returns today or we die, we shall surely be saved. The bad conscience regarding our previous "dead works" is totally removed; and on this basis we can do priestly service in the Most Holy place. We are not to simply rejoice in our own redemption, but to realize that our cleansing is so that we may serve. The mention of "the living God" would suggest again the function of the Spirit; He is alive and interactive with us, and we are to therefore serve the God who is Spirit in spirit (<em><a href='B:500 4:24'>Joh 4:24</a></em>).</p><p>The Greek word translated “conscience”,&nbsp;<em>sun-eidesis</em>, means literally a co-perception. It implies that there are two types of perception within the believer- human perception, and spiritual self perception. The conscience that is cleansed in Christ, that is at peace, will be a conscience that keeps those two perceptions, of the real self and of the persona, in harmony. What we know and perceive humanly, is in harmony with we spiritually perceive. Our conscience, our co-perception, our real self, makes sense of the human perceptions and interprets them in a spiritual way. So, a young man sees an attractive girl. His human perception signals certain things to his brain- to lust, covet, etc. But his co-perception, his conscience, his real self, handles all that, and sees the girl’s beauty for just simply what it is- beauty. Job before his ‘conversion’ paralleled his eye and his ear: “My eye has seen all this, my ear has heard and understood it” (<em><a href='B:220 13:1'>Job 13:1</a></em>). He was so sure that what he heard was what he saw; he was sure that his perceptions were operating correctly. But later, he comes to see a difference between his eye and his ear. He says that he had only heard of God by the ear; but only now, he says, “my eye sees You” (<em><a href='B:220 42:5'>Job 42:5</a></em>). He had heard words, but, he realized, he’d not properly ‘seen’ or perceived. Finally, he had a properly functioning ‘conscience’, a co-perception. What he saw, was what he really heard.</p><p>Our conscience is not going to jump out of us and stand and judge us at the day of judgment. There is one thing that will judge us, the word of the Lord (<em><a href='B:500 12:48'>Joh 12:48</a></em>), not how far we have lived according to our conscience. It’s therefore unreliable (<em><a href='B:530 4:4'>1Co 4:4</a></em>). And yet there is Bible teaching concerning the need to live in accordance with our 'conscience', and the joy which is possible for the believer who has a clear conscience (e:g. <em><a href='B:510 24:16'>Act 24:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 14:18-22'>Rom 14:18-22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 1:12'>2Co 1:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:21'>1Jn 3:21</a></em>). This must mean, in the context, the conscience which God's word has developed in us- it cannot refer to 'conscience' in the sense of our natural, inbuilt sense of right and wrong; because according to the Bible, this is hopelessly flawed. The fact the "conscience" is "cleansed" by Christ's sacrifice (<em><a href='B:650 9:14'>Heb 9:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:22'>Heb 10:22</a></em>) proves that the Biblical 'conscience' is not the natural sense of right and wrong within our nature; for our nature can never be 'purged' or 'cleansed', the believer will always have those promptings within him to do wrong. The cleansed, purged conscience refers to the new man that is created within the believer at baptism. This new 'conscience' is not just a sense of guilt which is invoked on account of not living an obedient life; it is also a conscience which positively compels us&nbsp;<em>to do</em>&nbsp;something, not just threatens us with a pang of guilt if we commit a sin.</p><p>We have a conscience which in God's eyes is cleansed of sin, knowing that our sin has been overcome once and for all, and that we have access to this through baptism. Our hearts were purified by that faith (<em><a href='B:510 15:9'>Act 15:9</a></em>); we were cleansed from the conscience of sins (<em><a href='B:650 9:14'>Heb 9:14</a></em>); all things became pure to us (<em><a href='B:630 1:15'>Tit 1:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 14:20'>Rom 14:20</a></em>). This is a good conscience, Biblically defined. When Paul said he had a pure conscience before God, they smote him for blasphemy (<em><a href='B:510 23:1-2'>Act 23:1-2</a></em>); there is an association between a clear conscience and perfection (<em><a href='B:650 9:9'>Heb 9:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:14'>Heb 10:14</a></em>). A clear conscience therefore means an awareness that in God's eyes, we have no sin. Thus Paul's conscience could tell him that he was living a life which was a response to his experience of God's grace / forgiveness (<em><a href='B:540 1:12'>2Co 1:12</a></em>). The conscience works not only negatively; it insists that we&nbsp;<em>do</em>&nbsp;certain things. It may even be that the goads against which Paul was kicking before his conversion were not the pricks of bad conscience, but rather the&nbsp;<em>positive</em>&nbsp;directions from God that he&nbsp;<em>ought</em>&nbsp;to be giving his life to the service of His Son. Whilst we may still have twinges of guilt, and sins to confess, from God's viewpoint the slate is clean, and has been since our baptism. It is impossible to believe this without some kind of response. We are purged in our conscience so that we might serve the living God (<em><a href='B:650 9:14'>Heb 9:14</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 9:15'>Heb 9:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And because of this, he is the mediator of a new covenant; that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance</em>- The Lord's ability to cleanse even the conscience of believers through His total eradication of sin is what makes Him the mediator of the new covenant, even though that new covenant was comprised of the promises made to Abraham and his seed the Lord Jesus of eternal inheritance of the earth. By association with the representative sacrifice of the Lord Jesus, we can become "in Him", we become the seed, and thereby the promises to Abraham and Jesus are made to us. His sacrifice thereby enabled us to receive the promise of eternal inheritance- the promise made to Abraham. His death was also the basis for the salvation of those who sought forgiveness under the old covenant; for the blood of animals of itself could not take away sin. It was only effective insofar as it pointed forward to the Lord's future sacrifice.</p><p>It must be remembered that the High Priest of the Old Covenant did not offer up the prayers of the people. Yahweh's ears were ever open to the cry of the individual Israelite, without an intercessor. Moses mediated the Old Covenant in the sense that he obtained it and relayed it to Israel; his mediation was a one-off act. This is the basis of the NT passages concerning the mediation of the New Covenant through Christ; He did this through His death and resurrection (<em><a href='B:550 3:19-20'>Gal 3:19-20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 8:6'>Heb 8:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 9:15'>Heb 9:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 12:24'>Heb 12:24</a></em>). Christ was the mediator of the new covenant so that the sins committed under the old covenant could be forgiven; thus His mediation is not in the relaying of our words to God, but in the sealing of the new covenant through His own blood. The mediation between God and man by the Lord is paralleled with His giving Himself as a ransom on the cross (<em><a href='B:610 2:5-6'>1Ti 2:5-6</a></em>). This is the sense in which He is the mediator of the new covenant; He mediated it&nbsp;<em>once</em>, not in an ongoing sense.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 9:16'>Heb 9:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For where a will is of power, there must of necessity be the death of him that made it</em>- Paul is playing on the meaning of the word translated "testament" or "covenant"; it also means a will, a set of promises which become actual after the death of the one who made the promises. I have commented elsewhere that whilst Paul's reasoning is true enough as it stands for us as Christians, viewing it retrospectively from our position, there are times when it would appear that he is rather forcing a point. For the obvious objection would be that it was God who made the new covenant, not Jesus; His death is not to be seen as the death of God, leaving us without Him to receive what He has left behind for us. But this kind of apparently forced logic would have been acceptable within the paradigm of Rabbinic midrash. The point becomes more logical however when we consider the argument that the old covenant or "will" was ordained with the shedding of blood, as if it would only come into true effect when someone died. And as explained in :15, the forgiveness offered under the old covenant was only finally effective when the Lord died. For the blood of animals of itself could not take away sin.</p><p>The death of the covenant victim was to act as a warning for what would happen to those who broke the covenant. Thus "The men who transgressed my covenant… I will make like the calf which they cut in two" (<em><a href='B:300 34:18'>Jer 34:18</a></em> RSV). In the account of a Babylonian covenant it was written: "This head is not just the head of the goat… it is the head of Mati'ilu… If Mati'ilu breaks the oath, then as the head of this goat is cut off… so shall the head of Mati'ilu be cut off". Thus the dead animal was seen as a representative of the person who entered the covenant. The death of our Lord, therefore, serves as a reminder to us of the end for sin. We either put sin to death, or we must be put to death for it. <em><a href='B:550 3:15'>Gal 3:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 9:16'>Heb 9:16</a></em> and other passages liken the blood of Christ to a covenant; and yet the Greek word used means definitely the last will and testament of a dead man. His blood is therefore an imperative to us to do something; it is His will to us, which we must execute. Thus His death, His blood, which is also a symbol of His life, becomes the imperative to us for our lives and living in this world. Note how blood is a symbol of both life and also death (<em><a href='B:10 37:26'>Gen 37:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 35:19'>Num 35:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 35:33'>Num 35:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:9'>Lev 20:9</a></em>). Both His death and His life form a covenant / testament / will for us to obey- in both baptism and then in living out the death and life in our daily experience. We cannot be passive to it.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 9:17'>Heb 9:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For a will is of force where there has been death; it does not have power while he that made it lives</em>- The new covenant as given in Genesis 15 also required the shedding of animal blood to ratify it; but it only came into force in the death of the Lord Jesus, thereby enabling all men to become part of Abraham's seed and share in the promise of eternal inheritance made to him (:15). Now the Lord has died, the promises to Abraham of eternal inheritance, the new covenant, is "of force". Paul uses the same word about the solidity of this hope in <em><a href='B:520 4:16'>Rom 4:16</a></em>: "It is of faith, that it might be by grace, to the end the promise might be sure s:w. "of force" to all the seed". If it it were not of grace through faith, it would have to be on the basis of works. And our human weakness would leave us with no sure hope, knowing we would never be perfectly obedient or do enough in order to make the promise of salvation "of force" or "sure". The same idea is carried in the word&nbsp;<em>elpis</em>, "hope"; not a hope for the best at judgment day, but a solid, certain knowledge of the future. Paul connects the ideas in <em><a href='B:650 3:6'>Heb 3:6</a></em> and <em><a href='B:650 6:19'>Heb 6:19</a></em>, saying that we are to hold fast the confidence of the hope "firm", "of force" (s:w:), unto the end. This solidity of hope, this confident sense that our salvation is sure, "of force", is lacking in many who name the name of Christ today. They still sense that they must attain the new covenant by some form of works. But if we are focused upon the meaning of the Lord's death, then we can feel the "force", the sureness, of the promise of future salvation and inheritance of the earth. The prophetic word which has been made "more sure" (s:w. "of force") is surely a reference to this same wonderful truth- that the prophetic word to Abraham of salvation for his seed has been made "more sure", "of force", by the Lord's death (<em><a href='B:680 1:19'>2Pe 1:19</a></em>). The idea is not that predictions of future events were proven true; but rather that the word of salvation has been made sure, and we ought to thereby make our calling and election "sure" (s:w:; <em><a href='B:680 1:10'>2Pe 1:10</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 9:18'>Heb 9:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore even the first covenant has not been dedicated without blood</em>- Salvation and forgiveness was possible for those who lived under the old covenant on the basis that the covenant was of power in these ways on account of the Lord's blood, to which the blood of animals pointed forward.</p>


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:650 9:19'>Heb 9:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people</em>- This brings out the link between blood and law-giving; the people were sprinkled with blood as they heard the Law read to them. The new covenant in Christ’s blood results in the laws of God being written on our hearts, in our consciences (<em><a href='B:650 8:10'>Heb 8:10</a></em>). Then <em><a href='B:650 10:14-16'>Heb 10:14-16</a></em> goes on to say the placing of the laws on our hearts in this way is in fact a “witness" to how His blood sanctifies us. We can’t be passive to His sacrifice; the conscience elicited by it, the writing on our hearts, is what propels us forward to live a sanctified life. The language of blood, water, scarlet and hyssop is full of reference to the circumstances surrounding the Lord's death on the cross. It was to this that the Mosaic dedication and cleansing rituals pointed forward, and it only had power on that basis.</h4>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 9:20'>Heb 9:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Saying: This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded for you</em>- At the breaking of bread, it's as if Christ is sprinkling us with His blood, it's as if we are Israel assembled together, re-entering the covenant each time we break bread. No wonder we are asked to assemble ourselves together (as far as possible) to remember Christ (<em><a href='B:470 26:28'>Mat 26:28</a></em> = <em><a href='B:650 9:20'>Heb 9:20</a></em>). We have elsewhere made the point that Hebrews is full of appropriate material for a breaking of bread exhortation (see on <em><a href='B:650 13:22'>Heb 13:22</a></em>), which we believe it to have originally been:&nbsp;</p><p>Far back in Mosaic ritual, the voice of command was associated with the blood sprinkled on the mercy seat; the blood of the lamb was a command to respond (<em><a href='B:20 25:22'>Exo 25:22</a></em>), and God's presence and voice came from over the blood sprinkled mercy seat. Hence instead of reading of the&nbsp;<em>laws&nbsp;</em>which were commanded, we read of “the blood of the covenant which God commanded"; the book of the law was sprinkled with that blood to show the connection between the blood and the book. To eat His flesh and blood (in evident anticipation of His coming sacrifice and the memorial meeting) was to eat&nbsp;<em>Him</em>&nbsp;and His words (<em><a href='B:500 6:53-54'>Joh 6:53-54</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:63'>Joh 6:63</a></em>). His words were all epitomized in His offered flesh and blood. In His death and sacrifice (which "the blood of Jesus" represent), we see His very essence: He Himself. On the stake He poured out His soul unto death (<em><a href='B:290 53:12'>Isa 53:12</a></em>), and yet in His life He poured out His soul too (<em><a href='B:230 42:4'>Psa 42:4</a></em>). The cross was an epitome of who He really had been for those 33 years. To know Christ is to know His cross (<em><a href='B:290 53:11'>Isa 53:11</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:650 12:25'>Heb 12:25</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 9:21'>Heb 9:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Moreover the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry he sprinkled in like manner with the blood</em>- The vessels of the ministry which were used to achieve some level of sanctification were only of power by reason of the blood sprinkled upon them; and that blood of itself was just red liquid. It was only meaningful in that it pointed forward to the Lord's sacrifice. The point was that even if the Hebrews wished to continue participating in the temple rituals, they were to realize that they had only ever had any meaning on account of the blood of Christ.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 9:22'>Heb 9:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And according to the law, I may almost say-&nbsp;</em>This is again language appropriate to a verbal exhortation rather than a letter; see on <em><a href='B:650 13:22'>Heb 13:22</a></em>. The "almost" is because there were allowances for the very poor to not offer blood sacrifices.</p><p><em>All things are cleansed with blood; and apart from shedding of blood there is no remission of sin</em>- The cleansing and remission was not therefore through ritual of itself, but on the basis that the rituals were as it were smothered in the blood which pointed forward to that of the Lord Jesus. This may seem a fine difference, but it is significant. People with all their dysfunctions and conscious and unconscious sense of sin come to perform various rituals, and then emerge from the rituals feeling better and somehow cleansed. But this is mere religion, the psychology of religious ritual. The cleansing and remission offered under the old covenant was for real, but it was only for real in that the blood looked forward to the future sacrifice of the Messiah.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 9:23'>Heb 9:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>It was necessary therefore that the copies of the things in the heavens should be cleansed with these things-&nbsp;</em>Because ritual of itself could not sanctify sin, the whole ritualistic framework had to be doused, as it were, in the blood which pointed forward to the Lord's sacrifice.</p><p><em>But the heavenly things themselves had better sacrifices than these</em>- "Sacrifices" may be an example of Paul thinking in Hebrew whilst writing in Greek. We may have here an intensive plural, whereby the plural is used to refer to one great singular item- in this case, the one great sacrifice, that of the Lord on the cross. The tabernacle was a copy, a shadow, of something greater. It was a shadow of us. God dwells in the tabernacle of human hearts, rather than in any physical structure. That point was made within the Old Testament, and in the New Testament we are repeatedly portrayed as the tabernacle / temple / dwelling place of God. The better sacrifice which cleansed us, even our conscience, was the Lord's. Thus there is a parallelism between verses 23 and 24:</p><table><tr><td></p><h4>v. 23&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</td><td>v. 24</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The patterns of things in</td><td>The holy places made with hands</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>the Heavens</td><td>the tabernacle</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The Heavenly things themselves</td><td>Heaven itself::. us</td><td></td></tr></table>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 9:24'>Heb 9:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are only copies of the true ones; but into Heaven itself-&nbsp;</em>See on :23; the things in Heaven are us who are cleansed in Christ. It is stressed in <em><a href='B:650 9:24'>Heb 9:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 8:2'>Heb 8:2</a></em> that this Heavenly temple was made by God not by human hands:&nbsp;&nbsp;The Kingdom of Christ which is essentially His people, those over whom He has Kingly dominion is symbolized as a stone cut without hands (<em><a href='B:340 2:44'>Dan 2:44</a></em>):&nbsp;We are the ones in heavenly places now (<em><a href='B:560 1:3'>Eph 1:3</a></em>) who are cleansed by the Lord's sacrifice. Likewise Abraham looked forward to the Kingdom in terms of a city "whose builder and maker is God";&nbsp;and God, we are told, has prepared that city for Abraham and his seed (<em><a href='B:650 11:10'>Heb 11:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 11:16'>Heb 11:16</a></em>):&nbsp;The coming down of that city/temple from Heaven in <em><a href='B:730 21:3'>Rev 21:3</a></em> is the fulfilment of Abraham's hope:&nbsp;The city/temple from Heaven has foundations (<em><a href='B:730 21:14'>Rev 21:14</a></em>), just as Abraham expected (<em><a href='B:650 11:10'>Heb 11:10</a></em>):&nbsp;The Lord has entered into God's actual presence, Heaven; and we are with Him there, cleansed, confident and unashamed before the presence of His glory. And this shall come to a literal fulfilment when at the last day we are presented "faultless before the presence of His glory" (<em><a href='B:720 1:24'>Jud 1:24</a></em>).</p><p><em>Now to appear in the actual presence of God for us</em>- The language of Romans 8 about His intercession with groanings which cannot be uttered is to be connected with Hebrews 5 speaking of the Lord groaning with strong crying and tears on the cross. The point being that the intensity of His prayer there, struggling for every breath, is the same essential intensity with which He mediates for us now. He died “<em>for us</em>”, and yet right now He appears “before the face of God&nbsp;<em>for us</em>” (<em><a href='B:650 9:24'>Heb 9:24</a></em> RV). Thus there is a connection between His death and His ongoing mediation “for us”. We must struggle with Him, framing and offering our words in the full realization of the agonizing effort He is willing to make to intercede. The Greek translated "appear" meaning to exhibit openly. We are openly exhibited to God by the Lord Jesus, he reveals our inner spirit, our essential desires, to the Father; for we are "in Him". His appearance in God's actual presence is our appearance there.</p><p>Romans is full of legal language, of interceding, pleading, finding a favourable verdict etc:, and refers this to the judgment and also to the cross. But Romans 8 uses these very ideas in relation to prayer, for in coming before the throne of grace now on account of the Lord's sacrifice, we come in essence before judgment. Coming before the throne of God in prayer (<em><a href='B:650 9:24'>Heb 9:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 17:1-2'>Psa 17:1-2</a></em>) is the language of the judgment seat. If we become before His throne and are accepted, it follows that this is a foretaste of the outcome of the judgment for us, were we to be judged at that time. Our boldness before the Father in prayer will be the same attitude we have to Him at the judgment throne (<em><a href='B:690 2:28'>1Jn 2:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:21'>1Jn 3:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 4:17'>1Jn 4:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 5:14'>1Jn 5:14</a></em> all use the same Greek word).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 9:25'>Heb 9:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Nor must he offer himself often, as the high priest enters into the Holy Place year by year with blood not his own</em>- The Lord entered once, into Heaven itself, with His own blood; and remained there, rather than nervously slipping in and out once / year as the High Priest did.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 9:26'>Heb 9:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Or else he must often have suffered since the foundation of the world; but now once at the end of the ages has he been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself</em>- "The foundation of the world" surely refers to the beginning of the Mosaic system; the "end" of that world is the end of the Mosaic system at the Lord's death. He sacrificed not animals, but "Himself".</p><p>On the cross, the Lord Jesus was ‘manifested’, shown as He really and essentially is (<em><a href='B:650 9:26'>Heb 9:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 1:19-20'>1Pe 1:19-20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:5'>1Jn 3:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:8'>1Jn 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 3:16'>1Ti 3:16</a></em>). But the same word is also used about the final manifesting of the Lord Jesus at His return (<em><a href='B:580 3:4'>Col 3:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 5:4'>1Pe 5:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 2:28'>1Jn 2:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:2'>1Jn 3:2</a></em>). This explains the link between the cross and His return; who He was then will be who He will be when He comes in judgment. There He endured the spitting and hatred of men in order to save them. And the same gracious spirit will be extended to all His true people, whatever their inadequacies.</p><p>The Lord's sacrifice "put away sin"; the same word has been used in <em><a href='B:650 7:18'>Heb 7:18</a></em> about the "disannulling" of the law. The whole concept of sin has been disannulled in that the law has been disannulled. In this sense His death "made an end of sins" (<em><a href='B:340 9:24'>Dan 9:24</a></em> - perhaps Paul has this passage in mind here). For those in Him, sin is no longer a barrier between God and man; we stand "in Him" before God's very face / presence, counted as the sinless Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 9:27'>Heb 9:27</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And inasmuch as it is appointed to men once to die and after this comes judgment</em>- The contrast and parallel to this statement is in :28, speaking of the Lord Jesus appearing at His second coming to reveal salvation rather than judgment. Throughout this section, Paul has in view the Day of Atonement (see on :4). Judaism spoke of the annual entry of the High Priest into the Holiest as his 'death', and his return to the people as his resurrection and judgment. Verse 28 will explain that the Lord Jesus actually died, to bear our sins Himself rather than them being figuratively placed upon a scapegoat to bear them, and the equivalent to His emergence from the Most Holy is His return from Heaven to earth with the good news of our salvation. The allusion to the High Priest would account for the otherwise odd usage of the word "appointed", which is appropriate for the High Priest and also for the Lord Jesus (s:w. <em><a href='B:650 1:2'>Heb 1:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 3:2'>Heb 3:2</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 9:28'>Heb 9:28</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So Christ also, having once been offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to bring salvation to those who are eagerly waiting for him</em>- As explained on :27, this is an allusion to the second coming of Christ with the good news of our salvation, which paralleled the emergence of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement from the Holiest, with the news of God's pardon. The High Priest emerged to a humbled, repentant Israel on the Day of Atonement, having confessed their sins and afflicted their souls through fasting, waiting for their High Priest to appear and pronounce upon them the blessing of forgiveness. The Spirit is using this as a type of us expecting the second coming of our Lord; the motivation for our enthusiasm should be our earnest need of ultimate forgiveness and reconciliation with God. David likewise speaks of waiting and watching for the Lord in the context of asking for forgiveness (<em><a href='B:230 130:5-6'>Psa 130:5-6</a></em>). And we could possibly infer that the Lord's second coming is dependent upon Israel's humbling and repentance.