|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 31, 2023 12:35:50 GMT -5
C. Final Exhortations (13:1-19)
Having led his readers through a vast and glorious consideration of Jesus’ person and work and all that their God has accomplished in Him, the writer ended his epistle with a series of brief, practical exhortations. This underscores the pastoral intent of his letter; he intended his doctrinal instruction to nurture and strengthen their faith and provide resource to help them persevere and thrive in their lives as God’s children in the Messiah.
1. The first exhortation pertains to the most fundamental aspect of the Christian life – the one that encompasses and gives definition and expression to all others. And that is the obligation of love. In Paul’s words, love is the one debt that Christians are to carry, the one debt that is never paid off (Romans 13:8-10). Paul recognized love as being the very essence of Israel’s Torah, such that the one who loves has “fulfilled the law.” His logic was simple: The Law of Moses defined and prescribed Israel’s sonship in relation to Yahweh as Father. If God is love, and a son shares the essential likeness of his father, then the people of Israel would fulfill their sonship – they would fulfill God’s Torah – by living lives of love as love is true of God Himself. But this is a crucial caveat, for there is kind of love that all people recognize and express in their relationships with other human beings. But this is a love that, like everything else in human existence, is an expression of the fall. Love as people know it exists in the context of human alienation – alienation from God, from all others, and from themselves. This “love” is a perverse caricature of love as it is true in God Himself, and as He intends it to define His image-children.
Human beings become capable of love when they are taken up in the life of the God who is love. Hence John’s assertion: “Whoever loves has been born of God” (1 John 4:7).
Jesus expressed the same truth from a different angle in the Sermon on the Mount. That discourse was His “gospel (good news) of the kingdom,” in which He challenged His Israelite audience to rethink their notion of God’s kingdom and their relation to it. Jesus was indeed inaugurating Yahweh’s kingdom, but it was a very different kingdom than
they expected, even as He didn’t at all fit their messianic expectation and hope. The kingdom Jesus had come to inaugurate is the kingdom of God’s new creation, the final, everlasting kingdom that echoes the heavenly realm and sees heaven and earth converge (Matthew 6:10). Thus it is a kingdom characterized by love as God is love, not the natural love that vilifies perceived enemies and reserves itself for those who enjoy special favor or reciprocate in kind (Matthew 5:43-48). Such “love” is just one more manifestation of the alienation and self-enslavement that define human existence under the fall. In truth, this sort of love is no different from hatred, for both are expressions of the same selfcentered existence: People “love” those whom they regard favorably, and they “hate”
those whom they hold in disfavor.
But the love that defines God – the love that has been fully disclosed and expressed in Jesus – is the self-sacrificing love that seeks the true and highest good of the other, with no concern for one’s own benefit. This is the love that Hosea’s prophecy acclaims as it depicts Yahweh as a spurned and humiliated lover whose own unrelenting love leads Him to pursue His beloved with the goal of restoring her to Himself and showering her with His devotion and riches of His blessing (ref. chaps. 1-2).
This is the same love that motivated the incarnation (God’s everlasting union with His human image-bearer),and that consummated that union at Calvary on behalf of the human race. This is a sacrificial love that withholds nothing and risks everything for the sake of the other’s good;it doesn’t do its work at a distance or with impersonal detachment but by fully taking upon itself the burden it seeks to resolve (John 3:16-17, 13:1, 15:13; Romans 5:1-8, 8:1-39; 1 Corinthians 13:4-7; 1 John 3:16-18).
a. The writer’s opening exhortation was succinct: “Let the love of the brethren abide” (13:1). He then went on to give two practical examples of abiding love among this community of believers. Both of his examples speak to intentional, active care for others – loving in deed, and not just in word (1 John 3:18).
Moreover, they speak to the issue of loving those who are distant – in the first instance, distant relationally (13:2); in the second, distant circumstantially (13:3).
In terms of the exhortation itself, the writer was calling his readers to a perpetual commitment of love toward those within the community of faith; his concern was the love of the brethren. This doesn’t imply that Christian love is reserved for fellow believers. Indeed, if God’s children are characterized by love as He is, they will love all people (Romans 13:8-10; 1 Corinthians 16:14; Galatians 5:22). But there is a unique bond of love between Christians, for they are united to each other as fellow-sharers in Jesus’ life – the life of God Himself. In this way they are members of one another, so that love for the brethren is love for God and oneself. Hence John’s constant refrain (John 13:34-35, 15:1-17; 1 John 2:9-10, 3:10-23, 4:7-5:2; 2 John 5; 3 John 5-6; cf. Romans 12:10; Ephesians 4:11-16).
b. Again, the writer followed his general exhortation with two examples, the first of which concerns love as hospitable (13:2). This example of love in action highlights love’s eagerness to receive and provide for those outside of our familiar relationships: “Do not neglect love for strangers.” (The word in the text is a compound noun literally rendered stranger-love.) In contemporary American usage, the word stranger tends to carry the connotation of threat or danger, but the Greek terminology simply denotes a person who is unfamiliar. Here, the writer was referring to Christian brethren who were from outside the readers’ immediate community, and he likely had in mind foreigners or travelers who found themselves in need of lodging and/or other provision. This sort of hospitality was
common in the ancient world, for there weren’t many lodging places and people counted on the kindness and provision of others. And yet people are naturally reluctant to welcome strangers into their homes without some sort of relational connection, reference, or commendation, and so it was with these Hebrews.