</p><p>The focus of the Lord at His return will not be to "deal with sin". He did this in His death. Any necessary judgments upon a sinful world will not be His prime interest; rather does He return in order to give us salvation. This was and is His focus, like His Father, taking no pleasure in punishing sin. But the AV is literally correct here: "Without sin unto salvation". The phrase "without sin" is exactly that used in <em><a href='B:650 4:15'>Heb 4:15</a></em> of how the Lord had all our temptations but was morally "without sin". The High Priest emerged from the Holiest on the Day of Atonement and pronouned the forgiveness. The Lord Jesus will emerge from Heaven and as it were just stand there, "without sin". His moral perfection achieved in mortal flesh is of itself the guarantee and statement of our own forgiveness and salvation.</p><p>If we understand something of the ‘mechanics’ of the atonement, and grasp something of the fact that they were outworked in a real, historical man, we will see that the final realization of the redemption achieved at the cross will be when Christ comes back. If we understand something of the atonement, we will earnestly look for the second coming, when the redemption achieved on the cross will be brought unto us (cp. <em><a href='B:670 1:13'>1Pe 1:13</a></em>). An enthusiasm for the second coming, spurred by a realization that the bringing of salvation then is an outworking of the cross, will lead to a loose hold on the things of this life.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 10:1'>Heb 10:1</a></em><em>&nbsp;For the law having only a shadow of the good things to come, not the reality of the things, can never with the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect those that draw near</em>- The law was treated by Judaism as the reality; they couldn't get beyond the ritual, and see that it was something temporal, pointing forward to a greater and more personal spiritual reality. The Hebrews were attracted by the religion of it all, just as many Christians can apparently not see beyond the "mere religion" of their supposed spirituality. There was no perfection offered; there was only a temporary covering over of legal infringements which had to be renewed each Day of Atonement. The Lord's sacrifce can perfect believers in that by identity with Him, we are counted as perfect and without sin; perfect righteousness is imputed to us. 'Drawing near' uses the same word elsewhere used about coming near to God, drawing near right before His throne (<em><a href='B:650 4:16'>Heb 4:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 7:25'>Heb 7:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:22'>Heb 10:22</a></em>). To draw near to God's presence in the Holiest was declared intrinsically impossible by the Mosaic tabernacle.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 10:2'>Heb 10:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Else would they not have ceased to be offered?</em>- The recurrent nature of the sacrifices of itself indicated that they did not take away sin permanently, and therefore the worshippers were left with an abiding awareness or consciousness of their sins.</p><p><em>Because the worshipers, having been once cleansed, would have had no more consciousness of sins</em>- <em><a href='B:650 10:18'>Heb 10:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:26'>Heb 10:26</a></em> states that Christ only made one sacrifice for sin, implying that the sins of those in Christ were atoned for at one moment in time. He will not make another sin offering each time we sin, and therefore we should not sin wilfully, because that assumes that he will once again sacrifice for sin. Thus we will be crucifying Christ afresh (<em><a href='B:650 6:6'>Heb 6:6</a></em>). The sacrifice of Christ can make us perfect in God's sight, so that "once purged" we should have "no more conscience of sins" (<em><a href='B:650 10:1-2'>Heb 10:1-2</a></em>). This does not refer to "conscience" as the guilty streak within us. Our spiritual man ought to have no more guilt for our sins, which are now forgiven. But if we allow sin to be the governing principle in our lives, we can no longer be reckoned as sinless (<em><a href='B:520 6:12'>Rom 6:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:8'>1Jn 3:8</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 10:3'>Heb 10:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But in that sacrificial system there is a remembrance made of sins year by year</em>- All the sacrifices offered to obtain forgiveness were somehow deficient if once every year there needed to be the ritual of atonement performed on Yom Kippur. So it worked out that instead of the awareness (:2 "consciousness") of sin being removed, in fact it was heightened by bringing sin to remembrance.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 10:4'>Heb 10:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins</em>- Sin brings death for the sinner; the blood had to represent the death of the sinner. So it needed to be human blood, representative of human sinners; and not that of animals who are not under the law of God. God is not a pagan deity who is apparently placated by animal blood.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 10:5'>Heb 10:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore when he came into the world, he said-&nbsp;</em>The quotation from Psalms 40 is of words first thought and spoken by David in reflecting that there was no sacrifice which could be offered to deal with his sin in effectively murdering Uriah and committing adultery. All he could offer God was a broken heart, and a desire to humbly serve Him in whatever days he might be given by grace. The Bathsheba Psalms all have further reference to the attitude of the Lord Jesus on the cross; the brokenness of David at that time, physically and psychologically, pointed forward to that of the Lord in His time of dying. The purpose of this is to teach us to what extent the Lord Jesus identified with hopelessly fallen man especially at the time of His dying; whilst Himself never having sinned. The reference to David is evidence enough that the words of this passage do not demand an incarnation of some Divine Spirit into a body waiting on earth to receive it, as Trinitarians claim. The language of Psalms 40 originally applied to David's feelings after his sin with Bathsheba. It is interpreted as being appropriate to the Lord's feelings when He "came into the world".</p><p>"Came into" is the very word which has been used in this section about the Lord's coming into the Most Holy, representing Heaven itself (<em><a href='B:650 6:20'>Heb 6:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 9:12'>Heb 9:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 9:24-25'>Heb 9:24-25</a></em>). The reference could be to the Lord's beginning of His priesthood in Heaven, rather than having any reference to His birth or death on earth. But "into the world" is the phrase so often used in John's Gospel for the Father sending His Son into the world at the start of His ministry at age 30 not necessarily at His birth. And the same phrase "came into the world" is used of how "I am come a light into the world" (<em><a href='B:500 12:46'>Joh 12:46</a></em>) and how the Lord "came into the world that I should bear witness unto the truth" (<em><a href='B:500 18:37'>Joh 18:37</a></em>). That witness began to be given at age 30, which was when the Lord "came into the Jewish world". "The world" in John's Gospel nearly always refers to the Jewish world, as it does in this context in <em><a href='B:650 9:26'>Heb 9:26</a></em>; and the Lord came into that world when His ministry to them began at age 30. We would therefore interpret this as meaning that the Lord began His ministry with the understanding that God had never wanted the animal sacrifices of themselves, but rather required a representative human being to perfectly do God's will. And this He dedicated Himself to doing in the ministry which culminated in the final doing of God's will by dying on the cross. The death of the cross is so often spoken of as the Father's "will":&nbsp;</p><p><em>Sacrifice and offering You did not want, but a body did You prepare for me</em>- God did want sacrifices, but not for the sins David had committed concerning Uriah and Bathsheba. The Greek word "body" is also translated "slave" (<em><a href='B:730 18:13'>Rev 18:13</a></em>). The idea cannot be that a body was prepared on earth, and some Divine Spirit incarnated it and the body became known as 'Jesus of Nazareth'. As noted above, the primary reference of the Psalms 40 quotation is to David after his sin with Bathsheba reflecting that sacrifices were not appropriate, and all he could do was to offer himself as the humble servant of Yahweh for the rest of his days. In any case, reading this as meaning that the 'Spirit Jesus' came down from Heaven and lived inside a specially prepared body is reading too much in to the words. Jesus began as an egg within Mary, which divided and re-divided until it became a foetus, then a child and thence "the man Christ Jesus". Jesus 'was' the body; He didn't somehow enter into a body which was prepared somewhere on earth. I therefore suggest that we read "body" as "slave" or "servant". And this is in fact what the Hebrew text implies in Psalms 40; Paul is quoting here from the Septuagint, but the Hebrew reads: "My ears You have digged / bored" (<em><a href='B:230 40:6'>Psa 40:6</a></em>). The allusion is to how a servant could choose to remain within his master's house as a permanent slave because he so loved his wife and family and his master; and in this case his ear was bored through and nailed to an upright piece of wood (<em><a href='B:20 21:6'>Exo 21:6</a></em>). This clearly hinted at the crucifixion. The Lord Jesus was the slave who willingly decided to devote Himself permanently to the service of the Master's household, demonstrating it by His crucifixion; His ministry for us is therefore eternal, unlike that of the Levitical priests. Paul nearly always quotes the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic text, but the sense here is essentially the same, although the readings differ. The idea is that God didn't want dead animals, but a totally dedicated servant / slave who would perfectly do His will and devote himself to the permanent service of His household. And that person was the Lord Jesus, typified by the repentant David. <em><a href='B:570 2:7-8'>Phi 2:7-8</a></em> along with the prophecies of the suffering servant makes it clear that the Lord was supremely a slave / servant in His death on the cross. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 10:6'>Heb 10:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure</em>- God did require them and was pleased they were given, but He had no desire for them in response to David's sin. David is everyman, worthy of death because of our wretched failure, with no animal sacrifice or ritual to save us. See on :5.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 10:7'>Heb 10:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Then said I: Behold, I come (in the roll of the book it is written about me) to do Your will, O God</em>- The will of God is specifically associated with the Lord's death on the cross (e:g. <em><a href='B:470 26:39'>Mat 26:39</a></em>). The entire scroll of the Pentateuch the "roll of the book" known to David at the time of Psalms 40 implied the death of a perfect human sacrifice who would complete God's will for human salvation in totality. And Paul is applying these thoughts of David to the Lord Jesus as He began His ministry or perhaps specifically when He died, or when He began His priestly service on entering Heaven; see on :5.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 10:8'>Heb 10:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>First he said: Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor did You have pleasure in them (all of which are offered according to the law)</em>- Paul perceives that firstly, there was the statement that God did not desire animal sacrifices of themselves in order to remove sin; and secondly, the Lord Jesus came to do God's will, in a way which animals simply could not do. This division into first and second is pressed into a similarity with the first and second covenants, as noted on <em><a href='B:650 9:1'>Heb 9:1</a></em>. God's desire was that sacrifice should be offered under the Old Covenant, but this could not take away sin of itself. What He desired far more 'not A but B' can mean 'not&nbsp;<em>so much</em>&nbsp;A as B' was the sacrifice of the One who did His will perfectly.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 10:9'>Heb 10:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Then he said: Behold, I come to do Your will. He takes away the first, that he may establish the second</em>- As noted on :8, the "first" statement is associated with the first covenant, the law of Moses. The doing of God's will by the perfect sacrifice establishes "the second", i:e. the new covenant; and by doing so, the first covenant is made old (<em><a href='B:650 8:13'>Heb 8:13</a></em>), or as stated here, 'taken away', or literally 'slain / killed'. This is how totally the old covenant had been taken away. The second or new covenant was "established" in that as explained above, it was based upon the promises to Abraham which already existed, but which were mediated or brought into operation by the Lord's sacrifice. Thereby, men and women could become "in" the seed of Abraham, and the promises which were originally to only Abraham and his singular seed thereby were made to all within the One Messianic seed. These promises, this second or new covenant, was 'established' by the Lord's death; and thereby the "first", Mosaic covenant was done away. To return to that was therefore to reject the Lord's work and to shy away from the wonder of salvation now made so sure and established.</p><p>"Establish" is literally 'to make to stand up'; the same Greek word is used in :11 about the standing up of the priests. It is used nowhere else in Hebrews. There is no semantic connection, just a usage of the same word a sentence later, although in different contexts. I would suggest this is the kind of thing which happens in verbal language usage, when we speak out loud. And it is more evidence that Hebrews is the transcript of an address (see on <em><a href='B:650 13:22'>Heb 13:22</a></em>).</p>


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:650 10:10'>Heb 10:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>By which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all</em>- The "will" of God refers to God's will that none should perish but all should be saved (<em><a href='B:470 18:14'>Mat 18:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:16'>Joh 3:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:40'>Joh 6:40</a></em>). That will lead to the giving of His Son; and yet the Son had to freely fulfill that will of His own volition. The incredible will of God for human salvation was demonstrated publically by the offering of the Lord's body. This "once and for all" declared the will of God to save us, ending for all time any doubt or niggling suspicion that He is somehow indifferent to human salvation and is simply leaving us to make our own decisions without any passion or will from His side. The Lord's death was therefore His "will" (<em><a href='B:470 26:42'>Mat 26:42</a></em>). The doing of God's will by His Son is parallel with the finishing of His work (<em><a href='B:500 4:34'>Joh 4:34</a></em>), coming to a climax in His last words from the cross: "It is finished". Yet we too are to play our part in the doing of that will- in reaching out to save others by the grace of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:650 10:36'>Heb 10:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 13:21'>Heb 13:21</a></em>). "The offering of the body of Jesus" alludes to how the offering of animal bodies could not save of itself; but again it was the life and person of the Lord Jesus which saves, rather than simply His body, which was like any other human body.</h4>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 10:11'>Heb 10:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And every priest indeed stands day by day serving, and offering often the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins-&nbsp;</em>This contrast between the priests&nbsp;<em>standing</em>&nbsp;in service and the Lord&nbsp;<em>sitting</em>&nbsp;at God's right hand is emphasized. I suggested on <em><a href='B:650 1:1'>Heb 1:1</a></em> that Paul is writing to the Hebrews with constant allusion to the martyrdom of Stephen. He saw the Lord standing at God's right hand- when usually, the Lord sits. But He was and can still be caught up in the passion and urgency of our human situations. The way the sacrifices were repeated "the same sacrifices" demonstrates how they were not ultimately effective. I have noted throughout chapter 9 that Paul has the rituals of the Day of Atonement in view. The allusion here would be to how the scapegoat apparently 'took away sins'; but the sacrifices had to continue to be offered. So there was something wrong with the scapegoat ritual; it was only effective insofar as it pointed forward to the ultimate bearer of sins, which Isaiah 53 presents as being the suffering servant on the cross, the "body" or "servant / slave" prepared instead of the ritual sacrifices (:5).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 10:12'>Heb 10:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But he, when he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God</em>- See on :12 for the significance of the Lord sitting. The one sacrifice for sins for ever means that there is now no more consciousness of sin as a barrier between God and us (:2). This is a far more wonderful truth than simply meaning that the Lord offered one sacrifice for sins and therefore no more animals need to be killed. Note that it was when the sacrifice was offered that the Lord sat at the right hand of God. His sacrifice therefore included both His death and resurrection. See on :14.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 10:13'>Heb 10:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>From that time forward expectantly waiting until his enemies be made the footstool for his feet</em>- In <em><a href='B:510 2:35'>Act 2:35</a></em> there is an appeal for the Hebrews who crucified the Lord to repent. They were His "enemies"; but once they became a footstool for His feet, then He would return. Therefore Peter appealed for their repentance, apparently understanding being 'a footstool for His feet' as meaning they would put themselves at His feet in obeisance. The Lord's footstool is the place where His worshippers come (<em><a href='B:230 99:5'>Psa 99:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 132:7'>Psa 132:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 66:1-3'>Isa 66:1-3</a></em>). The Father was willing to "make" His Son's enemies, those responsible for His death, into His worshippers. But they had to do their part, in repentance and acceptance of the activity of His Holy Spirit. <em><a href='B:650 10:13'>Heb 10:13</a></em> adds the detail that the Lord Jesus is eagerly looking for AV "expecting" His former enemies to become His footstool- and then He will return. This is why witness to Jewish people is so deeply significant in God's program. The Lord's victory over sin means that sinners, His "enemies", would be made the seat and basis of His praise.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 10:14'>Heb 10:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For by one offering he has perfected for ever those that are sanctified</em>- As noted on :12, the Lord's "one offering" included both His death and resurrection. He saw His resurrection as His being "perfected" (<em><a href='B:490 13:32'>Luk 13:32</a></em> s:w:). By becoming "in Christ", all that is true of Him becomes true of us. We are sanctified by being in Him, counted as having His sanctity / righteousness / holiness. And thereby we are perfected as He was when He cried "It is finished" or perfected (<em><a href='B:500 4:34'>Joh 4:34</a></em>). We are "perfected" only in prospect; just as the Lord achieved God's will on the cross but we must also do that will (see on :10). The Lord prayed that because He had perfected God's work, so we should be "made perfect in one" (the same words are used- <em><a href='B:500 17:4'>Joh 17:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:23'>Joh 17:23</a></em>). His death enabled those who become "in Him" to be counted as perfect as Him; but His death also empowered the gift of the Spirit to transform / mature / 'perfect' us in practice into who we are by status. This is the thought developed in the following verses, just as it is in Romans 8, which goes on from speaking about our sanctification by the cross to explaining the work of the Spirit in our hearts. And here too in Hebrews 10, those who are sanctified are also perfected. A process is in view, of maturing and developing us through the Spirit; parallel to the process of&nbsp;<em>making</em>&nbsp;us His former enemies to be the footstool of His feet (:13).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 10:15'>Heb 10:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us. For after saying</em>- The inspiration of this message by the Spirit is mentioned because the teaching is going to be about the operation of the Spirit in our hearts; see on :14. The covenant promised to Israel in Jeremiah is testified "to us".</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 10:16'>Heb 10:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their hearts, and on their minds I will write them</em>- As noted on :14, the Lord's sacrifice enables us to not only be forgiven, but to be perfected / matured, and to be "made" His footstool. This process of sanctification and maturing is achieved by the work of the Spirit in our hearts. The context of the Jeremiah quotation is God's acceptance of Israel's continued disobedience and plan to insert His laws into their hearts; to not only forgive them (:17), but to change them. It is the Spirit which sanctifies in the heart; the sanctification of the Spirit is something we must allow to be done to us rather than seeking to make ourselves clean by rituals (<em><a href='B:530 6:11'>1Co 6:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 5:23'>1Th 5:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 2:13'>2Th 2:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 1:2'>1Pe 1:2</a></em>). By resisting this sanctifying power, we are despising the gift or grace of the Spirit (<em><a href='B:650 10:29'>Heb 10:29</a></em>). No amount of ritual obedience can change our hearts; we must allow the Lord's Spirit to do this. "Sanctify" in Greek is a form of the word "Holy"; the Holy Spirit is in essence the Spirit or power which makes our spirit holy / sanctified. To understand this is fundamental to understanding the function of the Holy Spirit in our lives today.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 10:17'>Heb 10:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Then is added: And their sins and their iniquities I will remember no more</em>- The forgiveness of sins is in addition to the work of the Spirit in human hearts, changing us to be like the Lord whose righteousness is counted to us. Hence Paul notes that this "is added", forgiveness is a separate promise to the sanctifying or transformation of human hearts. And this speaks exactly to our need as sinners; we need not only forgiveness but also the power to change so that we are not endlessly knocking on Heaven's door for the forgiveness of the same sins. Sins are "remembered no more" not in the sense that God 'forgets' them, for the Bible is full of historical accounts of human sin which has been forgiven. The sense is rather that He will not remember sin against us. Here is the final answer to all fears about ghosts from our past. Those sins will not be remembered against us.</p><p>Sin was completely overcome by the Lord's victory; "For by one offering he hath perfected for ever (in their conscience) them that are sanctified" (<em><a href='B:650 10:14'>Heb 10:14</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:650 9:9'>Heb 9:9</a></em>). "Their sins and iniquities there seems no hint that this only refers to pre-baptismal sins will I remember no more" (<em><a href='B:650 10:17'>Heb 10:17</a></em>). If we sin wilfully after knowing this, there is no more sacrifice for sins- because that sacrifice was only ever made once (<em><a href='B:650 10:26'>Heb 10:26</a></em>). At our baptism, our conscience was cleansed of all sin. We need to meditate upon that lifeless body of the Lord and what it meant. "A covenant is of force over dead victims or sacrifices::. it is never held to be of force while he who is the appointed sacrifice is alive" (<em><a href='B:650 9:17'>Heb 9:17</a></em> Bullinger). Over that body the personal covenant to each of us (<em><a href='B:10 17:7'>Gen 17:7</a></em>) came into real, living operation.</p><p>The Lord Jesus made&nbsp;<em>one</em>&nbsp;sacrifice for all sins for all time, and therefore we don't need to offer any more sacrifices or use a human priesthood; we are already totally forgiven of all our sins. There is further evidence, apart from the reasoning of Hebrews, that all our sins, past and future, were forgiven at Calvary:<br/>- On the cross, sin was ended, iniquity reconciled, everlasting righteousness brought in (<em><a href='B:340 9:24'>Dan 9:24</a></em>). One sin offering was made for all time.<br/>-We must forgive one another even as God for Christ's sake&nbsp;<em>has</em>&nbsp;forgiven us (<em><a href='B:560 4:32'>Eph 4:32</a></em>); not waiting for our brother to repent before we forgive him, but forgiving in advance, in prospect, even as we were forgiven. This takes this issue out of the realms of theology into the painfully practical:&nbsp;<br/>- Our sins were / are forgiven by the blood of Christ- not by our repentance or words of prayer. "God's forgiveness is not just a wiping clean of the slate from hour to hour::. if it were, prayer would be immoral- a mere incantation to bring about a magical result: and we need to be continually wary of the pagan conception which would reduce it to such a level". These words are so true. Whenever a twinge of guilt arises, we rush off a quick prayer for forgiveness- and then, at the end of the day or the week, we are left with a doubt as to whether our spirituality is valid or not. If this is our experience, we are all too similar to Israel of old; offering the sin offering (cp. praying for forgiveness), feeling guilty, coming to the day of Atonement (cp. the breaking of bread), still feeling guilty, realizing that as the sin offering couldn't cleanse sin, neither could the sacrifice at that feast, offering more sin offerings::. It can become the ritual of a bad conscience, stumbling on because there seems no other way to go. But our sins (yes, yours, that snap at your wife, that curse as you spilt your coffee) really were forgiven through the Lord's work on the cross; we really do have access to this through&nbsp;<em>really believing it</em>- and therefore expressing our faith in baptism. Our prayerful response to failure should be to confess it (<em><a href='B:690 1:9'>1Jn 1:9</a></em>), and also profess our faith in the redemption already achieved for us:&nbsp;</p><p><em>All</em>&nbsp;our sins were forgiven when the Lord died for us; both past and future. By baptism we identify ourselves with this work, and we are thereby in a position where we have "no more conscience of sins" (<em><a href='B:650 10:2'>Heb 10:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:22'>Heb 10:22</a></em>), knowing that all is forgiven, and only if we fall from grace will this become untrue. Thus YLT speaks of "<em>the</em>conscience" in the NT, as if it is something specific which we have, rather than an occasional twinge of guilt. We have this Biblical conscience "toward God"; this is how He sees us (<em><a href='B:510 23:1'>Act 23:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 24:16'>Act 24:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:19'>1Pe 2:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 3:21'>1Pe 3:21</a></em>). Thus we may have a guilty feeling about something, we may doubt our salvation, but our conscience in God's eyes is pure; we are still cleansed in the Lord Jesus Christ. Because we have a clear conscience, God will punish those who persecute us (<em><a href='B:670 3:16'>1Pe 3:16</a></em> RSV). <em><a href='B:670 3:21'>1Pe 3:21</a></em> teaches that baptism saves us not because in itself it means that we are free from the deeds of the flesh ("putting away the filth of the flesh" uses words which elsewhere carry this connotation), but because it gives us a good conscience in God's eyes- according to the Biblical definition of conscience:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 10:18'>Heb 10:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin required</em>- As noted on :17, forgiveness of all sin was achieved in one offering. No further sin offerings are required. The logic of this not only meant that the Hebrews should not be offering sin offerings in the temple any more; but interpretations of Ezekiel's temple prophecies which require future sin offerings in the Kingdom age must be suspect in the light of the reasoning here. We note however that whilst in Jerusalem with the Hebrew Christians, Paul did apparently offer animal sacrifices (<em><a href='B:510 21:24'>Act 21:24</a></em>); and he suffered hugely for doing so. We could read this as Paul seeking to be all things to all men; or perhaps in his zeal to by all means be reconciled with the Hebrew Christians, he departed from his own principles when he ought not to have done so.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 10:19'>Heb 10:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore brothers, having boldness to enter into the Holy Place by the blood of Jesus</em>- The High Priest nervously entered the Holiest for a few moments on the Day of Atonement; but we can enter "boldly", a term often used to characterize the early Christians. The only way any man can be so "bold" is through believing in the Lord's total forgiveness and further, that we are counted righteous by status. It was the High Priest alone who entered the Holiest, representing the Lord Jesus. And we are in Him. All that is true of Him becomes true for us.</p><p>In the light of ten chapters of detailed exposition of the meaning of the blood of Christ,&nbsp;<em>therefore let us::.</em>, Paul triumphantly drives home (<em><a href='B:650 10:19-25'>Heb 10:19-25</a></em>). And he speaks of how we must transform our lives:<br/>- Let us enter boldly "into the holiest by the blood of Jesus". This is only possible through a deep knowledge of sin forgiven. Our prayer life should be a positive and upbuilding experience: "Let us draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience". Reflection on the atonement, believing it all, will result in a positive and unashamed faith.<br/>- "Let us hold fast::. without wavering". If the belief of the cross is imprinted upon our minds, reflected upon not for a few fleeting minutes on Sundays but often throughout each day, we won't waver. The natural tendency to blow hot and cold in our spiritual endeavours will be vanquished beneath an unceasing wonder at what was achieved. It is only sustained reflection upon the cross which can, in an almost mystical way, impart an unceasing verve of inspiration.<br/>- "Let us consider one another to provoke unto love and good works: not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together:::but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching". Again the doctrine of the atonement and that of the second coming are linked. As we realize more and more clearly that very soon the final outworking of the cross will be achieved in the actual physical granting of redemption to us, so we will be inspired to more and more earnestly seek the welfare of our brethren. If we believe in the atonement, we will naturally seek to break bread. Whether it means summoning the courage to meet with those we naturally would rather not meet with, bringing the wine to the meeting, we will be motivated to rise up and serve in these ways by the eternal and personal truth of the cross.</p><p>The smell of the incense passed through the veil, and into the Most Holy Place, where the presence of God Himself was symbolized as being over the blood-stained cover of the ark. The simple wonder of it all is that the words of our prayers really can penetrate to Heaven itself; and even further, we are as it were "there" in the Holiest, in Christ. In Christ, the veil itself has been done away, and we can with boldness enter into that Most Holy Place and personally have direct fellowship with God (<em><a href='B:650 9:7-13'>Heb 9:7-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:19'>Heb 10:19</a></em>). Our heart can touch the heart of God. It's a priceless wonder to know and experience this.<br/>Under the Law, the provision for Nazariteship encouraged the average Israelite to enter into the spirit of the High Priest by imposing some of the regulations governing his behaviour upon them:&nbsp;<em>All</em>&nbsp;Israel were bidden make fringes of blue, in conscious imitation of the High Priest to whose spirit they all were intended to attain (<em><a href='B:40 15:38'>Num 15:38</a></em>). But we are bidden now to "come boldly unto the throne of grace (cp. the mercy seat in the Most Holy)::. boldness to enter into the holiest" (<em><a href='B:650 4:16'>Heb 4:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:19'>Heb 10:19</a></em>): to do what only the High Priest could do under the Old Covenant. This must have been a huge challenge for the Jewish believers to rise up to. The context of Hebrews 10 encourages us to enter the Holiest and "consider one another". The High Priest entered the Holiest in order to make atonement for Israel, not just to bask in the fact he was allowed in there. And so with us. The marvellous fellowship with the Father which we are permitted in Christ, the entry into the Holiest, is not just for the sake of it; it is so we can do something for others. I am not suggesting, of course, that in any way we replace the one and only High Priest, the Lord Jesus. But because we are&nbsp;<em>in Him</em>&nbsp;we therefore in some ways share His honours and His work. The idea of eating the bread of the sacrifices would likewise have appeared strange in a first century context: it was as if the whole brotherhood (and sisterhood) were being invited to see themselves as priests. But in His last message, the Lord went further: He promised that those who overcome will eat of the hidden manna, concealed in the Most Holy: as if to say that we will ultimately rise up to and exceed the glory of the High Priests who saw that bread once a year. See on <em><a href='B:500 10:9'>Joh 10:9</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 10:20'>Heb 10:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>By the way which he dedicated for us, a new and living way, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh</em>- The Lord Jesus inaugurated the “new and living way” for us&nbsp;<em>dia</em>, on account of, “his flesh” (<em><a href='B:650 10:20'>Heb 10:20</a></em>). It was exactly because of “the flesh” of the Lord’s humanity that He opened up a new way of life for us. Because He was so credibly and genuinely human, and yet perfect, the way of His life becomes compellingly the way we are to take, and enables every man to become "in Him". Once we grasp this, we can better understand the anathema which John calls down upon those who deny that Jesus was “in the flesh” (<em><a href='B:700 1:7-9'>2Jn 1:7-9</a></em>). We are cleansed by an ever 'freshly slain' sacrifice (<em><a href='B:650 10:20'>Heb 10:20</a></em> Gk:). The cross is ongoing; the Lord's blood is "new", fresh, not coagulated, unlike the blood sprinkled each Yom Kippur which was dead and dried.</p><p>On one level, the atonement can be logically explained. On another, it cannot be. The veil, an eloquent symbol of the flesh of Jesus, was made of mixed fibres, something which was otherwise forbidden under the Law. This perhaps reflected how the Lord’s nature and the atonement God wrought through Him was and is in some ways contradictory, to human eyes.</p><h4>Through His death, the veil was torn open, so that we might enter into the Holiest “by the blood of Jesus, by the way which He dedicated for us::. through the veil, that is to say the sacrificing of his flesh" (<em><a href='B:650 10:19-22'>Heb 10:19-22</a></em> Gk:). This assumes that the followers of Jesus are already in the position of the High Priest standing in the Holy Place, but through what He opened through the cross, each of us must now go through into the Most Holy. And what was the purpose of the High Priest’s entry? To obtain forgiveness&nbsp;<em>for others, to mediate for them</em>, just as the Lord Jesus did on the cross and continues to do for us. His cross compels us to not merely passively contemplate our own salvation, but to go deeper into the very presence of God in our ministry&nbsp;<em>for others</em>. Yet the High Priest had to cleanse himself meticulously; access had been limited to the Most Holy as a result of inadequate preparation by some in the past (<em><a href='B:30 16:1-2'>Lev 16:1-2</a></em>). The Lord’s death opened up the veil, for us to pass through with the utmost effort made by us in personal sanctification, in order to further God’s glory in the salvation of others. We cannot simply refuse to enter, turn away from the torn veil. To do so is to turn away from what the cross has achieved, and to place ourselves outside its scope. We must go forward, go onwards into the presence of God to replicate in essence the Saviour’s work, with the awed and humble spirit of the High Priest entering the Holiest on the day of atonement. He would surely have carefully analysed his motives, as to&nbsp;<em>why</em>&nbsp;he was passing through that veil, and whether he was sufficiently personally sanctified for the work he was doing. He would have been comforted by knowing that his motives were solely for the glorification of his God in the redemption for his people which he was seeking to obtain.</h4>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 10:21'>Heb 10:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And having a great priest over the house of God</em>- This is an allusion to priesthood as it was at the time of Melchizedek and not of Moses, where a family "house" had a priest-head. Although as explained above, we are "in Him" and stand with Him as High Priest in the Holiest, in Heaven itself, in another sense we are His family members and He is our great priest over us.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 10:22'>Heb 10:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Let us draw near with a true heart in fullness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water</em>-</p><p>There is a clear NT theme: that the believer always has a good conscience (<em><a href='B:510 23:1'>Act 23:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 24:16'>Act 24:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 9:1'>Rom 9:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 1:12'>2Co 1:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 1:5'>1Ti 1:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 1:19'>1Ti 1:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 3:9'>1Ti 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 1:3'>2Ti 1:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 9:14'>Heb 9:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:22'>Heb 10:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 13:18'>Heb 13:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 3:16'>1Pe 3:16</a></em>); this clear conscience is a gift from the time of baptism (<em><a href='B:650 10:22'>Heb 10:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 3:21'>1Pe 3:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 9:14'>Heb 9:14</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:650 6:1'>Heb 6:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 6:17'>Rom 6:17</a></em>), when "our bodies were washed with pure water". It was not external things which are sprinkled, as they were under the law, but the innermost recesses of the human heart. Our bad conscience about sin is totally removed; because of our fullness of faith in the Lord's work for us. If a believer loses that good conscience, he has fallen from grace. The Hebrews were losing that good conscience and beginning to worry about their sins to the point of wanting to return to ritual and sacrifices as a way to deal with their bad conscience. Those who leave the faith have a conscience which is wounded (<em><a href='B:530 8:12'>1Co 8:12</a></em>), defiled (<em><a href='B:530 8:7'>1Co 8:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 1:15'>Tit 1:15</a></em>), seared (<em><a href='B:610 4:2'>1Ti 4:2</a></em>). It's hard to find a consistent Biblical definition of conscience. "Conscience" in the Biblical sense often refers to how God sees our conscience, rather than how we feel it:&nbsp; Therefore only rarely does the Spirit speak as if "conscience" is something which is good one moment, and bad the next; it is something which we have on a permanent basis. Thus to say “I watched TV last night with a good conscience, but I had a bad conscience that I didn't give out any tracts today" isn't really using "conscience" in its Biblical sense. Paul repeatedly emphasizes that he has&nbsp;<em>always</em>&nbsp;had a good conscience (presumably, from the time of his baptism, when he stopped kicking against the goads, <em><a href='B:510 9:5'>Act 9:5</a></em>). &nbsp;</p><p>The good conscience is Biblically defined in Hebrews 9, 10. Here the writer is basing his argument on how those under the Old Covenant still had a guilty conscience after their sacrifices, because the blood of animals could not take away sin; the yearly Day of Atonement required them to confess their sins once again. Their conscience was not made perfect (<em><a href='B:650 9:9'>Heb 9:9</a></em>). In his overpowering way, the writer drives his logic home: not only is our conscience cleansed by the one sacrifice of Christ, but we are in a more exalted position than the OT worshippers; we are in the very position of the High Priest who on that Day of Atonement entered the Most Holy;&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;can enter the Holiest with&nbsp;<em>boldness</em>&nbsp;(cp. the nervousness of the Priest) because our consciences are cleansed with Christ's blood. And because of this, "let us draw near" (<em><a href='B:650 10:22'>Heb 10:22</a></em>), the language the LXX uses about the priestly serving of God; now&nbsp;<em>we&nbsp;</em>can do the priestly work, because our consciences are cleansed. We are not like the OT believers, who had a bad conscience because of their sins and needed to offer an annual sacrifice for them, as a result of their conscience. We, by contrast, have no more conscience of sins. According to this Biblical definition of conscience, the conscience is cleansed, and we partake of that cleansing by baptism. At and in that sacrament, we make a pledge to keep that good conscience (<em><a href='B:670 3:21'>1Pe 3:21</a></em> NIV); perhaps we need to point this out more to baptism candidates. We are once and for all forgiven. Our emphasis must be on confession of failure, not feeling guilty and rushing off a quick prayer, as if this will get us forgiveness. We have been cleansed and covered, we are in the new covenant of grace. Only by breaking out of this can we lose the gracious position in which we stand: we have a conscience which is free of guilt, if we truly believe in the power of the cross and our relationship to it through baptism.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 10:23'>Heb 10:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Let us hold fast the confession of our hope so that it does not waver. For He who promised is faithful</em>- Given the allusion to water baptism in :22, the confession of hope may refer to some statement made then- to the effect that 'I really believe all my sins have been dealt with and that I shall definitely be saved if the Lord returns today or I die; I believe God is faithful to His promises of forgiving and saving me'. This was the Christian "hope" or&nbsp;<em>elpis</em>; not a hope for the best at judgment day, but a solid confident expectation of future salvation. And that public confession was to be continued, at a time when in Jerusalem the Hebrew Christians were being mocked and persecuted by the Judaists. We continue professing / confessing our hope “that it waver not” (<em><a href='B:650 10:23'>Heb 10:23</a></em> RV). It doesn’t waver for us, exactly because we preach it. There is a great personal benefit in publicly stating our faith to others.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 10:24'>Heb 10:24</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:510 15:39'>Act 15:39</a></em>.</p><p><em>And let us consider how to provoke one another to love and good works</em>- We are with the Lord Jesus, ministering in the Most Holy. And that work was essentially about the welfare of others. Our work with others therefore isn’t a cold-hearted witness, or a theological debate; it is a&nbsp;<em>seeking</em>&nbsp;of glory to the Father; we exhort one another,&nbsp;<em>considering</em>&nbsp;how we may provoke to love (<em><a href='B:650 10:24'>Heb 10:24</a></em>). But let me ask: do you&nbsp;<em>consider</em>&nbsp;how you might encourage your brethren, or those in the world around you; what words to say, what to do or not to do…?</p><p>In the cross, we see self-humbling that we might be exalted. And we respond by likewise humbling ourselves, that others may be exalted. In practice this means guiding our words and example so that others are exalted, not speaking of our own achievements,&nbsp;<em>considering each other</em>&nbsp;as to how we may provoke them to righteousness (<em><a href='B:650 10:24'>Heb 10:24</a></em>; earlier in <em><a href='B:650 3:1'>Heb 3:1</a></em> Paul speaks of&nbsp;<em>considering</em>&nbsp;the Lord Jesus, and this leads on to considering each other). As the Lord considers us and our unique situations and how to lead us to the best service, so we should consider each other.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 10:25'>Heb 10:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the habit of some is; but rather encouraging one another, and so much the more, as you see the day drawing near</em>- The Hebrew Christians in Jerusalem initially 'assembled together' in the temple courts, but with growing opposition from the temple system it seems they stopped doing this and instead returned to the temple system. This explains the need to assemble because the day is drawing near, and in the AD70 context this referred to the destruction of the entire temple system. The individual believers were the new temple, and they should therefore assemble themselves, rather than within the physical temple.</p><p>The connection between the last day, both of AD70 and the second coming, and assembling together is brought out by the allusion to the Passover. Gathered around the slain lamb, the memorial of their salvation, in their various homes, the command was clear:&nbsp;"None of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning" (<em><a href='B:20 12:22'>Exo 12:22</a></em>). This is surely an eloquent picture of the ecclesia of the last days, highlighting the urgent need to remain within the ecclesia, and to centre our fellowship around our Passover Lamb:&nbsp;</p><p>Not assembling ourselves together is of course not a good thing. If we love our brethren, we will seek to be physically with them. There can be no doubt that we must struggle with our natural selfishness, our desire to go it alone. But is this actually what <em><a href='B:650 10:25'>Heb 10:25</a></em> is talking about? A glance at the context shows that forsaking the assembly is paralleled with the wilful sin which shall exclude us from God’s salvation, a treading under foot the Son of God and reviling the blood of the covenant- what had to be done by Christians who ‘repented’ of their conversion and returned to the synagogue, the sort of blasphemy that Saul was making Christian converts commit.</p><p>This is not really appropriate to someone who fervently believes in the Lord Jesus, but for whatever reason, doesn’t ‘make it out to meeting’ on Sundays? The context seems to speak about a wilful rejection of the Lord Jesus. And this of course is the very background against which Hebrews was written. It was a letter to Hebrew Christians who were beginning to bow to Jewish pressure and renounce their faith in Christ, and return to Judaism. “The assembling of ourselves together" can actually be read as a noun- not a verb. Those who ‘forsook’ ‘the assembly together of us’ would then refer to those who totally rejected Christianity. The same word “forsaking" occurs in <em><a href='B:680 2:15'>2Pe 2:15</a></em>, also in a Jewish context, about those who “forsake the right way". So I suggest that forsaking the assembly refers more to turning away from Christ and returning to apostasy, than to simply not turning up at church as often as we might. The writer laments that “some" were indeed forsaking the assembly (<em><a href='B:650 10:25'>Heb 10:25</a></em>). But that Greek word translated “some" recurs in Hebrews to describe those “some" who had forsaken the ecclesia and turned back to Judaism: “Take heed… lest there be in&nbsp;<em>some</em>&nbsp;AV “any" of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God" (and returning to Judaism- <em><a href='B:650 3:12'>Heb 3:12</a></em>)… lest&nbsp;<em>some</em>AV “any" of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin (<em><a href='B:650 3:13'>Heb 3:13</a></em>)… for&nbsp;<em>some</em>, when they had heard, did provoke referring to the earlier Hebrews in the wilderness who turned away from the hope of the Kingdom- <em><a href='B:650 3:16'>Heb 3:16</a></em>…&nbsp;<em>some</em>&nbsp;of you should seem to fail like the condemned Hebrews in the wilderness- <em><a href='B:650 4:1'>Heb 4:1</a></em>… lest&nbsp;<em>some</em>&nbsp;fall after the same example of unbelief" (<em><a href='B:650 4:11'>Heb 4:11</a></em>). In fact, right after the reference to the “some" who forsake the assembly, <em><a href='B:650 10:28'>Heb 10:28</a></em> speaks of “<em>some</em>&nbsp;AV “he"- but the same Greek word in all these places for “some" that despised Moses’ law". Clearly, those Hebrews in the wilderness who turned away from the spirit of Christ in Moses and the hope of the Kingdom, are being held up as warnings to that same “some" in the first century Hebrew ecclesia who were turning back from the Hope of the Kingdom. I’m not in any way saying that we needn’t bother about our ecclesial attendance. Far from it But I also feel it’s not right to insist that if someone doesn’t attend an ecclesia, for whatever reason, they are therefore guilty of the wilful sin and certain fiery condemnation of which Hebrews 10 speaks for those who forsake the assembly. In fact, the passage has almost been abused like that- as if to say: ‘If you don’t turn up on Sunday, if you quit meeting with us, then, you’ve quit on God and His Son’. This simply isn’t the case.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 10:26'>Heb 10:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For if we sin wilfully after what we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more a sacrifice for sins</em>- The wilful sin in view is that of :25, forsaking the Christian assembly for that of the temple, seeking justification by sacrificial rituals and the Jewish, anti-Christian priesthood rather than by faith in the amazing priesthood of the Lord Jesus which has been explained in such compelling terms so far in Hebrews. “The knowledge of the truth” here refers in the context to the knowledge of forgiveness and salvation; it’s parallel to the “knowledge of salvation” (<em><a href='B:490 1:77'>Luk 1:77</a></em>). The “truth” is the ultimate, surpassing reality- that we are saved, by grace, and can look forward to that great salvation being revealed at the last day. There was only one effective sacrifice for sins made- by the Lord Jesus. As explained earlier in this section, that sacrifice does not need to be repeated, and the killing of animals for forgiveness was effectively trying to crucify or sacrifice the Lord Jesus again. The idea is not that there is no opportunity for repentance; that is always possible. Rather, the idea is that those who forsook the sacrifice of Jesus for the ritual sacrifices of Judaism were mistaken in thinking that those sacrifices could gain forgiveness. If they trusted in them, then they would not receive forgiveness.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 10:27'>Heb 10:27</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and a fierceness of fire which shall devour the adversaries</em>- For those trusting in Christ, there was no longer a conscience of sins. They had all been dealt with in the Lord's sacrifice, and they could be bold in their approach to God. Those who now trusted in animals sacrifices could never have their conscience of sin cleansed, as the sacrifices had to be continually offered; and so they could only look ahead to future judgment with fear rather than boldness. And they could only expect the condemnation of fiery destruction for their sins; they would be counted amongst the Lord's enemies or adversaries because they had refused His program of making His enemies / adversaries His worshippers (see on :13). The temple system was the adversary or satan of the Lord Jesus, and would meet its appropriate end.