The writer’s grammar underscores this failure in hospitality: Stop neglecting love for strangers. People tend to avoid involvement with strangers out of suspicion, fear, prejudice, or a simple lack of concern, and obviously this should not be the case among Christian brethren. But even where believers have a hospitable heart toward outsiders, they can still neglect the practice of hospitality – not because they don’t care, but out of busyness,preoccupation, and other distractions.
Love for the other is the reason for Christian hospitality, but there is further motivation in the fact that its significance transcends the hospitality itself. One never knows the full impact of the simplest acts of love, or what fruit God will bring from them. Here, the author reminded his readers that some have actually received angels, when they thought they were being hospitable toward a human stranger. This was the case with Abraham (Genesis 18) and Lot (Genesis 19); in fact, one of the strangers that Abraham received interacted with him as Yahweh Himself. The writer wasn’t suggesting that his readers should expect angelic visitations, but they should expect rich blessing from hosting brethren who share the same Father(cf.Romans 1:8-12).And they also needed the reminder that familiarity appearances, or circumstances must not determine the occasions and objects of their hospitality. If Christians only embrace those to whom they are endeared, their “love” is no different from that of pagans (Matthew 5:46-47).
c. The writer’s first example speaks to the obligation of love for those who are relationally distant, while the second one concerns those who are distant physically and circumstantially. Once again he emphasized that love involves conscious, active concern, but here love’s objects are brethren who are remote from one’s daily life. Specifically, he mentioned those who are imprisoned for the faith or otherwise mistreated (13:3). And he also made explicit what is implied in the concept of love for the brethren, which is solidarity in the household of faith.
Because Christians are members of Christ through His indwelling Spirit, they are also members of one another (1 Corinthians 12:12-14). Thus the writer encouraged his readers to be mindful of their imprisoned brethren and care for them as if they themselves were imprisoned alongside them. So also they were to view the ill-treatment suffered by their Christian brothers and sisters as if it were inflicted upon them. They, too, are “in the body,” meaning they also inhabit a frail and mortal body subject to the suffering their brethren were enduring.
The writer’s point was that his readers should regard the suffering and mistreatment of others as if it were their own. When the plight of others is “out of sight,” it’s very easy for it to be “out of mind,” even when it involves other believers. It’s an undeniable truth that personal concerns and the demands of daily life tend to crowd out conscious thought of others. And the more remote a particular experience is, the harder it is to relate to it in a real and personal way.
One might sincerely sympathize with another’s suffering, but that’s not the same as regarding it as one’s own. But this is what love does, and it isn’t distracted or dulled by immediate concerns or remoteness. Rather, love reaches across any and every separation to be present and one with its object in his particular circumstance. In Paul’s words, because believers are members of one another as members of Christ and His fullness, the experience of one is the experience of all: “If one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it” (1 Corinthians 12:24-26; cf. also Romans 12:9-16). Such love is a discipline of mind and heart, but it is also grounded in the new creation in Jesus. And when Christians love one another in this way, the world has no choice but to take notice (John 13:34-35, 17:20-23).
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 31, 2023 12:37:10 GMT -5
2. The writer’s first and overarching exhortation concerned the obligation of brotherly love, and he followed that with two examples in which love for the brethren commonly falters.
Certainly that was the case with his readers, whose personal struggles were distracting them and dulling their concern for their fellow believers, many of whom were enduring the same sort of mistreatment. Having charged them to fulfill their obligation of love toward strangers (which included Gentile believers) and those suffering unjustly, the author turned his attention to the matter of marriage (13:4). At first glance, this exhortation might seem awkward and out of place; what led his mind from concern for strangers and prisoners to the topic of marriage? The obvious connection is love, which is the most basic characteristic of the Christian life – life “hidden with Christ in God.” Yet one might argue that the writer didn’t mention love here, but only marriage and the marital “bed.” But the same is true of the previous two exhortations, though it’s clear he had the obligation of love in mind. But if the three exhortations of verses 2-4 are related to one another as examples of love in action, does this suggest that the present marital one should also be understood in terms of brotherly love? If so, does it only apply to
Christians who have believing spouses?