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 10:28'>Heb 10:28</a></em>&nbsp;<em>A man that set at nothing Moses’ law died without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses</em>- By turning away from the Lord's sacrifice, they were despising God's ultimate "law", which is in His Son. There could be no compassion for those who stated they didn't want it because their ritual obedience was enough. The return to the temple system by the Hebrew Christians was public, and not on the word of two or three who had observed secret sins.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 10:29'>Heb 10:29</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:480 15:15'>Mar 15:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 12:17'>Heb 12:17</a></em>.</p><p><em>Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, shall be considered those who have trodden underfoot the Son of God and have counted the blood of the covenant (with which they were sanctified) an unholy thing, and have insulted the Spirit of grace?</em>- Treading underfoot God's son and blaspheming His blood was the kind of thing Paul had tried to make the Hebrew Christians do under pain of torture. These blasphemous statements were required of those who had left Judaism for Christianity and now sought to return to the temple system and the legal protection of Judaism within the Roman empire:To turn away from such great salvation and blaspheme it could not be treated with neutrality by God. There was going to be a terrible consequence for it:The Lord's work had not only attained forgiveness, but had shed forth the gift ("grace") of the Spirit to transform human hearts so that they did not continue in sin. To turn away from the Lord Jesus was to insult and obstruct that Spirit.</p><p>As "the cross" means more than the impalement which epitomized it, likewise "the blood of Christ" means far more than the red liquid. These concepts found their physical epitome in the crucifixion process, but there is so much more to these things than the physical. The blood of the covenant, the Son of God and the Spirit of grace are bracketed together in <em><a href='B:650 10:29'>Heb 10:29</a></em>. The Lord&nbsp;<em>was&nbsp;</em>His blood. The pouring out of blood from His side, the trickles down His cheeks from the crown of thorns, quickly drying in the hot dust beneath::. this was&nbsp;<em>Him</em>. We take the wine in memory of&nbsp;<em>Him</em>; not just His blood. And He&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;the Spirit of God's transforming gift or grace, which aims to change us into how the Lord Jesus actually is. By Himself He purged our sins (<em><a href='B:650 1:3'>Heb 1:3</a></em>); and yet this purging was through His blood (<em><a href='B:650 9:14'>Heb 9:14</a></em>). He was His blood; His cross was the essence of all He was.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 10:30'>Heb 10:30</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For we know Him that said: Vengeance belongs to Me, I will reward. And again: The Lord shall judge His people</em>- Judgment and punishment for sin have been dealt with for all those who are in Christ, as Paul has argued in this section and also in Romans 1-8. Those who now turned away from all this would therefore have to face judgment.</p><p>David asks God to judge him&nbsp;<em>now&nbsp;</em>(<em><a href='B:230 26:1'>Psa 26:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 35:24'>Psa 35:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 43:1'>Psa 43:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 54:1'>Psa 54:1</a></em>). He wasn't&nbsp;<em>so&nbsp;</em>afraid of the future judgment; He knew that it will only be the pronouncement of how we have now lived. He had a good conscience, and so He asked God to show how He felt about him right now. "The Lord shall judge the people at the last day; this is quoted in this connection in <em><a href='B:650 10:30'>Heb 10:30</a></em>: judge me i:e. now, O Lord, according to my righteousness" (<em><a href='B:230 7:8'>Psa 7:8</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 10:31'>Heb 10:31</a></em>&nbsp;<em>It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God</em>- This may well refer to Angelic punishment at the last day, as the hands of God is Angelic language, and "the living God" may well carry the idea in Hebrew of 'God of the living ones', i:e. the Angel-cherubim. But God is a living God in that He is alive in our lives through His risen Son.</p><p>What is written about the toughness of God’s condemnation may seem awful. But actually, the condemnation and judgment of God is far softer than that of man. It was men who created the concept of eternal torment, not God. It was men who created Auschwitz and similar perversions of ‘judgment’. It is truly written in the context of God’s final condemnation that it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (<em><a href='B:650 10:31'>Heb 10:31</a></em>). But David said that he would prefer to fall into the hands of God rather than into the hands of man (<em><a href='B:100 24:14'>2Sa 24:14</a></em>). To fall into the hands of God is thus a figure for judgment / condemnation by Him. Fearful as it is, it is actually far milder than the judgment of men. This is how cruel our judgment of others can be; this is how awful is human condemnation of each other. It is worse that God’s. No wonder that the Lord established “Judge not…” as a foundation principle for His true people.</p>


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:650 10:32'>Heb 10:32</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But call to remembrance the former days, when you were first enlightened. You endured a hard struggle, with sufferings</em>- The earliest Hebrew Christians, baptized in their thousands by Peter, were persecuted. But that was all in vain if they now returned to the temple system. The "sufferings" were a sharing in the crucifixion sufferings of Christ (s:w. <em><a href='B:650 2:9-10'>Heb 2:9-10</a></em>). And His resurrection life by the Spirit had lived in the Hebrews who had participated in the sufferings. The awful persecutions they endured were orchestrated by Paul himself. He wrote of what he personally was aware of. Their return to Judaism was effectively a statement that Paul had been correct in persecuting them; and so Paul is personally involved in the argument in this sense.</h4>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 10:33'>Heb 10:33</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Partly in that you were made a spectacle both by reproaches and tribulations, and partly in that you became companions of those who were so treated</em>- Suffering is therefore not only in what we personally experience, but in our fellowshipping with the sufferings of others within the Lord's body. For in Him, if one member suffers, all the others do (<em><a href='B:530 12:26'>1Co 12:26</a></em>). The early Christian converts were made a theatre, a "spectacle", openly revealed for their Christian faith; and what Paul did to them in this way he himself experienced (s:w. <em><a href='B:530 4:9'>1Co 4:9</a></em>). To come out in open solidarity for someone publicly mocked for their faith was in effect to suffer what they did. But to avoid that, the Hebrew Christians had become secret believers, hiding their light under a bucket; and now they had taken the logical next step, which was to return to the darkness of Judaism.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 10:34'>Heb 10:34</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 5:7'>Mat 5:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 4:15'>Heb 4:15</a></em>.</p><p><em>For you had both compassion on them that were in bonds, and joyfully accepted the plundering of your own property, knowing that you have for yourselves a better possession and an enduring one</em>- It is tragic that believers who suffered so much could then revert to the very temple system which had so persecuted them. But this is a feature of our natures. We become like that which we hate the most and have suffered from the most, like Israel worshipping the idols of the nations whom they believed had defeated them. The giving of property to the poorer believers may therefore have partly been because property was being confiscated from Christians anyway. These verses in Hebrews 10 give us vital information about the persecution of the Hebrew Christians which the Acts record doesn't mention, just like the Acts record doesn't mention Paul's final privations in prison, of which we learn in 2 Timothy 4.</p><p>The manuscripts followed by the AV add: "Knowing in yourselves that you have in heaven::.". They had once understood what Paul has earlier explained in this chapter; that believers "in Christ" are "in heaven", in the Holiest, their spiritual man "in yourselves" was in heavenly places in Christ (<em><a href='B:560 1:3'>Eph 1:3</a></em>). But they were turning away from that faith and understanding.</p><p>The early Christians “joyfully accepted the plundering of their property” by the state. There was a&nbsp;<em>joy</em>&nbsp;felt amongst them because of their loss. This is a totally counter-instinctive feeling- to be&nbsp;<em>joyful</em>&nbsp;because you lost or gave away ‘possessions’. The Philippians likewise gave out of a deep&nbsp;<em>joy</em>&nbsp;at giving away; the abundance of their joy resulted in their liberality (<em><a href='B:540 8:2'>2Co 8:2</a></em>). And let’s not think that the early church were necessarily all dirt poor. The Christians of <em><a href='B:650 10:34'>Heb 10:34</a></em> had property which was plundered- and still they gave support to the poor saints in Palestine (<em><a href='B:650 6:20'>Heb 6:20</a></em>).</p><p>The more we grasp that it really is God’s will that we will be there in God's future Kingdom, the more strength we will have to resist seeking for material things in this life. By being sure that we will be there, the Kingdom becomes our treasure, where our heart is, rather than any material treasure in this life (<em><a href='B:490 9:34'>Luk 9:34</a></em>). The RV of <em><a href='B:650 10:34-35'>Heb 10:34-35</a></em> brings out well the same theme: "Ye took joyfully the spoiling of your&nbsp;<em>possessions</em>, knowing that ye have your own selves for a better&nbsp;<em>possession</em>" (RVmg). Who we ourselves will be turned into is our better possession, "a better possession and an abiding one" (RV). And this compensates for the loss of material&nbsp;<em>possessions</em>&nbsp;in this life. Therefore the writer urges them to not cast away their confidence in the receipt of this reward at the Lord's return (:35). The more humbly confident we are in receiving the Kingdom, the less the loss of possessions now will mean to us. Hebrews also associates the hope of the Kingdom with the characteristic of patience in the small things of this life. Hence Job, when he lost his hope, could exclaim: "What is mine end, that I should be patient?" (<em><a href='B:220 6:11'>Job 6:11</a></em> RV).</p><p>Who we ourselves will be turned into is our better possession, "a better possession and an abiding one" (RV). And this compensates for the loss of material&nbsp;<em>possessions</em>&nbsp;in this life. Therefore the writer urges them to not cast away their confidence in the receipt of this reward at the Lord's return (:35). The more humbly confident we are in receiving the Kingdom, the less the loss of possessions now will mean to us:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 10:35'>Heb 10:35</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore do not throw away your boldness, which has great reward</em>- This is the "boldness" which can only come from believing that our sin is totally dealt with in Christ, and that we can boldly enter beyond the veil right now, into the Holiest of fellowship with God Himself (:22). This was being thrown away by those who returned to the temple system of sacrifices for sins. Later Paul uses these words about Moses, bidding us follow his example of bold faith in the future reward (<em><a href='B:650 11:26'>Heb 11:26</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 10:36'>Heb 10:36</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For you have need of patience, that, having done the will of God, you may receive the promise</em>- They were lacking the vital characteristic of patient endurance in faith that the great salvation would really be true for them. They had done the will of God, which was to believe in His Son and commit to Him in baptism (<em><a href='B:500 7:17'>Joh 7:17</a></em>). 'Receiving the promise' is the language of Abraham receiving the promise of eternal inheritance at the Lord's return, which Paul has said is the promise of the new covenant (see on <em><a href='B:650 9:15'>Heb 9:15</a></em>). But that will only come true for those who have patiently endured in faith as Abraham did.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 10:37'>Heb 10:37</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:560 3:8'>Eph 3:8</a></em>.</p><p><em>For yet a very little while, and he that comes shall come and shall not delay further</em>- This reflects Paul's belief that we should live as if the Lord's return is imminent. He also sensed that the fact the Lord had not yet come is because of a "delay". 2 Peter 3 speaks of this delay, mentioning that Paul had also written of it- presumably referring to this passage, thereby adding another argument for believing Paul was the author of Hebrews. The delay, acccording to Peter, was so that more could be saved, and also because of the lack of spiritual maturity amongst those who had believed. For when the spiritual harvest is ripe, then the sickle will be put to it in the Lord's return.</p><p>This verse is generally a quotation from <em><a href='B:420 2:3'>Hab 2:3</a></em> about the fulfilment of the prophecy about Babylon's destruction. Paul saw this as having the same fulfilment as the return of Christ to earth. The Lord's return would be the destruction of Babylon; so by "Babylon" Paul understood the Jewish system which was about to be destroyed. And Revelation speaks of it likewise. The Lord did not return in the first century, because various preconditions were not met. But His coming will also be the destruction of the latter day Babylon, to which believers of our age will be tempted to associate themselves in order to avoid persecution.</p><p>The "little while" is a quotation from the LXX of <em><a href='B:290 26:20'>Isa 26:20</a></em>, which suggests that there will be a "little while" of final tribulation for the believers from which they may be preserved, just prior to the Lord's coming. Potentially, that was how close the second coming could have been in the first century.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 10:38'>Heb 10:38</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But My righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, My soul will have no pleasure in him</em>- This is a quotation from a prophecy about the Lord Jesus personally, "My righteous one", who would overcome the wicked Babylonians, whom Paul in :37 has associated with the temple system. But as explained throughout chapter 10, all that is true of Him is true of us. We are in Him, in the Holiest. But as the Lord had the possibility of failure in His mortal life, so do we. The Father's soul had pleasure in Him because of His faithfulness unto death (<em><a href='B:290 53:10'>Isa 53:10</a></em>). But there was the possibility He could "shrink back", just as there is for all those in Him. All the assurances of salvation mentioned in the argument so far are true of believers at the current moment in time; but it's not a case of once saved, always saved. We have to abide in Christ, patiently endure in faith.</p><p>The 'shrinking back' was in recoiling from the wonder of salvation by grace through faith, and returning to trust in the temple system for salvation. The same word is used of Peter shrinking back from these wonders because of Judaist pressure (<em><a href='B:550 2:12'>Gal 2:12</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 10:39'>Heb 10:39</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 27:5'>Mat 27:5</a></em>.</p><p><em>But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls</em>- The shrinking back at the day of judgment is spoken of in <em><a href='B:690 2:28'>1Jn 2:28</a></em> - the rejected will be ashamed from before Him at His coming, they will literally slink and shrink away in shame. But "we make the answer now", living out the essence of judgment day now. The Hebrews who were shrinking away from the wonder of real salvation in Christ would shrink away from Him in condemnation at the last day. It is faith in Christ and in God's saving grace which saves us, which 'preserves' us in the sense of preserving our present state of being saved in Christ. And Paul now goes on in chapter 11 to speak of how this kind of faith was held by the Old Testament heroes.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 11:1'>Heb 11:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction about invisible things</em>- The context of this discourse about faith is to be found in chapter 10. The Hebrew Christians were abandoning faith in Jesus as Christ and returning to the visible, concrete things of the temple system for their salvation and justification before God. All the examples of faith now given are to be understood in that context. As noted on <em><a href='B:650 1:1'>Heb 1:1</a></em>, this discourse is based upon Stephen's in Acts 7, which would have been a mainstay of Hebrew Christian faith.</p><p>Yet the definition of faith here is deeply relevant to our materialistic age which seeks for science to prop up faith, and demands that spiritual understanding be inline with observable phenomena as defined and understood by contemporary science. The definitions of faith given here preclude any appeal to science as 'proving' God's existence or the truth of His word. Science cannot prove faith nor underpin it, for faith is assurance in "invisible things". The "things hoped for" are those of chapter 10- the "hope" of the Christian is not a hope for the best at judgment day, but a solid conviction that our sin has been dealt with and we can confidently anticipate the promise of eternal inheritance at the last day. The complaint that science conflicts with faith is misplaced; for faith is not about observable things. The whole thrust of 'apologetics' is therefore seriously misplaced. No amount of archaeological evidence or historical support or the intricacies observed in the natural creation can provide faith. A generation of Christians raised on this kind of thing is now wilting in faith, confronted by scientific evidence which brings these things into question. Perhaps they never had the faith spoken of here in <em><a href='B:650 11:1'>Heb 11:1</a></em>.</p><p>Faith is the assurance that the hope of salvation shall come true for us. Issues such as how God created the world are not in view here. "Assurance" is the word used of our "confidence" in salvation in <em><a href='B:650 3:14'>Heb 3:14</a></em>. The argument may appear logically faulty, at first blush- faith itself is the confidence, whereas we would expect faith to have some kind of basis. Faith comes by hearing the Gospel; when confronted with the message of salvation, there is a power within the message itself which compels faith. This is all the stuff of the Spirit, and the secular mind recoils at such statements. But the few thousand former atheists I baptized in the former USSR all came to faith not through scientific 'evidence' nor the argumentation of apologetics; but from being confronted with the Gospel of itself. Thus indeed, the basis for faith is faith- which appears a circular argument to the literalist and the materialist, but millions of transformed lives are a far greater witness. And the man who structures his life and thinking on the sole basis of rationalism, empiricism and literalism is not a happy chappy. Indeed, there is no such person. Faith is the "conviction" or "evidence". The evidence for faith is faith. Yes, it is therefore a leap in the dark. But so in fact is every position held, for nobody is a pure rationalist or literalist, believing only what is before their two eyes. The ultimate thing "not seen" is our salvation, which we hope for patiently (<em><a href='B:520 8:24-25'>Rom 8:24-25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:17'>Mat 13:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 4:18'>2Co 4:18</a></em>). Noah saw by faith what could not be seen- his salvation from the flood (:7). Elsewhere in the New Testament, faith is predicated upon connection with the Lord Jesus; the Son is the only way to the Father, and it is through or on account of the Son that we believe on the Father (<em><a href='B:670 1:21'>1Pe 1:21</a></em>). Any claim to 'believe in God' which is not predicated upon faith in Jesus is therefore not real faith in God as Biblically defined. To believe is to trust; not simply to intellectually accept that there is likely to be some higher power. The 'belief' in God of non-Christian religions and philosophies is not therefore Biblical faith in God. Faith in Him comes from hearing His word, which is about Jesus:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 11:2'>Heb 11:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For on account of their faith, the elders had witness borne to them-&nbsp;</em>These "elders" may not refer to those of whom we shall go on to read. I suggested on <em><a href='B:650 1:1'>Heb 1:1</a></em> that the Jerusalem church is being addressed here, and that the Hebrew letter is shot through with allusions to Stephen, their martyr. And nowhere is that clearer than in Hebrews 11, which is based upon Stephen's witness in Acts 7. The same word for "had witness borne" is translated "of good report", concerning the elders of the Jerusalem church (<em><a href='B:510 6:3'>Act 6:3</a></em>). "Elders" is the word repeatedly used about the "elders" of the Jerusalem church (<em><a href='B:510 15:2'>Act 15:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 15:4'>Act 15:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 15:6'>Act 15:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 15:22-23'>Act 15:22-23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 16:4'>Act 16:4</a></em>). The founding elders of the Hebrew congregation in Jerusalem were therefore publically commended for their open faith in the Lord Jesus and resistance of the temple system; and the Hebrew audience were to follow their example rather than quitting Christianity and returning to Judaism.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 11:3'>Heb 11:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>By faith we understand that the ages have been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen has not been made out of things which appear</em>- This is no reference to the world being created&nbsp;<em>ex nihilo,</em>&nbsp;out of nothing. The&nbsp;<em>ages</em>&nbsp;(<em>aion</em>) were prepared according to God's word, the Gospel; but we only perceive history from that perspective "by faith". Revelation puts this truth in a different way by saying that the Lamb opened the seals of future history through His sacrifice. The structure of all history revolves around His work as explained in the Gospel, "the word of God". The things which are now seen are not the things of faith, which cannot be seen (:1). In the context of this chapter and its position within the letter, the things which are seen referred to the temple system (see on :1). Those things were not created out of the reality of Christ which had now appeared. Understood properly, this is actually a strong case against the personal pre-existence of the Lord Jesus. They were not made out of Him, He who appeared or was manifest in His life and death, but pointed forward to Him, as a shadow, rather than being the very reality from which He came and would have therefore been subservient to.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 11:4'>Heb 11:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he had witness borne to him that he was righteous, God bearing witness in respect to his gifts; and through it he, though being dead, still speaks</em>- As noted on :1, the examples of faith in this chapter relate to faith in the invisible rather than the visible, concrete things of tabernacle ritual; and to faith in the Lord's sacrifice. It was by faith in that future sacrifice that Abel offered a blood offering, because he believed the principle of <em><a href='B:650 9:22'>Heb 9:22</a></em>, that without shedding of the Lord's blood there could be no remission of sins. God bore witness to this faith by sending fire from Heaven to consume his sacrifice, rather than the vegetable sacrifice of Cain. That witness was not a recognition of his&nbsp;<em>obedience</em>&nbsp;but of his righteousness. Given the strong message of imputed righteousness in chapter 10, we are left to assume that through faith in the Lord's future sacrifice to cover him, Abel was counted righteous just as Abraham was, and just as we are. In that sense he "still speaks" to us by way of example.</p><p><em><a href='B:650 11:4'>Heb 11:4</a></em> speaks of God bearing witness, giving a verbal testimony, to Abel’s sacrifice, and that through that witness Abel is as it were still speaking to us, in that to this day God is still speaking / testifying to that acceptable act of service performed by Abel. Abel, through the account of him in Scripture, "is yet spoken of" (<em><a href='B:650 11:4'>Heb 11:4</a></em> AVmg:) in the Biblical record. Isaiah was prophesying directly to the hypocrites of the first century, according to the Lord in <em><a href='B:480 7:6'>Mar 7:6</a></em> RV. God says that He 'watches over My word to perform it' (<em><a href='B:300 1:12'>Jer 1:12</a></em> RV). Thus God didn't just write the Bible as we write words, and forget it. He remains actively aware of all His words and consciously fulfils them. This is another window into the way in which the word of God can be described as a living word. There is an active quality to the words we read in our Bibles.</p><p>Who we are is in reality our judgment. After death, our works "follow us" to judgment (<em><a href='B:730 14:13'>Rev 14:13</a></em>). According to Jewish thought, men's actions followed them as witnesses before the court of God, and this is the idea being picked up here. There is a great emphasis in Hebrews 11 on the way that each man has a "witness", "testimony" or "report" as a result of his life (<em><a href='B:650 11:4-5'>Heb 11:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 11:14'>Heb 11:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 11:39'>Heb 11:39</a></em>). Because of this the dead are still spoken for, in that God keeps and knows that testimony, and it speaks for them (<em><a href='B:650 11:4'>Heb 11:4</a></em> AV mg:). They are 'alive', not personally in conscious form, but in the memory and testimony of God.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 11:5'>Heb 11:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>By faith Enoch was snatched away so that he should not be killed; and he was not found, because God had taken him away. He had witness borne to him, that before his being snatched away he had been well pleasing to God</em>- Paul wrote this to Hebrew Christians under persecution, believing that the second coming was at the doors, and soon they too would be snatched away to safety from persecution (<em><a href='B:590 4:17'>1Th 4:17</a></em>). Paul was urging them to believe as Enoch did, and to be confident of final salvation as well as preservation in this life. He was "well pleasing" in that he believed (:6). Perhaps the example of Enoch is chosen because his ancester was Cain, who did&nbsp;<em>not&nbsp;</em>please God, in contrast to Abel who has just been mentioned (:4). The point would be that we can break out from our surrounding environment, we are not inevitably, genetically tied in to any spiritual situation, but there is available to us the radical power of new creation in the Spirit (<em><a href='B:540 5:17'>2Co 5:17</a></em>). There is no reason here to believe that Enoch was snatched away to Heaven or immortality, for the wages of sin is death; and Enoch was not perfect. The Lord Jesus was the first to rise from the dead and receive immortality (<em><a href='B:530 15:20-23'>1Co 15:20-23</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><h4>The "witness borne to him that he had been well pleasing unto God” is courtroom language. Could it not be that his representative / guardian Angel in the court of Heaven had made this testimony to God Almighty?</h4>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 11:6'>Heb 11:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And without faith it is impossible to be well pleasing to Him. For he that comes to God must believe that He is, and that He rewards those that seek after Him</em>- Our faith in God is a seeking after Him. To believe / trust in Him is to seek Him. Whilst this may be a Hebraism for worship, it is all the same true that faith is not a finding of God, an arrival at a point where we have all our questions answered and all intellectual struggles resolved. That position, which is only theoretical, would not be one of faith but of simplistic dogmatism and literalism. Our faith is not simply in Him, but in the fact that we really shall receive the promised salvation or "reward".</p><p>There are a few NT references to the Yahweh Name. One of them is in <em><a href='B:650 11:6'>Heb 11:6</a></em>: he who comes to God must first most importantly believe that&nbsp;<em>He is</em>&nbsp;a reference to He who is who He is, and will be who He will be, and that therefore, as an intrinsic part of who He is,&nbsp;<em>He will be&nbsp;</em>a rewarder of His people. Surely the point is that it's not just knowing the Name theoretically, it is to believe it- that He who is, really&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;in our lives. Who God&nbsp;<em>is</em>, i:e. His Name, is an imperative to believe Him and be like Him. If we are His sons and daughters, who He is becomes quite naturally the law of our being. Thus we should love our enemies, because God makes&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;sun cp. 'our' goodness to rise on both His friends and enemies. As we reflect on the massive power that every moment works to move the sun and earth around each other, so every moment we have an imperative to love.</p><p>This is why belief in God cannot be merely an intellectual act occurring within certain brain cells. Belief means action in some way. Belief&nbsp;<em>and</em>&nbsp;the act of baptism are necessary for salvation; but some NT passages speak as if faith alone saves. This is reconciled by understanding that faith, true faith, includes works. James reasons that there is no distinction between true faith and works. They are part of the same nexus. Thus when we read in the NT of belief in Christ, the normal construction with a dative case was dropped and instead a preposition is used with the verb- belief&nbsp;<em>into</em>&nbsp;Christ is the idea, with implied reference to baptism&nbsp;<em>into</em>&nbsp;Him and an active life&nbsp;<em>in Him</em>&nbsp;as a result of our belief. To be brethren in Christ is not to just believe Christ or God, but to believe&nbsp;<em>into</em>&nbsp;them in practice. R:T. Lovelock comments: "The NT writers felt the importance of this utter trust in God so strongly, that they originated a new construction in their language to emphasise the concept and force it upon the attention of their readers".</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 11:7'>Heb 11:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>By faith Noah, being warned concerning things not seen as yet-&nbsp;</em>The unseen things were of judgment to come for sin, and of salvation through the ark into a new world, typical of God's future Kingdom on earth. The same word for "warned" is used of how we are not to refuse the Lord's warning voice today (<em><a href='B:650 12:25'>Heb 12:25</a></em>).</p><p><em>Moved with Godly fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith</em>- Noah's fear of judgment to come was because he too was a sinner, and he feared judgment. He was in the position of those Hebrews who had a fearful looking forward to judgment because they had refused the sanctifying, saving work of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:650 10:27'>Heb 10:27</a></em>). But he did something about it- he built the ark and entered it, understanding something of how Peter understood it- that it represented the Lord Jesus.</p><p>Noah is one of several examples in Hebrews 11 of where the faith of a third party can save others; it was by his faith that he saved his family. And as with Abel, we see that the idea of imputed righteousness was around far before Abraham. Righteousness was imputed to him because he feared condemnation for his sins. He believed that the salvation system offered him would work, and did what was required to enter it and remain within it. And thus he was counted righteous. This was done for him without the offering of sacrifice or participation in any ritual; he accepted salvation in the ark and did what he could to build it. This was of course highly relevant to the Hebrew Christians seeking to return to sacrifices and ritual.</p><p>Noah's response was not to smugly reflect how that soon he would be vindicated for his separation from the world, i:e. for his own personal righteousness. Instead he took seriously God's warning that sinners were to soon be destroyed. Noah was, of course, a sinner as we all are. He therefore must have cried out to God in faith, asking for God to count him as if he were righteous, so that he would be saved from the coming judgments against sin. This is how he had righteousness imputed to him. He showed his faith that God really had justified him by doing something physical- his faith led to the 'works' of building the ark; as our faith likewise leads us to baptism into Christ.</p><p>Noah's very example was a condemnation of his world; the very existence of believing Gentiles judges the Jews as condemned (<em><a href='B:520 2:27'>Rom 2:27</a></em>); and the very existence of the repentant Ninevites condemned first century Israel (<em><a href='B:470 12:41'>Mat 12:41</a></em>). The faithful preaching of the Corinthians would judge an unbeliever (<em><a href='B:530 14:24'>1Co 14:24</a></em>). Noah's very act of righteousness in building the ark condemned / judged those who saw it and didn't respond (<em><a href='B:650 11:7'>Heb 11:7</a></em>). The fact the Pharisees' children cast out demons condemned the Pharisees (<em><a href='B:470 12:27'>Mat 12:27</a></em>). This is why the rejected will be shamed before the accepted; they will bow in shame at their feet (<em><a href='B:730 3:9'>Rev 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 16:15'>Rev 16:15</a></em>). Perhaps it is in this sense that "we shall judge angels" (<em><a href='B:530 6:3'>1Co 6:3</a></em>)- rejected ecclesial elders, cp. the angels of the churches in Revelation 2, 3? The point is, men's behaviour and conduct judges others because of the contrast it throws upon them. And this was supremely true of the Lord. No wonder in the naked shame and glory of the cross lay the supreme "judgment of this world".</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 11:8'>Heb 11:8</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:10 12:4'>Gen 12:4</a></em>.</p><p><em>By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed-&nbsp;</em>This statement itself is an example of imputed righteousness. The Greek implies that&nbsp;<em>as soon as</em>&nbsp;God called Abram, he got up and left Ur. But a closer examination of the record indicates that this wasn't absolutely the case. It is stressed that both Abram and Sarai left Ur because "Terah&nbsp;<em>took</em>&nbsp;Abram his son::. and Sarai his daughter in law" (<em><a href='B:10 11:31'>Gen 11:31</a></em>). Abram had been called to leave Ur, separate from his family and go into Canaan. But instead he followed his father to Haran, and lived there (for some years, it seems) until his father died, and then he responded to his earlier call to journey towards Canaan. The Genesis record certainly reads as if Abram was dominated by his father and family, and this militated against an immediate response to the call he received to leave Ur and journey to Canaan. At best his father's decision enabled him to obey the command to leave Ur without having to break with his family. And yet, according to <em><a href='B:650 11:8'>Heb 11:8</a></em>, Abram immediately responded, as an act of faith. But it was a moment of faith:&nbsp;</p><p>For some unrevealed reason, perhaps the invasion of the area by hostile tribes, the workings of providence made Terah&nbsp;take the decision to leave Ur. Because 'Canaan' would have been relatively unheard of (Abram "went out, not knowing whither he went", <em><a href='B:650 11:8'>Heb 11:8</a></em> AV) and uncivilized compared to Ur, it is possible to speculate that Abram had told Terah about the promise he had received. Terah then may have decided that such a promise ought to involve&nbsp;<em>him</em>&nbsp;as Abram's father, and decided to go with Abram. Terah must have had a very high level of motivation to leave cosmopolitan Ur for uncivilized Canaan. "Terah&nbsp;<em>took</em>&nbsp;Abram" certainly implies that some unrecorded circumstances took the decision out of Abram's hands; he had to leave his own country, because his father had ordered a mass emigration of the family. How hard it must have been for Abram to make sense of all this He had been told to leave his family and country, and travel to a land God would show him. At that point in time, he was unaware that that country would be Canaan. How God would lead him was unexplained. &nbsp;But he believed God, and "when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed" (<em><a href='B:650 11:8'>Heb 11:8</a></em>). Therefore when his father announced that they were emigrating to Canaan, Abram would have realized that this was a Divine prod to obey the call from God to get up and leave. Unlike the rest of Terah's unrecorded family, who would have mocked such a crazy plan, Abram willingly submitted. But how was he to leave his kindred and father's house? For they were coming with him Indeed, Terah "took Abram". Thus Abram had faith in God's promise, yet may have balked at the command to leave his country and family. Providentially arranged circumstances then resulted in his aging father taking him, implying some degree of compulsion, and leading him out of his native country. Whilst not fully understanding how he could leave his father's household whilst they looked set to be accompanying him on this journey to a strange land, he went ahead in faith. It is emphasized that&nbsp;<em>God</em>&nbsp;"brought out" (s:w. to lead, pluck or pull out) Abram from Ur (<em><a href='B:160 9:7'>Neh 9:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 15:6-7'>Gen 15:6-7</a></em>). The calling came through Abram's hearing of the word of promise, and providentially arranged circumstances encouraging his faithful response to it:&nbsp; &nbsp;</p><p><em>And left for a place which he was to receive for an inheritance afterwards. And he left not knowing where he was going to</em>- The promise of inheritance was of "eternal inheritance" (<em><a href='B:650 9:15'>Heb 9:15</a></em>), the same promise made in the new covenant to us. Detailed information or knowledge about the future Kingdom was not required; he didn't know where he was going to. And contrary to the apparently solid, permanent location of Judah in Palestine at the time, this was not the receipt of the promised inheritance. Abraham's faith or trust was in that he did not understand the details; he just said yes to God as far as he understood God.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 11:9'>Heb 11:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>By faith he became a sojourner in the land of promise, as yet not his own, dwelling in tents, with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise</em>- Abraham had been an urban dweller, both in Ur and Haran; not a bedouin. He became a wandering herdsman and tent dweller by faith in the promises to him. The chronology provided in Genesis actually allows for Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to have all lived together at some point in the same encampment. "A sojourner" refers to the way Abraham recognized he was "a stranger and a sojourner" in the land (<em><a href='B:10 22:4'>Gen 22:4</a></em>) and therefore needed to buy a burial plot there for his wife.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 11:10'>Heb 11:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For he looked for the city which has the foundations, whose builder and maker is God</em>- The urban dweller who by faith lived as a nomad always hankered after a solid city- but not Ur. He overcame the desire to return to the city of his roots by focusing instead upon the future Kingdom of God, called her "the city". This was relevant for the Jerusalem Church who are being addressed here, tempted as they were to return to the stability of the temple city. The "architect" (Gk:) of the future city was God; recalling how the ages of human history were "framed" by God (:3). The foundation of God's work is the doctrine of the Christ (<em><a href='B:650 6:1'>Heb 6:1</a></em>); He is also portrayed as the "foundation" in <em><a href='B:530 3:11'>1Co 3:11</a></em> and <em><a href='B:560 2:20'>Eph 2:20</a></em>. Abraham perceived that his future seed would be the foundation of his own eternal city. Again we see that it is faith in Christ which was the basis of the "faith" of Abraham and others mentioned here.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 11:11'>Heb 11:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>By faith even Sarah herself received power to conceive seed when she was past age, since she counted Him faithful who had made the promise-&nbsp;</em>The seed of Abraham was only realized by faith, despite so many reasons to disbelieve. If faith were based upon rational evidence then she could never have come to such faith.</p><p>This personal nature of the promises resulted in a mutuality between God and the patriarchs, as it can between Him and all Abraham's seed. God’s present judgment of us is actually related to how we ‘judge’ God to be. There’s a mutuality between God and man in this business of present judgment. This theme is played on throughout Hebrews 11. Sarah “judged” God as faithful, and He ‘judged’ her as faithful (<em><a href='B:650 11:11'>Heb 11:11</a></em>); she counted Him as trustworthy and He counted righteousness to her. As Abraham “was offering up Isaac” (RV), with the knife raised, he was “accounting” God to be capable of performing a resurrection, just as Moses quit the riches of Egypt, “accounting the reproach of Christ greater than the treasures of Egypt” (<em><a href='B:650 11:17'>Heb 11:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 11:19'>Heb 11:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 11:26'>Heb 11:26</a></em> RV). And yet God ‘accounts’ us to be faithful, imputing righteousness to us. Through these acts and attitudes of faith, “these… had witness borne to them through their faith” (<em><a href='B:650 11:39'>Heb 11:39</a></em> RV). It was as if their lives were lived in the courtroom, with their actions a constant presentation of evidence to the judge of all the earth. Our judgment of God to be faithful thus becomes His judgment of us to be faithful.</p><p>"Even Sarah herself" is clearly making a point, holding up a flashing light over this particular example. There is every reason to think, from the Genesis record, that Sarah not only lacked faith in the promises, but also had a bitter, unspiritual mind. The account alludes back to Eve's beguiling of Adam when it records how "Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai" (<em><a href='B:10 16:2'>Gen 16:2</a></em>) in acquiescing to her plan to give her a seed through Abram marrying his slave girl. The whole thing between Sarah and Abraham seems wrong on at least two counts: firstly it reflects a lack of faith in the promise; and secondly it flouts God's ideal standards of marriage. Sarai seems to have recognized the error when she bitterly comments to Abram: "My wrong be upon thee" (<em><a href='B:10 16:5'>Gen 16:5</a></em>). Her comment that "the Lord hath restrained me from bearing" (<em><a href='B:10 16:2'>Gen 16:2</a></em>) would suggest that she thought she hadn't been chosen to bear the promised seed. Yet because of her faith, says <em><a href='B:650 11:11'>Heb 11:11</a></em>, she received strength to bear that seed:&nbsp; Hagar was so persecuted by Sarah that she "fled from her face" (<em><a href='B:10 16:6'>Gen 16:6</a></em>). God's attitude to Hagar seems to reflect a certain amount of sympathy for the harsh way in which Sarah had dealt with her. These years of bitterness and lack of faith came to the surface when Sarah overheard the Angel assuring Abraham that Sarah really would have a son. She mockingly laughed at the promise, deep within herself (<em><a href='B:10 18:15'>Gen 18:15</a></em>). Yet according to <em><a href='B:650 11:11'>Heb 11:11</a></em>, she rallied her faith and believed. But as soon as Isaac was born, her bitterness flew to the surface again when she was Ishmael mocking. In what can only be described as unrestrained anger, she ordered Hagar and Ishmael out into the scorching desert, to a certain death (humanly speaking). Again, one can sense the sympathy of God for Hagar at this time. And so wedged in between incidents which belied a deep bitterness, lack of faith and pride (after Isaac was born), the Spirit in <em><a href='B:650 11:11'>Heb 11:11</a></em> discerns her faith; on account of which, <em><a href='B:650 11:12'>Heb 11:12</a></em> implies ("therefore"), the whole purpose of God in Christ could go forward. See on <em><a href='B:550 4:30'>Gal 4:30</a></em>.</p><p>Because of Sarah’s faith, “therefore sprang there:::so many as the stars of the sky in multitude” (:11,12). Those promises to Abraham had their fulfilment, but conditional on Abraham and Sarah’s faith. <em><a href='B:10 18:18-20'>Gen 18:18-20</a></em> says that the fulfilment of the promises was conditional on Abraham teaching his children / seed the ways of God. Those promises / prophesies were “sure” in the sense that God’s side of it was. <em><a href='B:520 4:18'>Rom 4:18</a></em> likewise comments that Abraham became&nbsp; “the father of many nations” precisely because he&nbsp;<em>believed</em>&nbsp;in this hope. Yet the promise / prophecy that he would be a father of many nations could sound as if it would have happened anyway, whatever. But it was actually conditional upon Abraham’s faith. And he is our great example exactly because he had the possibility and option of&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;believing in the hope he had been offered. The promises to Abraham form the new covenant, of which Paul has had so much to say in Hebrews. And yet the realization of it depends upon faith, just as it had earlier depended upon the faith of Abraham and Sarah, no matter how fragile that faith was.</p><p>"Faith" in Hebrews 11 often refers to faith in Christ, the seed of Abraham. Perhaps we are to understand Sarah's faith that conception would occur as motivated by her faith that the promises of the great seed would have to come true through her as the legitimate wife of Abraham. So it was by her shadowy faith in Christ as the future seed that she sound the faith to believe that her old body could bear a child.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 11:12'>Heb 11:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born as many as the stars of the sky in multitude- innumerable as the sand which is by the seashore</em>- According to <em><a href='B:650 11:12'>Heb 11:12</a></em>, God’s promises to Abraham were fulfilled on account of his faith; God in some way allowed Himself to be potentially limited by Abraham’s faith. Indeed, the promised world-wide blessing of all nations was promised only “because thou hast obeyed my voice” (<em><a href='B:10 22:16'>Gen 22:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 22:18'>Gen 22:18</a></em>). In this sense the covenants of salvation were partly due to another man Abraham being faithful although above all our salvation was due to the Lord Jesus. In this sense he is the “father” of the faithful.</p><p>Abraham was impotent, "as good as dead". The argument here is so similar to that in <em><a href='B:520 4:19'>Rom 4:19</a></em>. Abraham believed his body could be empowered to do it, "without being weakened in faith", the same word translated “impotent” in <em><a href='B:500 5:7'>Joh 5:7</a></em>. Abraham was physically impotent, perhaps even seriously ill and weak at the time the promise was given- but not impotent or weak in faith. The idea of the Greek is that Abraham didn’t weaken in faith as he observed / considered his body. "Considered" in <em><a href='B:520 4:19'>Rom 4:19</a></em> means that he didn't fix his mind upon the fact his body was dead (i:e. impotent) and unable to produce seed. He wasn't obsessed with his state, yet he lived a life of faith that ultimately God's Kingdom would come, he rejoiced at the contemplation of Christ his Lord; and he filled his life with practical&nbsp;service. He wasn't obsessed with the fact that in his marital position he personally couldn't have children when it seemed this was what God wanted him to do; and this was very pleasing to God. Nor did he consider the "deadness of Sarah’s womb". So often we allow the apparent weakness of others to become a barrier to our faith. ‘She’ll never change… she just isn’t capable of that’. But Abraham not only believed that&nbsp;<em>he</em>&nbsp;could do it, but that the apparent obstacle of another’s weakness was also surmountable by the word of promise.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 11:13'>Heb 11:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>These all died in faith-&nbsp;</em>The point is that they continued believing until the end of their lives; they did not give up. And that was a necessary exhortation for the Hebrew Christians who were giving up their faith in Abraham's seed.</p><p><em>Not having received the promises, but having seen them, and greeted them from afar, and having confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth</em>- All the faithful went through the same process: persuaded - embraced - confessed to the world around them. Confessing was part of the natural response to belief of the promises. Hearing God's word in faith is associated with declaring it (<em><a href='B:300 9:12'>Jer 9:12</a></em>). The confession of being a stranger was surely that made by Abraham publicly to the local inhabitants of Canaan that he was a stranger and sojourner amongst them (<em><a href='B:10 22:4'>Gen 22:4</a></em>).</p><h4>When we read that the faithful ‘saw’ the promises although they didn’t receive them, we are surely meant to understand that they ‘saw’ the&nbsp;<em>fulfilment of</em>&nbsp;the promises. This is the faith which sees that which cannot be seen in natural visible terms (:1). ‘The promises’ are so sure of fulfilment that the phrase is put by metonymy for ‘the fulfilment of the promises’. And because of their utter certainty, we are to be strangers and pilgrims, and unworldly (<em><a href='B:650 11:13-14'>Heb 11:13-14</a></em>). There is therefore an obvious link between doctrine and practice. A doctrine believed leads to us coming out of this tangled world and unashamedly speaking of our secular lives as not being what we really identify with. Believing the promises to Abraham involves open confession to the world around us.</h4>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 11:14'>Heb 11:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For they that say such things make it obvious that they are seeking after a country of their own</em>- Abraham made the statement that he was a stranger and sojourner in Canaan whilst he was actually there in the land (<em><a href='B:10 22:4'>Gen 22:4</a></em>). Contrary to how Judaism reasoned, the literal presence of the Jews in Palestine was not the fulfilment of the promises, which spoke of "eternal inheritance". They were seeking a far greater fulfilment of the promises (:16).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 11:15'>Heb 11:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And if indeed they had been mindful of that country from which they went out, they would have had opportunity to return</em>- Abraham was called to leave Ur and travel to Canaan, the land promised to him. If his heart had remained in his native land, as the heart of most immigrants and exiles does, God would have worked in his life to make it possible for him to return to it, and thereby reject God's covenant with him. The fact Abraham wasn't given this opportunity indicates his faith. It also shows that God gives us the opportunity to renounce our faith if that is what we want in our hearts (cp. Balaam).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 11:16'>Heb 11:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But now they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one-&nbsp;</em>As noted on :14, the physical presence of the patriarchs in Canaan was not seen by them as the fulfilment of the Abrahamic promises. They looked for an "eternal inheritance" (see on <em><a href='B:650 9:15'>Heb 9:15</a></em>). Their desire was for "a heavenly country", not in the sense that they desired to go to Heaven- for they were never promised that. They looked for the Kingdom of Heaven to come on earth, symbolized in Revelation by the city of heavenly Jerusalem coming to earth at the Lord's return. The "better" nature of what they sought connects with how Hebrews uses this word of the "better" things of the new covenant in contrast to the inferior things of the old covenant. The old covenant offered Israel a national homeland, but no "eternal inheritance" (<em><a href='B:650 9:15'>Heb 9:15</a></em>). It was life eternal, eternal inheritance of the promised land, which was promised in the new covenant; it was that which was so far "better" than the promise of the old covenant. "But now they::." raises the question as to who is in view. The "they" of&nbsp; :15 were the patriarchs; but they were long dead and unconscious. The "they" merges with us the Christian believers, identified with Abraham's seed by baptism into that seed (<em><a href='B:550 3:27-29'>Gal 3:27-29</a></em>).</p><p><em>Therefore God is not ashamed of them- to be called their God-&nbsp;</em>Right now, God is ashamed or not ashamed of us, according to our separation from the spirit of this world; and yet His not being ashamed of us will also be apparent at the final judgment. We have our judgment now, from His point of view. "To be called" is literally 'to be surnamed'. His Name becomes part of ours, in spiritual terms; the things of His Name and purpose become inextricably bound up with us, just as 'Abram' was changed to 'Abraham' by inserting the middle letters of the Yahweh name into Abram's name- see on <em><a href='B:290 44:5'>Isa 44:5</a></em>.</p><p><em>For He has prepared for them a city</em>- This is the Kingdom on earth prepared from the foundation of the world (<em><a href='B:470 25:34'>Mat 25:34</a></em>). It is called a city because Paul wants the Jerusalem Hebrew Christians to whom he is speaking to realize that the "Jerusalem that now is" was not the true city of hope; and neither was Rome. <em><a href='B:650 11:13-16'>Heb 11:13-16</a></em> contains some radical demands in a first century context- to see the&nbsp;<em>true</em>&nbsp;city, when Rome was&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;city to be identified with; to be a non-citizen of any earthly state… how hard would that have been for Roman citizens to read, hear, and say ‘Amen’ to This was particularly an issue for the Hebrew Christians, who were attracted to return to Judaism because the Roman legislation permitted it to exist as a recognized religion.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 11:17'>Heb 11:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>By faith Abraham, being tested, offered up Isaac. Yes, he that had gladly received the promises was offering up his only begotten son</em>- The tenses here are important. Abraham was counted as having offered up Isaac; hence he figuratively received him back from the dead (:19). The language of effective resurrection in :19 leads me away from thinking that the mere act of placing Isaac on the altar was spoken of as Abraham having "offered up Isaac". Abraham had done it in his mind. God counts our intentions as if we have done them; hence in the matter of generous giving, the desire to give is all important and counted all the same as "giving" (<em><a href='B:540 8:12'>2Co 8:12</a></em>). We too are asked to give up our children; not to Molech, but to God. For our children are God's children whom we raise for Him and trust Him to use them as part of a wider purpose which we have to trust Him for.</p><p>"Was offering up" invites us to play Bible television with this verse. We are taken back to Abraham there on Moriah. He who was remembering how he had laughed with joy at the promise of the seed, rejoicing to see Christ's day (<em><a href='B:500 8:56'>Joh 8:56</a></em>), and naming the little boy "Isaac", 'laughter', to reflect his joy::. was now fighting back those memories as he was offering up Isaac his son in sacrifice. "His only begotten son" emphasizes how this was all pointing forward to God offering His only begotten. Seeing Abraham had many other children, Paul may be rather forcing a similarity here, perhaps reasoning that Isaac was Abraham's only son by his legitimate wife Sarah.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 11:18'>Heb 11:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Even he to whom it was said: In Isaac shall your seed be called</em>- As noted on :17, we are asked to imagine Abraham's thoughts as he was offering up Isaac. He would have struggled to understand how this son of promise could be the path to the promised seed, if he had to now offer him. The faith displayed was therefore trust, trust that although we do not rationally understand, we believe that God's purpose will somehow work out. Again, faith is portrayed as not at all based on rational evidence or reasoning (see on :1).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 11:19'>Heb 11:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Abraham accounted that God is able to raise up, even from the dead. From where he did, figuratively, receive him back</em>- Abraham was driven to the conclusion that God would resurrect Isaac, so that the promises would be fulfilled. Faith in the Abrahamic promises likewise requires faith in the resurrection of his Messianic seed; a faith which the Hebrews were finding hard to maintain. Abraham's willingness to offer Isaac was counted as if he had done it; hence the arising of Isaac from the altar was effectively his resurrection. See on :17.</p><p>Abraham 'accounted' that God was able to raise Isaac; his faith involved an intellectual process. Israel were to hear / understand “the statutes and judgments… that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them” (<em><a href='B:50 5:1'>Deu 5:1</a></em>). Understanding is related to obedience. See on <em><a href='B:520 10:10'>Rom 10:10</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 11:20'>Heb 11:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau, even concerning things to come</em>- Yet the record of this in Genesis 27 doesn't paint Isaac in a very positive light. “Isaac loved Esau, because he did eat of his venison: but&nbsp; Rebekah loved Jacob" (<em><a href='B:10 25:28'>Gen 25:28</a></em>). The AVmg. seems to bring out Isaac's superficiality: "Isaac loved Esau, because venison was in his mouth". This seems to connect with the way Esau threw away his birthright for the sake of food in his mouth. Esau was evidently of the flesh, whilst Jacob had at least some potential spirituality. Yet Isaac preferred Esau. He chose to live in Gerar (<em><a href='B:10 26:6'>Gen 26:6</a></em>), right on the border of Egypt- as close as he could get to the world, without crossing the line. And he thought nothing of denying his marriage to Rebekah, just to save his own skin (<em><a href='B:10 26:7'>Gen 26:7</a></em>). So it seems Isaac had some marriage problems; the record speaks of "Esau his son" and "Jacob (Rebekah's) son" (<em><a href='B:10 27:5-6'>Gen 27:5-6</a></em>). The way Jacob gave Isaac wine "and he drank" just before giving the blessings is another hint at some unspirituality (<em><a href='B:10 27:25'>Gen 27:25</a></em>). Isaac seems not to have accepted the Divine prophecy concerning his sons: “the elder shall serve the younger" (<em><a href='B:10 25:23'>Gen 25:23</a></em>), seeing that it was his intention to give Esau the blessings of the firstborn, and thinking that he was speaking to Esau, he gave him the blessing of his younger brothers (i:e. Jacob) serving him (<em><a href='B:10 27:29'>Gen 27:29</a></em> cp. 15). Isaac didn't accept the sale of the birthright, and yet God did (<em><a href='B:650 12:16-17'>Heb 12:16-17</a></em>). A<em>nd yet</em>, and this is my point, Isaac's blessing of the two boys is described as an act of faith; even though it was done with an element of disbelief in God's word of prophecy concerning the elder serving the younger, and perhaps under the influence of alcohol, and even though at the time Isaac thought he was blessing Esau when in fact it was Jacob. Yet according to <em><a href='B:650 11:20'>Heb 11:20</a></em>, this blessing of Esau&nbsp;<em>and</em>&nbsp;Jacob (therefore Hebrews doesn't refer to the later blessing) was done with faith;&nbsp;<em>at that very point in time</em>, Isaac had faith. So God's piercing eye saw through Isaac's liking for the good life, through Isaac's unspiritual liking for Esau, through his marriage problem, through his lack of faith that the elder must serve the younger, and discerned that there was some faith in that man Isaac; and then holds this up as a stimulant for our faith, centuries later Not only should we be exhorted to see the good side in our present brethren; but we can take comfort that this God is our God, and views our Christian hypocrisy in the same way as He viewed theirs.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 11:21'>Heb 11:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>By faith Jacob, when he was dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph and worshiped, leaning upon the top of his staff</em>- The Hebrew for "bed" has the same consonants as "staff", and is translated "staff" in the Septuagint, which Paul generally follows over the Masoretic text. It may be that Jacob considered Joseph to be the special Messianic seed (which he was, in type), and this would explain why <em><a href='B:650 11:21'>Heb 11:21</a></em> adds the detail that at the end of his life, as he was dying on his bed, Jacob showed his faith (i:e. his faith in Christ, which is the theme of Hebrews 11) by worshipping Joseph, propping himself up on the bed head with his last energy to do it (Gk:). He clearly saw in him a type of his future redeemer. He finally accepted the truth of Joseph's dream: that Jacob must bow down to his greater son- although he reached this humility, this bowing before the spirit of Christ, in his very last breath. It seems probable that meditation on Joseph's experience was what brought Jacob to Christ; he had managed to scheme and plot his way out of every other crisis, but the loss of Joseph brought him to his knees helpless.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 11:22'>Heb 11:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>By faith Joseph, when his end was near, made mention of the departure of the children of Israel and gave commandment concerning his bones</em>- Joseph's faith was specifically in the promises to Abraham concerning the eternal inheritance of Canaan. By faith he looked to the day when Abraham's people would no longer be in Egypt but in Canaan, and he wanted his bones buried in the promised land to show his identity with that future Kingdom rather than all the wealth of secular life in Egypt. And our lives too should be full of countless such acts of identity with the things implied in the promises to Abraham.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 11:23'>Heb 11:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid for three months by his parents, because they saw he was a goodly child, and they were not afraid of the king's commandment</em>- "Faith" in Hebrews 11 generally refers to faith in the Abrahamic promises which comprise the new covenant, and in the promised, saviour seed of Abraham. It was this faith, rather than simply faith that God would save their darling baby boy, which led to Moses' parents hiding him. They perceived from babyhood that he was a child "fair to God" (Heb:); maybe they thought he would be the promised seed, or would at least typify that promised seed. So again it was their faith in the Abraham promises which motivated them. Again we note the salvation of a person as a result of the faith of third parties, just as the Lord forgave the sins of a man because of the faith of his friends (<em><a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a></em>). Their faith in the promises meant that they did not fear the commandment to kill Moses; and their faith was passed on to Moses, who in maturity likewise did not fear the wrath of Pharaoh.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 11:24'>Heb 11:24</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:510 7:35'>Act 7:35</a></em>.</p><p><em>By faith, Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter</em>- "When Moses&nbsp;<em>was grown</em>, he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens::. when he was&nbsp;<em>full forty years old</em>&nbsp;it came into his heart to visit his brethren::. by faith Moses,&nbsp;<em>when he was come to years</em>, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter" (<em><a href='B:20 2:11'>Exo 2:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:23'>Act 7:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 11:24'>Heb 11:24</a></em>). The implication seems to be that Moses reached a certain point of maturity, of readiness, and then he went to his brethren. We too have points of maturity we must reach before the Lord gives us our next task.</p><p>So at age 40, Moses came to a crisis. He had a choice between the riches of Egypt, the pleasures of sin for a season, and choosing rather to suffer affliction with God's people and thereby fellowship the reproach of Christ. He probably had the chance to become the next Pharaoh, as the son of Pharaoh's daughter; but he consciously refused this, as a pure act of the will, as an expression of faith in the future recompense of the Kingdom. There are a number of&nbsp; passages which invite us to follow Moses' example in this. Paul was motivated in his rejection of worldly advantage by Moses'&nbsp;inspiration. And as in all things, he is our example, that we might follow Christ, who also turned down the very real possibility of temporal rulership of the world- for the sake of living the life of the cross, and thereby securing our redemption:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 11:25'>Heb 11:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Choosing instead to share ill treatment with the people of God, rather than enjoy the pleasures of sin for a short time</em>- "(Moses) refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;&nbsp;<em>having chosen rather</em>&nbsp;(Gk:) to suffer affliction with the people of God" (<em><a href='B:650 11:24-25'>Heb 11:24-25</a></em>) suggests that there was a struggle within the mind of Moses, between the reproach of Christ and the approbation of this world, and he then decisively came down on the right side. If we are truly saints, called out ones after the pattern of Moses, this struggle between present worldly advantage and the hope of the Kingdom must surely be seen in our minds. For this reason Moses is held up so highly as our example and pattern.</p><p>Moses could have been the next Pharaoh; according to Josephus, he was the commander of the Egyptian army. But he walked away from the possibility of being the richest man on earth, he "refused" it, because he valued "the reproach of Christ" and the recompense of the Kingdom to be&nbsp;<em>greater</em>&nbsp;riches. Yet what did he know about the sufferings of Christ? Presumably he had worked out from the promises of the seed in Eden and to the fathers that the future Saviour must be reproached and rejected; and he saw that his own life experience could have a close association with that of this unknown future Saviour who would surely come. And therefore, it seems, Moses counted the honour and wonder of this greater that the riches of Egypt. Both Paul and Moses rejected mammon for things which are abstract and intellectual (in the strict sense): the&nbsp;<em>excellency</em>&nbsp;of the understanding of the Lord Jesus Christ and His cross, and the Kingdom this would enable. Living when we do, with perhaps a greater knowledge of the Lord's victory and excellency, our motivation ought to be even stronger.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 11:26'>Heb 11:26</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:650 10:35'>Heb 10:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 3:8'>Phi 3:8</a></em>.</p><p><em>Considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt. For he looked to the greater reward</em>-&nbsp; Even within Hebrews, the description of Moses' rejection of Egypt for the sake of Christ is shown to be our example: "Esteeming the&nbsp;<em>reproach of Christ</em>&nbsp;greater riches than the treasures (i:e. Pharaoh's treasures, which he could have had if he succeeded as Pharaoh) in Egypt::. let us go forth therefore unto (Jesus) without the camp,&nbsp;<em>bearing his reproach</em>" (<em><a href='B:650 11:26'>Heb 11:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 13:13'>Heb 13:13</a></em>). We should be even eager to bear 'reproach for the name of Christ' as Moses did (<em><a href='B:670 4:14'>1Pe 4:14</a></em>), knowing it is a surety of our sharing his resurrection. For Moses, "the reproach of Christ" was his&nbsp; having "respect unto the recompense of the reward". He therefore must have understood in some detail that there would be a future Saviour, who would enable the eternal Kingdom promised to Abraham through his bearing the reproach of this world. Such was Moses' appreciation of this that it motivated him to reject Egypt. His motivation, therefore, was based upon a fine reflection upon the promises to Abraham and other oblique prophecies of the suffering Messiah contained in the book of Genesis. Moses knew he could have a share in the sufferings of the future saviour and thereby share his reward, because he saw the implication that Messiah would be our representative. Yet those promises are the very things which Christians now say they are bored of hearing every few weeks on a Sunday evening. No wonder we lack Moses' desire to share Christ's reproach, and thereby reject the attractions of this world. The way Moses had "respect unto the recompense of the reward" is our example; for again, even within Hebrews, we are exhorted: "Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great&nbsp;<em>recompense of reward</em>" (<em><a href='B:650 11:26'>Heb 11:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:35'>Heb 10:35</a></em>). The Greek for "respect" means to look away from all else; indicating how single-mindedly and intensely did Moses look ahead to the Kingdom; the knowledge of which was, in terms of number of words, scant indeed. All he had was the covenants of promise.</p><p>Moses fought with the temptation to just observe from a distance, but then he came out into the open, declaring that he was a Hebrew, rejecting his kind Egyptian foster mother, openly declaring that he was not really her son, as both she and he had claimed for 40 years. He would have borne the shame of all this, "the reproach of Christ" (<em><a href='B:650 11:26'>Heb 11:26</a></em>). But he was not ashamed to call Israel his brethren, as Christ is not ashamed of us (<em><a href='B:650 2:11'>Heb 2:11</a></em> - one of many allusions to Moses in Hebrews). All this suggests that like Moses, our Lord came to a point where he "came down" from obscurity to begin his work of deliverance. The references to 'coming down' in John's Gospel allude to this.</p><p>It is possible that Moses appreciated that he was a type of Christ the future Messiah; he considered "the reproach of Christ" enough to motivate him to reject the attractions of Egypt (<em><a href='B:650 11:26'>Heb 11:26</a></em>); he knew he was sharing the sufferings of the future, ultimate saviour, and the wonder of that alone was enough to motivate him to leave the attractions of this world- even the possibility of being the next Pharaoh, the most powerful man on earth. The similarities between Jesus and Moses are too many to sensibly tabulate. There is ample opportunity to enter deeply into the attitude of Moses towards Israel, and it is this which perhaps most valuably deepens our appreciation of the love of Christ for us, and of our own liability to failure after the pattern of Israel:&nbsp;</p><h4>Moses was willing to give both his physical and&nbsp;<em>eternal</em>&nbsp;life for the salvation of Israel (<em><a href='B:20 32:29-32'>Exo 32:29-32</a></em>), that God's Name might be upheld. He so loved and respected God's character, His personality (all bound up in His Name) that he was willing to forego all personal blessings, even life itself, just because of the wonder of God. A less spiritually mature Moses had been motivated 40 years earlier by his respect of the recompense of the reward (<em><a href='B:650 11:26'>Heb 11:26</a></em>). But now his motive is the glory of God's Name. Personal possession of the Kingdom&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;held up as a motivator in our lives; but surely, like Moses, we ought to progress towards a desire to see the achievement of God's glory, rather than being obsessed with&nbsp;personally finding our place in the political Kingdom.</h4>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 11:27'>Heb 11:27</a></em>&nbsp;<em>By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the anger of the king-&nbsp;</em>But Moses&nbsp;<em>did</em>&nbsp;flee Egypt, because he feared the wrath of the King (<em><a href='B:20 2:14-15'>Exo 2:14-15</a></em>). It seems that Moses had at best a mixture of motives, or motives that changed over time; yet God sees through his human fear, and discerns an element of calm faith within Moses as he left Egypt. This is a theme here in Hebrews 11; weak faith is counted as faith all the same. In similar vein, at the time of the burning bush, Moses seems to have forgotten God's covenant name, he didn't immediately take off his shoes in respect as he should have done, and it seems he feared to come close to God due to a bad conscience, and he resisted God's invitation for him to go forth and do His work (<em><a href='B:20 3:5-7'>Exo 3:5-7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 3:10-11'>Exo 3:10-11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 3:18'>Exo 3:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 4:1'>Exo 4:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 4:10-14'>Exo 4:10-14</a></em>). And yet at this very time, the New Testament says that Moses showed faith in the way he perceived God (<em><a href='B:490 20:37'>Luk 20:37</a></em>). But it was a momentary faith, valid all the same:&nbsp;Moses fled from Egypt, not fearing the wrath of Pharaoh; he went in faith (<em><a href='B:650 11:27'>Heb 11:27</a></em>). But the Exodus record explains that actually he couldn't keep this level of faith, and fled in fear (<em><a href='B:20 2:14-15'>Exo 2:14-15</a></em>).</p><p><em>For he endured, because he saw Him who is invisible</em>-&nbsp;<em>Hupomone&nbsp;</em>is generally translated "patience" or "endurance"; the idea is of the staying power that keeps a man going to the end. The meaning of&nbsp;<em>hupomone&nbsp;</em>grows as we experience more trials (<em><a href='B:520 5:3'>Rom 5:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 1:3'>Jas 1:3</a></em>). We find that the longer we endure in the Truth, the more we can echo the words of Peter, when the Lord asked him (surely with a lump in His throat) if he was going to turn back: "Lord, to whom shall we go?" (<em><a href='B:500 6:68'>Joh 6:68</a></em>). There is no third road in the daily decisions we face. Over the months and years,&nbsp;<em>hupomone&nbsp;</em>becomes part of our essential character; keeping on keeping on is what life comes to be all about, no matter what short term blows and long term frustrations we face. The longer we endure, the stronger that force is, although we may not feel it. Moses is described as having it at the time he fled from Egypt, even though in the short term his faith failed him at the time and he fled in fear (<em><a href='B:20 2:14-15'>Exo 2:14-15</a></em>). Yet God counted him as having that basic ability to endure, even to endure through his own failure and weakness:&nbsp;<em>This</em>&nbsp;is what God looks at, rather than our day-to-day acts of sin and righteousness. See on <em><a href='B:650 12:28'>Heb 12:28</a></em>.</p><p>Moses forsook the possibilities of Egypt not just for&nbsp;the reproach of Christ"; he was also motivated by the fact that "he endured (Gk. was vigorous), as seeing him who is invisible" (<em><a href='B:650 11:27'>Heb 11:27</a></em>). It was&nbsp;<em>as if</em>&nbsp;he had seen the invisible God, as he later asked to. He had the faith that sees what the rational eye cannot see (:1). When the disciples asked to see God, the Lord said that the manifestation of His character which they had seen in him was the same thing (<em><a href='B:500 14:8'>Joh 14:8</a></em>). Our experience of seeing the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, with unveiled face like Moses, ought to be a&nbsp;<em>wondrous</em>&nbsp;experience. When Moses asked to physically see God, the Angel proclaimed the characteristics of God before him. So when we read of Moses&nbsp;<em>as it were</em>&nbsp;seeing God at the time he decided to forsake Egypt, this must mean that he so appreciated God's Name and character, he so had faith in the future Kingdom which this great Name and character promise, that he left Egypt. The Lord Jesus fed for strength on the&nbsp;<em>majesty&nbsp;</em>of the Name of Yahweh (<em><a href='B:400 5:4'>Mic 5:4</a></em>). Therefore an appreciation of the Name of Yahweh is what will motivate us to forsake the attractions of this temporal world. This does not mean, of course, that simply pronouncing than Name in our prayers and readings is enough. We must develop an appreciation of God's righteousness, so that we read of His demonstration of grace,&nbsp;of mercy, of truth, of judgement for sin, and love it, revel in it, respect it. As Paul says, if we behold the glory of the Lord as Moses did, we will by that very fact be changed into the same image of that glory (<em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em>). Yet such an appreciation needs constant feeding and development. It is tragic, absolutely tragic, that over the next 40 years Moses lost this height of appreciation, until at the burning bush he seems to have almost completely lost his appreciation of the Name. Whatever spiritual heights we may reach is no guarantee that we must inevitably stay there.</p><p>Several Old Testament anticipations of the crucifixion involve a time of great darkness when God Himself 'came down', in a way reminiscent of the theophany on Sinai. There God Himself in person in some form 'came down' to earth. Moses saw His back parts, but not His face; for no man can see the face of God and live. He saw the face of the Angel and spoke to him as a man speaks with his friend. Moses seeing the back parts of God could even mean that God Himself came down to earth. If He did this at the institution of the Old Covenant: how much more at the death of His very own Son? The reference in <em><a href='B:650 11:27'>Heb 11:27</a></em> to Moses as having endured seeing the invisible may lend support to this idea that Moses did in fact see the back parts of the God whose&nbsp;<em>face</em>&nbsp;cannot be seen by men. I submit that likewise He was there, almost physically, at the cross. The blood of the covenant was shed before Him, in His presence, just as countless sacrifices in the tabernacle had foreshadowed for centuries beforehand. See on&nbsp; <em><a href='B:500 19:19'>Joh 19:19</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 11:28'>Heb 11:28</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:530 10:10'>1Co 10:10</a></em>.</p><p><em>By faith he kept the Passover and the sprinkling of the blood, that the destroyer of the firstborns should not touch them</em>- This is another example of how the faith of one party can save others. It would not be surprising if Israel were not all obedient to the command to daub their doorposts with blood; but they were saved by Moses' faith rather than their obedience.</p><p>Israel's deliverance through the Red Sea seems to be attributed to Moses' faith (<em><a href='B:650 11:28-29'>Heb 11:28-29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:36'>Act 7:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:38'>Act 7:38</a></em>). Yet in the actual record, Moses seems to have shared Israel's cry of fear, and was rebuked for this by God (<em><a href='B:20 14:15'>Exo 14:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 14:13'>Exo 14:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 14:10'>Exo 14:10</a></em>). Yet in the midst of that rebuke, we learn from the New Testament, God perceived the faith latent within Moses, beneath that human fear and panic:&nbsp;we can as it were do the work of the Saviour Himself, if we truly live as in Him. In this spirit,&nbsp;<em>Moses’</em>&nbsp;faith in keeping the Passover led to&nbsp;<em>Israel’s&nbsp;</em>salvation, they left Egypt&nbsp;<em>by&nbsp;</em>him (<em><a href='B:650 3:16'>Heb 3:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 11:28'>Heb 11:28</a></em>); and when Aaron deserved death, he was redeemed by Moses’ prayer on his behalf (<em><a href='B:50 9:20'>Deu 9:20</a></em>)<em>.</em>&nbsp;Israel were intensely disobedient to God from the time of their exodus from Egypt, even before their deliverance from the Red Sea (<em><a href='B:50 9:24'>Deu 9:24</a></em> = <em><a href='B:20 20:5-6'>Exo 20:5-6</a></em>). Only because of Moses’ faithful keeping of the Passover did the Angel which destroyed the firstborn (both Egyptian and Hebrew- see on <em><a href='B:530 10:10'>1Co 10:10</a></em>) not destroy the whole of Israel as God had initially planned. Moses faith was not simply that God would save His people in the moment of crisis; the faith spoken of in Hebrews 11 is faith in the promises to Abraham and in his promised seed. We can conclude that these things were what motivated Moses' faith.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 11:29'>Heb 11:29</a></em>&nbsp;<em>By faith they passed through the Red Sea as if on dry land, which the Egyptians in trying to do were swallowed up</em>- “By faith he kept the Passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them (Israel). By faith&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;(Israel) passed through the Red Sea". Yet at this time Israel were weak in faith, they passed through the Red Sea cuddling the idols of Egypt, from the day God knew them they were rebellious against Him; so runs the refrain of the prophets. It seems that due to Moses' faith in the promises about the salvation of Abraham's seed that Israel were saved by the Passover lamb, through his faith in these promises they passed through the Red Sea; his faith was so great, his desire for their salvation so strong, that God counted it to the rest of Israel. Thus "he (Moses, in the context) brought them (Israel) out" of Egypt (<em><a href='B:510 7:36'>Act 7:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:38'>Act 7:38</a></em>). This points forward to Christ's redemption of us, and also indicates how quickly Moses' faith rallied. And yet just prior to crossing the Sea, God rebuked Moses: "Why do you cry unto me?"- even though Moses calmly exhorted the people to have faith (<em><a href='B:20 14:15'>Exo 14:15</a></em> cp. 13). Yet by faith he brought them through the Red Sea. Therefore as with his first exit from Egypt (he feared the wrath of the King, and then he didn't), his faith wavered, but came down on the right side. Again we see how the examples of faith quoted in Hebrews 11 are often of faith displayed in weakness.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 11:30'>Heb 11:30</a></em>&nbsp;<em>By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they had been compassed about for seven days</em>- Whose faith? What faith? Was Joshua-Jesus' faith counted to the people? Or was their very weak, hope-for-the-best faith all the same accepted as faith by God's grace? The faith of Joshua was in the Abrahamic promises that the seed would inherit the land- and therefore he believed that seemingly insurmountable obstacles such as Jericho's walls would fall.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 11:31'>Heb 11:31</a></em>&nbsp;<em>By faith Rahab the prostitute did not perish with those that were disobedient, having received the spies with peace</em>- Her faith was in the promises to Abraham and their implications; things she may have heard in garbled form from her clients. She welcomed the spies "with peace" because she wished to identify with the people of the promised seed, and she later married into them and became an ancestor of the promised seed Himself. She believed not simply that Yahweh was more powerful than the local gods; she believed that Canaan would be given to Abraham's seed, and she wished to identify with that seed.</p><p>Rahab's faith was faith in God's grace. For Rahab was an Amorite and according to the law of Moses there was to be no pity or covenant with them- only death (cp. <em><a href='B:50 7:2'>Deu 7:2</a></em>). Rahab had the spiritual ambition to ask that they make a covenant with her- she requests&nbsp;<em>hesed</em>, the common term for covenant relationship ("deal kindly with me", <em><a href='B:60 2:12'>Jos 2:12</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:90 20:8'>1Sa 20:8</a></em>). And the spies made a covenant with her. Grace, like love, finds a way. Remember that she was also aware of what Israel had done to their enemies on their way to Jericho- and she appears to allude to Moses' commands to destroy utterly and&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;make covenant with the peoples of the land (<em><a href='B:50 2:32-37'>Deu 2:32-37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:1-5'>Deu 7:1-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 20:16-18'>Deu 20:16-18</a></em>).</p><p>There are times when circumstances do change the appropriacy of behaviour which in more normal life we should practice. Take lying as an example. To lie is wrong. We should be truthful. Of course. But think of Rahab. She lied- and her lie and acts of deception are quoted in the New Testament as acts of faith Further, Rahab implied that the Israelite spies were her clients- "there came men unto me" (<em><a href='B:60 2:4'>Jos 2:4</a></em>) appears to be a euphemism- and she gave the impression that of course, as they were merely passing clients, how did she know nor care who they were nor where they went? Her male interrogators would've found it hard to press her further for information after she said that. So she not only lied but she gave the impression that the messengers of the Kingdom of God were immoral- in order to protect both them and her. Of course the way she left a red cord hanging from her window, as if almost inviting people to imagine the spies had been let down over the wall from her home on the wall, was a tremendous act of faith and witness by her, but she presumably kept to her story that they were her anonymous clients. For she was still living in her home when the city was taken. Her witness was thus an indirect one to those who wished to perceive it, but it was made within the context of a major series of untruths. The Hebrew midwives lied to the Egyptians- and were blessed for it. And we could give other examples. If we probe further, and ask why such lies were acceptable and even required, we find that often those lies were connected with saving life. To do anything that would cause the loss of human life when it is in our power to save it is dangerously close to murder.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 11:32'>Heb 11:32</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And what more shall I say? For time will run out if I tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets</em>- "Time will run out" is another example of language appropriate to a sermon being given live; see on <em><a href='B:650 13:22'>Heb 13:22</a></em>.</p><p>The Lord's idea of binding the strong man must surely look back to Samson. The language can't just be accidentally similar (cp. <em><a href='B:70 16:21'>Jdg 16:21</a></em>). This means that the Lord saw Samson as the very epitome of Satan, even though ultimately he was a man of faith (<em><a href='B:650 11:32'>Heb 11:32</a></em>). Thus the Spirit doesn't forget a man's weakness, even though ultimately he may be counted righteous. The mention of all the names given here makes us reflect that all of them had weakness, quite significantly so; but their faith, weak as it was at times, was deeply impressive to God. The incomplete faith of men like Baruch was graciously counted as full faith by later inspiration (<em><a href='B:70 4:8-9'>Jdg 4:8-9</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:650 11:32'>Heb 11:32</a></em>). The exploits later mentioned have relevance to Samson in particular, who killed a lion, escaped fire and killed many Philistines by his faith- so the Spirit tells us. Yet these things were all done by him at times when he had at best a partial faith, or was living out moments of faith. He had a worldly Philistine girlfriend, a sure grief of mind to his Godly parents, and on his way to the wedding he met and killed a lion- through faith, Hebrews 11 tells us (<em><a href='B:70 14:1-7'>Jdg 14:1-7</a></em>). The Philistines threatened to burn him with fire, unless his capricious paramour of&nbsp;a wife extracted from him the meaning of his riddle. He told her, due, it seems, to his human weakness and hopeless sexual weakness. He then killed 30 Philistines to provide the clothes he owed the Philistines on account of them answering the riddle (<em><a href='B:70 14:15-19'>Jdg 14:15-19</a></em>). It is evident that Samson was weak in many ways at this time; the Proverbs make many allusions to him, the strong man ruined by the evil Gentile woman, the one who could take a city but not rule his spirit etc. And yet underneath all these weaknesses, serious as they were, there was a deep faith within Samson which Hebrews 11 highlights.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 11:33'>Heb 11:33</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Those who through faith subdued kingdoms, worked righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions</em>- This states that the likes of Abraham obtained promises by their faith. Yet the Old Testament record clearly enough states that the promises were just given to them by God, the calling of grace; they weren't requested by the patriarchs. Indeed, David was surprised at the promises God chose to make to him. Conclusion? God read their unspoken, unprayed for desires for Messiah and His Kingdom as requests for the promises- and responded. Their weak or hazy, vague faith was counted as faith. This was the case with the faith of Sarah and Abraham as noted earlier. See on :32.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 11:34'>Heb 11:34</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from weakness were made strong, became mighty in war, turned to flight armies of aliens</em>- All these things have strange reference to Samson; see on :32. Perhaps he is the particular epitome of Old Testament faith which is chosen, because his faith was so weak. Paul is not appealing for perfection; he is teaching that God is eager to accept any faith in His promises as faith, and the Hebrews should not be influenced by the perfectionism of Judaism to think that weak faith was not acceptable. That encouragement is needed today by those who have been spiritually abused by the high bars and standards demanded of them by legalistic religion. Samson is listed amongst those who out of weakness were made strong. A character study of Samson must remember this about him. This could suggest that he was even weaker than a normal man; or it could be a reference to the way in which out of his final spiritual weakness and degradation he was so wonderfully strengthened (<em><a href='B:70 16:28'>Jdg 16:28</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 11:35'>Heb 11:35</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Women received their dead by a resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection</em>- The widow woman’s son was resurrected because God heard Elijah’s faithful prayer (<em><a href='B:110 17:22'>1Ki 17:22</a></em>); and thus <em><a href='B:650 11:35'>Heb 11:35</a></em> alludes to this incident by saying that through faith- in this case, the faith of Elijah, a third party- women received their dead raised to life. The Centurion’s servant was healed for the sake of&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;faith; Jairus’ daughter was healed because of&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;faith (<em><a href='B:480 5:36'>Mar 5:36</a></em>). Hebrews 11 cites women receiving their dead back to life as an example of faith. Because of the faith and prayers of the women, a third party, their dead loved ones were at times resurrected. Lazarus being raised because of his faithful sisters Martha and Mary is the obvious example we know about, but the Hebrew writer may well have had his mind on unrecorded Old Testament examples too. Our faith in prayer in some sense limits God's ability. But "faith" in Hebrews 11 is specifically faith in the promises to Abraham which form the basis of the new covenant. The women mentioned therefore believed that the promises implied future resurrection; and yet they believed that those promises could have some present realization too.</p><p>Some were tortured "not accepting redemption" because their eyes of faith were upon the future resurrection implied in the promises to Abraham. By implication they accepted the true redemption of the blood of Christ rather than the pseudo-redemption offered by this world and the claims of Judaism and the temple cult. Again, the redeeming work of Christ is what fortifies men against the fake Kingdom and redemption of the anti-Christ anti-Kingdom of this world. There will be degrees of reward in God's Kingdom- a "better resurrection" for those who endured torture. The comfort is that those who did not endure- and there would have been many- may also be saved. But those who did will have a "better resurrection". This gradation of service and reward, some trading their talents better than others, is impossible for the legalistic mindset to cope with. But ranges of possible response to God's love, and appropriate eternal consequence for the choices made, is all the stuff of living personal relationship with God.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 11:36'>Heb 11:36</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And others were tested by mockings and whippings, yes, also by bonds and imprisonment</em>- These words are all used about the sufferings of Paul and his team, many of them witnessed personally by the Hebrew Christians. And of course Paul had himself done these things to the Hebrew Christians. So these anonymous "others" would bring the cloud of witnesses painfully up to date; for there is a chronological progression throughout Hebrews 11 to this point.</p>


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:650 11:37'>Heb 11:37</a></em>&nbsp;<em>They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were tested, they were killed with the sword. They went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill-treated</em>- The reference may be to various Jewish traditions about the fate of the prophets and some Jews during the time of the Maccabees. But the point of Hebrews 11 is that the faithful endured for the sake of their faith in the promises to Abraham, the same new covenant which was operative for the Hebrew Christians. So I personally doubt that the heroics of the Maccabees is paramount in reference here. I have noted throughout that it was often flecks of faith in moments of weakness which are being picked up here in the record. It was Jacob who wore animal skins- in deceit and weakness, but out of an enthusiasm for the promises to Abraham to be made to him. And thus he became destitute, afflicted and ill-treated by Laban. Perhaps John the Baptist is also in view; he is presented as a cameo of all the faithful (<em><a href='B:650 11:37'>Heb 11:37</a></em> = <em><a href='B:480 1:6'>Mar 1:6</a></em> and <em><a href='B:530 15:47'>1Co 15:47</a></em> = <em><a href='B:500 3:31'>Joh 3:31</a></em>):&nbsp;</h4>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 11:38'>Heb 11:38</a></em>&nbsp;<em>(Of whom the world was not worthy), wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and the holes of the earth</em>- The "world" in John's Gospel and at times in Hebrews often refers to the Jewish world. The Jewish world had turned away from God and His Son, and the fact the faithful listed so far were largely Jews meant that the Jewish world was not worthy of them. This was another warning to the Hebrews not to return to Judaism and the Jewish world. It was faithless Israel who wandered in deserts; but for some, they did so in faith in the fulfilment of the promises to Abraham, that at the end of their desert wandering there would be a promised land. David's wandering in deserts and mountains under persecution was motivated by faith in the promise that somehow, God's Kingdom would be established in Israel and the ancient promises come true, as well as those given to him personally. The possibility of a reference to David is strengthened by the next phrase about living in caves and holes. For identical language is found in <em><a href='B:90 13:6'>1Sa 13:6</a></em> concerning Israel's pining away when under attack by the Philistines. Yet some did so in faith that the Abrahamic promises would be fulfilled, even though it seemed at the time that Philistine domination was never going to permit that. Likewise "The children of Israel made them the dens ('dry river channels') which are in the mountains, and caves, and strong holds" (<em><a href='B:70 6:2'>Jdg 6:2</a></em>). Some of the Israelites who fled to the dens and caves in <em><a href='B:70 6:2'>Jdg 6:2</a></em> are described as heroes of faith because of their faith that somehow, enemy domination would and must end because of the implications of the promises to Abraham. And yet their domination by the Philistines was a result of their idolatry. They were idolatrous, and yet some had faith; and it was this faith which was perceived by God. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 11:39'>Heb 11:39</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And these all, having had witness borne to them through their faith, did not receive the fulfilment of the promise</em>- That witness, as noted on :11, was before God in the court room of Heaven. Judaism posited that the promises to Abraham and the new covenant had already been fulfilled because Israel were in their land and had the temple system. Paul is arguing that Christians are identified with the Old Testament faithful who did not consider that those things meant that the promises had been fulfilled. Seeing God keeps His promises, there had to come a far fuller fulfilment, of "eternal inheritance", implying eternal life.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 11:40'>Heb 11:40</a></em>&nbsp;<em>God having provided some better thing involving us, that without us they should not be made perfect</em>- All the believers are rewarded&nbsp;<em>together</em>, at the same time; the Greek for "without us" means 'at a space from'. Therefore there was no way that Judaism's claim that the promises had been fulfilled could be true. This verse may also teach that the number of 'the believers' is completed only by our development of faith- implying that the sooner this happens, the sooner the united perfection of the faithful can occur. God "provided" or planned this in advance; because the eye of faith can perceive how the ages of human history were structured by Him (:3). He is the "architect" of the city of God's Kingdom to come (:10). Being "made perfect" is therefore presented as the fulfilment of the promises to Abraham; and it is this moral "perfection" by imputed righteousness which the new covenant offered, according to how Paul has reasoned so far in Hebrews. Yet the literal realization of that in physical terms shall come only when the Lord returns. Then we shall be "made perfect", and not by offering animals now. It is the Lord Jesus, the seed of Abraham, who was "made perfect" by His sufferings (<em><a href='B:650 2:10'>Heb 2:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 5:9'>Heb 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 7:28'>Heb 7:28</a></em>). By being in Him, we too shall share that perfection; whereas obedience to the law made nobody perfect (<em><a href='B:650 7:19'>Heb 7:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 9:9'>Heb 9:9</a></em>). By status and in prospect, we have already been "made perfect" (<em><a href='B:650 10:14'>Heb 10:14</a></em>), the spirits or characters of dead believers have already been "made perfect" in God's record book (<em><a href='B:650 12:23'>Heb 12:23</a></em>), but the physical outworking of that shall be when all believers in imputed righteousness are "made perfect" by nature at the second coming.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 12:1'>Heb 12:1</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:520 14:8-9'>Rom 14:8-9</a></em>.</p><p><em>Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us</em>- We are to run the race encouraged by all those who have held on to their faith previously- for that is what encouraged them in their day. The Hebrews were returning to legalism, offering sacrifices for sin rather than trusting in the Lord's work. And by so doing they were actually cumbering themselves with sin, and with 'weights' which hindered their running the race.</p><p><em>The</em>&nbsp;race could imply that before each of us an individualized racetrack is set, and we are to run that race having laid aside every distraction. Ask God to reveal to you His intentions and specific plans for you. Likewise when Paul wrote of shedding&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;sin which doth so easily beset us, he may have been suggesting that we each have our own specific weakness to overcome. This is certainly a comfort to us in our spiritual struggles. We aren't alone in them. They were given to us. We aren't alone with our nature. The purpose and plan of God for us is articulated even through the darkest nooks of our very essential being. Understanding this should make us the more patient with our brethren, whose evident areas of weakness are not ours. The race is "set before us", and the same word is used of how the Lord Jesus ran His race looking at the joy "set before" Him (:2). The connection is in that the race and the joy are the same, they merge into one, the road becomes the destination, for those who have the solid hope of salvation ahead of them.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 12:2'>Heb 12:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Looking to Jesus the author and completer of faith, who for the joy that was set before him-&nbsp;</em>The race is to be run (:1) with our eye on "Jesus" as the finish point. Our ultimate aim is to become like Him; "we shall be like Him". The joy set before the Lord was to sit at the right hand of God, where He mediates for us. In chapters 8-10 the argument has been that as the Lord entered the Holiest and there does service for us, so we have also entered. Our joy ahead is to be His joy, to be as Him, in working for others to the Father's glory. Our efforts to do so in this life are designed to help us acquire a taste for that eternal way of being.</p><p>"Author" could be translated "prince / leader", but the translation "author" is valid; and it connects with Him being also the completer of our faith. Grace means that God and not ourselves takes the initiative. As noted on <em><a href='B:650 11:1'>Heb 11:1</a></em>, true faith in God is predicated upon the Lord Jesus; it is encounter with Him which authors faith in us. And He develops, matures and completes it, if we let Him. All appeals to scientific 'evidence' falsely so called for God and the Bible are pointless and misdirecting us; for it is the Lord Jesus who authors and develops faith in our hearts, through the work of the Spirit which matures our faith. "Completer" is the same word just used in <em><a href='B:650 11:40'>Heb 11:40</a></em> of how we shall be "made perfect" at His return; but that point of faith reached at our death or His coming will have been developed by His direct action in our lives. Hebrews 11 speaks of how so many died in faith, the process of faith development continued unto the end of their days. In this we see the significance of old age; we may cease to have much significance in secular life, but the Lord's process of developing our faith continues unto the end. We must remember that the Lord's efforts to mature faith continue in the lives of all His people, including those whom we may consider too far gone in their falling away. Any efforts we make for them will have His blessing, and will be channels of His activity for them.</p><p>"Set before" can imply a vision, as if Christ saw something in front of Him as He hung on the cross. The spirit of Christ in <em><a href='B:230 16:11'>Psa 16:11</a></em> describes Christ looking forward to fullness of joy in God's Heavenly presence, because "at thy right hand are pleasures for evermore". Christ is now at God's right hand interceding for us. Therefore we suggest that the joy set before Christ in vision as He hung on the cross was the joy of His future mediation for our sins as we repent of them and confess them in prayer.</p><p>“For the joy set before Him He endured the cross” may seem on first reading to mean that He did serve for a reward. Until we understand that the Greek word&nbsp;<em>anti</em>&nbsp;translated “for” really means ‘in place of’. With evident reference to the wilderness temptation to take the Kingdom joys without the cross, the writer is making the point that instead of the joy that the tempter of His own flesh set before Him, He endured the cross.</p><p><em>Endured the cross, despising the shame, and has been sat down at the right hand of the throne of God</em>- The shame of the cross is a theme of the records. The reproach broke the Lord's heart (<em><a href='B:230 69:20'>Psa 69:20</a></em>). It could even be that He suffered a heart rupture, a literal broken heart, some hours prior to His death- hence when His side was pierced, blood flowed out- and corpses don’t usually bleed. It has been commented that severe emotional trauma is enough to cause such a rupture. He wasn't hard and impervious to it all. He knew who He was, and where He was going. To be treated as He was, was such an insult to the God of all grace. And He keenly sensed this. <em><a href='B:650 12:2-3'>Heb 12:2-3</a></em> parallels the Lord's enduring of the cross with His enduring "such contradiction of sinners against Himself". These mockings were therefore part of "the cross". The "cross" process began before His impalement; in the same way as some verses which evidently concern the crucifixion are applied to the Lord's earlier life. His was&nbsp;<em>a life</em>&nbsp;of cross carrying. And we are asked to live the same life, not just the occasional 'cross' of crisis, but a life embodying the cross principles.</p><p>There's significant Old Testament emphasis upon the fact that those who are truly on the Lord's side shall not be put to shame. It was prophesied of the Lord Jesus that He set His face like a flint, "that I shall not be ashamed" (<em><a href='B:290 50:7'>Isa 50:7</a></em>). Perhaps His lack of destructive anger was because He didn't let Himself be shamed by men, instead taking His self-worth and values from God's acceptance of Him. To avoid "anger" in the wrong sense, we need to avoid being wrongly shamed. And we can do this by ensuring we ourselves aren't led into shame, due to placing too great a value upon the opinions of men. Our shame should be before God for our sins against Him, and not before men. Hence the prophets often criticize Israel for not being ashamed of their sins before God (<em><a href='B:300 6:15'>Jer 6:15</a></em>). Our shame before men leads to anger; our shame before God is resolved in repentance and belief in His gracious forgiveness. Thus Jeremiah recalls how his repentance involved being ashamed, and yet then being "instructed" (<em><a href='B:300 31:19'>Jer 31:19</a></em>). It's through knowing this kind of shame before God that we come to a position where we are unashamed. Thus Joel begins his prophecy with a call to "be ashamed" before God for sin, and concludes with the comfort that in this case, "my people shall never again be ashamed" (<em><a href='B:360 1:1'>Joe 1:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:360 2:27'>Joe 2:27</a></em>). In this sense we can understand the comment that the Lord Jesus 'despised the shame' of the cross (<em><a href='B:650 12:2'>Heb 12:2</a></em>). He 'thought against' it Gk:, he refused to be shamed before men, even though naked and bedraggled and humanly defeated; for He believed that He was being 'lifted up' in glory from God's viewpoint. Paul could say that it mattered very little to him how men thought of him, for the Lord's judgment was all that mattered (<em><a href='B:530 4:4'>1Co 4:4</a></em>); and the Lord Jesus gave somewhat the same impression, for He evidently "regarded not the person of men" (<em><a href='B:470 22:16'>Mat 22:16</a></em>). If our value, validation, self-worth etc. are dependent upon men's opinions of us, then we're likely to be easily shamed; and this sets us up for all manner of anger feelings, and makes us the more easily woundable by those whose acceptance we crave. Quite simply- if God has accepted us, then don't let ourselves be shamed by men.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 12:3'>Heb 12:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Think on him that endured such hostility from sinners against himself, so that you do not grow weary and lose heart</em>- "Think on Him" is the essence of true spirituality and Christianity; it is who we are when nobody is watching which is the litmus test of our faith. We need to repeatedly challenge ourselves with the question as to how much we are thinking on Him; whether we are truly Christ-centred or not. Thinking about issues vaguely connected to our religion is not always the same as this mental focus upon Him which is so utterly critical. The apostasy of the Hebrews was most essentially a mental issue; they were growing weary and fainting in their minds (AV) in that they were losing their personal focus upon the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 12:4'>Heb 12:4</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:580 2:1'>Col 2:1</a></em>.</p><p><em>In your striving against sin you have yet to resist to the point of shedding your blood</em>- Sin is personified here, as it often is. Once that basic truth is accepted, it should not be difficult to appreciate that sometimes that personification is called satan or the devil, the great enemy.</p><p>We must balance ourselves against Him who endured such contradiction, and the more freely confess that we “have not yet resisted unto blood (in our) striving against sin”. Only by a personal reconstruction and reliving of the cross, and a serious, sustained attempt to live out something of its spirit in our lives, will we come to a recognition of the depth of our own failure, our need for His grace, and an appreciation of what really was done for us. And if we realize all this, we will respond- mightily. As the forgiveness suggested by the sin offering led on to the burnt offering (with its message of dedication), so our desperation leads to our dedication (<em><a href='B:30 5:7'>Lev 5:7</a></em>).</p><p>The struggle against sin in the Lord which led to blood alludes to His sweat as blood drops. It is a call for us to recognize this, and to have the picture of our Lord in Gethsemane as a motivation "lest we be wearied, and faint in (our) minds". Paul is saying: 'You've never got anywhere near that intensity. So don't get tired of the unending mental battle against your natural mind. Consider Him there' (<em><a href='B:490 22:44'>Luk 22:44</a></em>). But, the implication is, we ultimately should. We bear about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal body (<em><a href='B:540 6:10'>2Co 6:10</a></em>)- not just at resurrection, but now. And it is through this that we bear witness to the resurrected Jesus. He can be seen as alive because He lives in us. The disciples in Gethsemane slumbered and slept when the Lord had specifically asked them to struggle on in prayer. A stone's throw from them, the Son of God was involved in a height of spiritual struggle utterly unequalled. And they dozed off in the midst of their half-serious prayers. This incident is alluded to here in a powerful appeal to us: "Consider him that endured as the kneeling disciples should have watched the distant Lord Jesus as an inspiration to themselves::. lest&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;be wearied, and faint in&nbsp;<em>your</em>&nbsp;minds as they did:&nbsp;<em>Ye</em>&nbsp;have not yet resisted unto blood cp. the Lord's sweat as drops of blood, in your striving against sin". Time and again Paul alludes, sometimes perhaps even subconsciously, to the record of Gethsemane. He evidently saw in those garden prayers and the disciples' sleepiness a powerful cameo of our every battle and failure; and a strong, urgent plea for us to rise up and catch the fire of real spiritual struggle.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 12:5'>Heb 12:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>You have forgotten the word of encouragement which reasons with you as with sons: My son, do not regard lightly the chastening of the Lord, nor become faint when you are reproved by Him</em>- This alludes to the idea of a living word by speaking of an Old Testament passage as 'reasoning' with us. We are a separate people. We have been redeemed from them by the precious blood of Christ. We are spiritual Jews. What God spoke to men like Jacob, He therefore spoke to us (<em><a href='B:350 12:5'>Hos 12:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 28:15'>Gen 28:15</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:650 12:5-6'>Heb 12:5-6</a></em>). All Scripture is recorded for&nbsp;<em>our&nbsp;</em>learning and comfort (<em><a href='B:520 15:4'>Rom 15:4</a></em>). The exhortation of <em><a href='B:240 3:11'>Pro 3:11</a></em> “speaketh unto&nbsp;<em>you&nbsp;</em>as unto children::.". Hebrews 3 quotes&nbsp; Psalms 95 as relevant to all readers. The warnings there for its "today" were also be a warning for the first century "today", and yet likewise we can still take hold of the past word of God and relate it to the needs of our "today”. We can fail to personalize God’s word, in the sense of realizing that it speaks to us personally. Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar what would happen to him unless he repented; and he wouldn’t listen. When his judgment came, God told him: “O King Nebuchadnezzar,&nbsp;<em>to thee it is spoken</em>: The kingdom is departed from thee” (<em><a href='B:340 4:31'>Dan 4:31</a></em>). We have a way of reading and hearing, and yet not making the crucial connection with ourselves.</p><p>The quotation from Proverbs 3 is about how "my son" should accept discipline. But the "my son" passages in Proverbs were particularly relevant to the Lord Jesus. <em><a href='B:240 3:4'>Pro 3:4</a></em> speaks of the son growing in favour with God and man, and that is quoted about the Lord in <em><a href='B:490 2:52'>Luk 2:52</a></em>. Here, a few verses later in <em><a href='B:240 3:12'>Pro 3:12</a></em>, the "my son" is defined as "the son in whom the heavenly Father delights". That Son in whom God's soul delighted was the Lord Jesus. And so a passage specifically about the Lord is quoted here about us, implying we are in Him. And that is exactly the context here in Hebrews 12. The Lord's sufferings are to be seen as ours, and all are specific hard experiences are to be understood as in some way a fellowshipping of His sufferings.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 12:6'>Heb 12:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For the Lord disciplines those whom He loves, and chastises every son whom He receives</em>- The persecution of the Hebrew Christians in Jerusalem is portrayed by Paul as the Lord's discipline. Their error was presumably in turning away from His Son and back to Judaism; and in resisting the spread of the Gospel to the Gentiles. But discipline should never be perceived as a withdrawal of love, and Paul emphasizes that point here. Despite their apostasy, the Father was in process of receiving Gk. admitting, accepting them as His adopted sons, and He was chastising them so that they would adopt the family likeness. This of course was quite against the spirit of Judaism, which assumed that Jewish birth was all that was needed to be in the Divine family. The emphasis may be upon&nbsp;<em>every</em>&nbsp;son receiving discipline and chastisement; for the Greek words are used about the Lord's chastening and suffering in His time of dying (<em><a href='B:490 23:22'>Luk 23:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:19'>Mat 20:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:1'>Joh 19:1</a></em>). His sufferings then are ours today; and they are intended as part of our spiritual path to glory.</p>


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:650 12:7'>Heb 12:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Endure your sufferings as a father’s chastening; it shows how God deals with you as with sons. For what son is there whom his father does not chastise?</em>- As noted on :6, the Lord's sufferings are to be ours. The Father's chastening of Him was not in the sense of correcting error, but in order to stimulate His spiritual growth. And so it is with our sufferings; they can of course be for correction, but there is no direct link between sin and suffering in the immediate term. The fact we experience sufferings which can be related to those of God's Son shows that we are indeed His children. And we can thereby take comfort that we are God's children.</h4>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 12:8'>Heb 12:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But if you are without chastening, of which all have been made partakers, then aren't you illegitimate children and not real sons?</em>- This is the error of the prosperity Gospel, the idea that God is the source of only positive experience. The idea is that if we don't experience God's chastening, we are not therefore His true children. We may appear His children, but we are illegitimate. The Hebrew Christians were being wooed by the temple system; their persecution from them and difficulties with the Roman authorities would apparently cease if they reunited with Judaism, which was a recognized religion under Caesar. But then they would be God's children only in appearance; in real spiritual terms, they would be illegitimate. Paul uses the same argument in the allegory of Galatians 4; the Jerusalem that now is were to be associated with Ishmael, the illegitimate son of Abraham, and not with Isaac, in whom the seed was called. "Partakers" is a major theme in Hebrews; we are made partakers in Christ, of the Holy Spirit, of the calling from Heaven (<em><a href='B:650 1:9'>Heb 1:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 3:1'>Heb 3:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 3:14'>Heb 3:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 6:4'>Heb 6:4</a></em>). But these wonderful things involve likewise a partaking in the Lord's sufferings under God's good hand; and "all" the true children must partake of them.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 12:9'>Heb 12:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Furthermore, we had the fathers of our flesh to chasten us, and we gave them respect; shall we not much rather be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live?</em>- The chastening of our natural fathers was to set us in the path of being normal responsible human beings after the flesh. But all the same, a life no matter how well lived ends in death. God's chastening is so that we might develop spiritually, and live eternally. To submit ourselves to God means more specifically submitting ourselves to the gift of His righteousness and not seeking to 'get' righteousness by our own works; Judaism had failed to submit to God in this way (<em><a href='B:520 10:3'>Rom 10:3</a></em>). We have been made subject to the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:560 1:22'>Eph 1:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 5:24'>Eph 5:24</a></em>), made the footstool of His feet in status (<em><a href='B:650 10:13'>Heb 10:13</a></em>), but we must live this out in practice. Thus all things have been put in subjection under Him in prospect and in status, but now we see not yet all things subjected unto Him in practice (<em><a href='B:650 2:8'>Heb 2:8</a></em>). In :23 we will read of the spirits of just men perfected; their spirits, who they were in essence, had been perfected by the Father's work with them through the processes of chastisement throughout their lives.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 12:10'>Heb 12:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For they indeed for a few days chastened us as seemed good to them; but He for our profit, so that we may be partakers of His holiness</em>- This was an appeal to the Hebrew culture of respect to fathers. The problem was that many of the Hebrew Christians had fathers who were or had been in their lives staunch Judaists. The call of the Gospel was to be in subjection to our heavenly Father more than to the fathers of our flesh. The discipline of human fathers is often<em>&nbsp;ad hoc</em>&nbsp;and at times inappropriate; here too severe, there too lax. But the hand of the heavenly Father is not like that; we can be guaranteed that every touch of His hand is for our eternal "profit". That word is associated with the work of the Spirit in human lives (<em><a href='B:500 16:7'>Joh 16:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 12:7'>1Co 12:7</a></em>), which is how in practice God chastises / operates in our lives.</p><p>Our chastening by God is so "that we might be partakers of His holiness". The ideas of sanctification and holiness are parallel (e:g. "sanctify yourselves::. for I am holy", <em><a href='B:30 11:44'>Lev 11:44</a></em>). It is the word of the Gospel that sanctifies (<em><a href='B:500 17:17'>Joh 17:17</a></em>), thus enabling us to be partakers of God's holiness. The message of the Gospel word is that event now has ultimate meaning, for it is the good news that God's chastening is preparing us to be sanctified / made holy so that we may do His work. Paul has previously argued that the goal of our spiritual journey is that we in Christ might enter the holiest to do God's service, for others to His glory. As noted on :8, we are partakers in the Lord and His sufferings, but our identity with Him means that we are both now and eternally partakers in His holiness, His righteousness imputed to us.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 12:11'>Heb 12:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>All chastening seems for the present to be not joyous but grievous; yet afterward it yields peaceable fruit to those that have been exercised thereby- the fruit of righteousness-&nbsp;&nbsp;</em>There is a parallel between the action of the Gospel word upon a man and the effect of trials:&nbsp;"Chastening::. yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are&nbsp;<em>exercised</em>&nbsp;thereby" (<em><a href='B:650 12:11'>Heb 12:11</a></em> AV):Yet "the word of righteousness::. strong meat" leads to those who respond to the word of God "by reason of use (having) their senses&nbsp;<em>exercised&nbsp;</em>to discern both good and evil" (<em><a href='B:650 5:13-14'>Heb 5:13-14</a></em>); and the word abiding in us also yields the fruits of righteousness (<em><a href='B:500 15:4'>Joh 15:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:7'>Joh 15:7</a></em>). The word of the Gospel enables us to make sense of "all chastening", and there is a synthesis between our life experience and that word, whereby we can be assured that there is no such thing as random event in our lives, but all chastening has a potential role to play in exercising us unto the fruit of righteousness. The "fruit of righteousness" is a term elsewhere used about the fruits of the Spirit filling our lives insofar as the gift of the Spirit works within believing hearts (<em><a href='B:560 5:9'>Eph 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 1:11'>Phi 1:11</a></em>). Paul speaks of the work of the Spirit here in terms of the Lord's chastening, designed to bring forth spirituality in our spirit or character. To receive the Spirit, therefore, is no joyful thing in practice in that it will be associated with Divinely directed chastening.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 12:12'>Heb 12:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore strengthen the hands which hang down and the feeble knees</em>- The Hebrews were fainting in the Gospel race. Now if Scripture interprets Scripture at all, this just has to be an allusion back to feeble-kneed Moses, with his hanging-down hands being held up. And the apostle says: 'You are the one with feeble knees and hands, represented by Moses in Exodus 17'. This allusion also critiques the Judaist view of Moses as the supreme icon of spirituality. But the quotation in full is from <em><a href='B:290 35:3'>Isa 35:3</a></em>, which urges the spiritually weak to be strengthened because the day of the Messianic Kingdom is very near. And this was so relevant to the Hebrew Christians. Paul again reasons as if the second coming was just around the corner; and it could've been in the first century. But God's people refused to heed the exhortations, and so that day was delayed until our last days.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 12:13'>Heb 12:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be disabled further, but rather be healed</em>- The unbelieving world is repeatedly characterized as walking in a crooked path (<em><a href='B:490 3:5'>Luk 3:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:40'>Act 2:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 2:15'>Phi 2:15</a></em> and often in Proverbs). Quietly starting every day right is part of our walking in a&nbsp;<em>straight</em>&nbsp;path, following the way of the cherubim, walking in step with the Spirit (<em><a href='B:550 5:25'>Gal 5:25</a></em>); and by walking in that straight daily path we will not have opportunity to stumble. But the message here is not just personal; we are to make straight paths for our collective feet as a community, so that the lame may not be further stumbled but rather be healed. Church life in community so often ends up placing a cloud of legislation and legalistic conformities in the way of the stumbling, so that they are not healed but made to stumble further. The church should be a straight path between God's Kingdom and stumbling man; that is to be the repeated and simple focus of all collective activity. And by not doing so, we are going to be guilty of causing others to stumble, which nets condemnation.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 12:14'>Heb 12:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Follow after peace with all men, and the holiness without which no one shall see the Lord</em>- The idea of "peace" is of peace with God and each other on the basis of sin forgiven. This is the way to make straight collective paths for our communal feet (see on :13). If we are to partake in the Lord's holiness (see on :10), we are to seek it proactively. The idea of following after connects with the picture of following a straight path in :13. It is a lack of peace within the community which causes the lame to stumble further; and a focus upon holiness and holding in view the final end of 'seeing the Lord' will lead us to avoid making others stumble. Seeing the Lord is understood in Revelation in fairly literal terms; God Himself shall dwell upon earth, we will see His face, as Job and others hoped for. This is further evidence that we are to understand God as a personal being rather than as an abstraction.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 12:15'>Heb 12:15</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:690 2:28'>1Jn 2:28</a></em>.</p><p><em>See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God; that no root of bitterness springing up causes trouble, and by it many are defiled</em>- The bitter root refers to a poisonous plant growing up in the path to the Kingdom spoken of in :13 and :14. It is the responsibility of each of us, and not just the elders, to ensure that none fail of God's grace; and the Judaist menace was taking people away from that grace. The bitter rooted plant could lead to many being defiled, a term with cultic overtones. Defilement meant that the defiled could no longer serve in the temple cult, and the holiness / imputed righteousness which was to be followed after and attained by grace would then be made null and void. The quotation is from <em><a href='B:50 29:18'>Deu 29:18</a></em> LXX which speaks of a false teacher arising and inviting God's people to serve the idols of the world around them. This is how Paul presented the Judaizers with their appeal to the Jerusalem Christians to return to the apparent monotheism of the temple cult. It was no more than idolatry; and we noted on <em><a href='B:650 1:1'>Heb 1:1</a></em> that Paul was deeply touched by Stephen's address in Acts 7 and reflects it in his reasoning to the Hebrew Christians. Stephen too had by inference made this same point. And this is how Judaism should be seen by Christians today.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 12:16'>Heb 12:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Ensure that no one is an immoral or Godless person like Esau, who for one meal sold his own birthright</em>- The false teachers of :15 are associated with immorality; and this connection is seen throughout the New Testament warnings against false teachers. They were not simply intellectually mistaken. There was a moral issue too; Judaism was attractive even to Gentile converts in places like Corinth and Ephesus because the idea of justification through a few rituals opened up the way to behave immorally in other areas of life which were outside the circumference of the rituals. The Hebrew Christians had identified with Isaac, the true seed; and thereby with Jacob too. It was Judaism which was the illegitimate seed of Abraham, associated with Hagar (Galatians 4), the illegitimate children of :8. By returning to Judaism they were selling their birthright for temporal benefit of the moment- the apparent safety from Roman and Jewish persecution. Judaism is here called "Godless", just like Esau, despite his public attempts to be pleasing to his father Isaac by choosing wives he thought might please them. Esau was the firstborn, but he threw this away. The Lord Jesus is the "firstborn" of all creation, a form of the same Greek word used for "birthright". The believers are counted as the firstborn who were saved by the Passover lamb (<em><a href='B:650 11:28'>Heb 11:28</a></em>), and thus are "the church of the firstborn" (:23). But they were giving away that birthright for temporal benefit, just as many do today in different contexts.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:650 12:17'>Heb 12:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For you know that afterward, when he wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected; for he found no conditions for a change of mind, though he sought it diligently with tears</em>- Esau before Isaac, pleading with him to change his irrevocable rejection, is picked up here as a type of the rejected at the day of judgment. The implication is that Jacob at this time symbolized the saints; yet he was no saint at that time. If Esau's rejection by Isaac is indeed a picture of the rejection of the goats at the final judgment, Isaac there becomes a hazy prefigurement of our future judge. And yet the record presents a scene of both father and rejected son as shaken and helpless together, both dearly wishing it could be different (<em><a href='B:10 27:33'>Gen 27:33</a></em>). The sadness of Isaac becomes a figure of the pathos and sadness of God in rejecting the wicked. Note how the LXX of <em><a href='B:10 27:38'>Gen 27:38</a></em> adds the detail: "And Isaac said nothing; and Esau wept". We are left to imagine the thoughts of Isaac's silence. Truly our God takes no pleasure at all in the death of the wicked (<em><a href='B:330 33:11'>Eze 33:11</a></em>).</p><p>Esau's great and bitter cry for blessing is quoted here as typical of the attitude of all the rejected. He had earlier shrugged at the implications of selling his birthright, but now his self-rejection was being worked out in practice. The rejected argue back "When did we see you:::?". Surely they wouldn't have bothered doing so, unless they were upset at their rejection, and desiring to see the verdict altered. Israel's passing through the Red Sea is a definite type of baptism, and their largely unsuccessful wilderness journey therefore becomes a pattern of failed Christian lives. Yet when they were told that they were unworthy to enter the land, obvious as it must have been to them, they repented and were willing to make any sacrifice to enter it (<em><a href='B:40 14:40-45'>Num 14:40-45</a></em>). When they disobeyed God's word and fled to Egypt from the Babylonians, they then so wanted to return to their land cp. the Kingdom- but it was all too late (<em><a href='B:300 44:14'>Jer 44:14</a></em>). Cain is another type of the rejected- instead of going as far away from Divine things as possible after his condemnation, he went to live on the east of Eden- where the cherubim were, guarding the barred entry to God's paradise (<em><a href='B:10 4:16'>Gen 4:16</a></em>). The Hebrews were warned not to follow Esau's sinful example (<em><a href='B:10 27:34'>Gen 27:34</a></em>), otherwise at the judgment they would experience what he did. In view of this, the weeping of the rejected at judgment may be as a result of desperate pleading with the Lord to change his mind. Earlier in Hebrews the point is made that "he that despised Moses' law died without mercy". The phrase "without mercy" is surely included to point out that the condemned would have earnestly pleaded for mercy, after the pattern of Cain, the foolish virgins pleading for entry::. The next verse continues: "Of how much sorer punishment::. shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the son of God?" (<em><a href='B:650 10:28-29'>Heb 10:28-29</a></em>), indicating that the sad picture of those condemned under the old Covenant, pleading for mercy, will be repeated at the judgment of those under the new Covenant.</p><p>And yet the impossibility of retracting the decision may not only refer to the finality of judgment day. The passage reads more comfortably as if Paul means that if they returned to the temple cult, there would be no way of coming back to Christ. And yet surely any sinner can always repent? Perhaps Paul is reasoning as in :12 (see note there) as if the Lord's return is around the corner. The temple cult was about to be destroyed as the Lord had predicted in the Olivet prophecy, and if now at the last moment the Hebrew Christians returned to it, then they were going to be destroyed in its destruction.</p>