The writer made no such distinction, indicating that marriage as such is to be honored by all. (The prepositional phrase could also mean, in every respect.) This conclusion is reinforced by the fact his exhortation pertains to marital love, and love is an unqualified obligation. Indeed, love is the very essence of Christian ethics and morality: God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him (ref. 1 John 4:7-21). In Paul’s words, love is the fulfillment of all of God’s Torah. The obedient Christian life consists in “faith working through love,” and this alone shows that the writer wasn’t limiting his instruction to particular marriages. Similarly, Paul opposed the Corinthian notion that believers should put away their unbelieving spouses, or at least withhold themselves conjugally from such spouses. To the contrary, Paul argued that a person’s union with Christ initiates a new and greater obligation of love within marriage, irrespective of their spouse’s faith. Believing spouse or not, the Christian is to faithfully minister Christ in his marriage, testifying truthfully to Him for the sake of love and its good fruit (1 Corinthians 7:1-16; cf. Ephesians 5:22-33; also 1 Peter 3:1-9).
The Christian ethic consists in the perpetual obligation of love, and no arena of human existence speaks to it more profoundly than the marital union. Indeed, among human relationships, none shares the depth of loving intimacy enjoyed by husband and wife; no other relationship entails a “one-flesh” union ordained and sanctioned by God Himself (cf. Genesis 2:20-24; Matthew 19:1-6). This divine ordination grants unique significance
to marriage, but all the more because God devised it to speak of something beyond itself, namely the one-spirit union for which He created man in His image and likeness (cf. Ephesians 5:22-32 with 1 Corinthians 6:15-17, 12:12-13; also John 17:20-23).
The singular place marriage enjoys among human relationships makes it fitting that the Hebrews writer should speak to it in his closing exhortations. And especially so because of the transformation of human existence that God has brought about through the death and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah. If the human person is transformed in Jesus, so also is every dimension of human life, including marriage.
God intends marriage to testify to His relationship with human beings (which relationship is realized through Jesus, the Bridegroom), and that testimony is most true and complete in marital unions that are grounded in the spouses’ personal union with Jesus, and therefore their spiritual union with one another. Put differently, the one-flesh union of husband and wife fully accomplishes its intended witness when it exists within the one spirit union of their mutual share in the Messiah. The Hebrews writer didn’t speak to this truth, but he addressed his readers as fellow members of Christ, and so intended that they would view his instruction in those terms. It was as Christians – men and women defined by new-creational life in Jesus and informed by His mind – that they were to honor marriage and keep the marriage bed undefiled.
This exhortation was especially significant to the original audience, for they lived in a world that had little regard for marriage and the marital union. Marriage was transactional and utilitarian, and the question of love rarely entered into it. Parents or other custodians arranged marriages based on social, economic or political concerns, and it mattered little (or not at all) how the prospective spouses felt about each other. In many instances, couples were married without knowing each other at all. Marriage wasn’t about love, intimacy and devotion, and so married people often fulfilled that longing through extra marital relationships. Such relationships were usually scorned and punished in the case of women, but not so with men. The ancient world was almost universally patriarchal, and women enjoyed few, if any, of the rights and privileges afforded to men. In some
cultures, women were effectively the property of male custodians, who could do with them as they pleased. This same patriarchal structure applied to marriage, so that wives were expected to be devoted to their husband, while promiscuity (involving males as well as females) was largely acceptable and sometimes even encouraged for married men.
This was the pagan world these Hebrews inhabited, and their own Jewish culture wasn’t entirely different. Yes, Yahweh’s Torah set out a vision of female dignity unknown in the ancient world, but this vision often failed in practice. In Israel, as in the Gentile world, women had limited rights, were regarded as inferior, and were subject to mistreatment (ref. Matthew 19:1-10). But now, with Jesus’ death and resurrection, God had judged the
natural expressions of human life and human relationships and inaugurated a new order of things. He had transformed human existence in Jesus, the Last Adam, and this transformation was to be reflected in every dimension of human life, including male/female relationships and the institution of marriage. The world under the curse is ordered by distinctions and divisions that reflect human alienation and self-centeredness (so Genesis 3:16), but God crucified that “world” in His Son. Now,in the Messiah, there is no longer “Jew nor Greek, slave nor free man,male nor female,” for all are made one through living union with Him (Galatians 3:26-28; cf. Ephesians 2:11-22).
The former world order was defined by me contra you, but the world Jesus inaugurated is defined by me in you and you in me – a new human family characterized by the kind of unity and intimacy that characterizes the Godhead (John 14:1-26, 17:1-23; 1 Corinthians 12:12-14). It is by living out this unity and intimacy that Christians proclaim the gospel of God’s kingdom and His Messiah, and their marriages should bear this same testimony to the Church and the watching world, whether or not they have believing spouses.
And yet the reality was that many in Christ’s body were failing in this regard. Within two decades of Jesus’ ascension, Christians were already toying with the idea that there is greater sanctity in a life of singleness and celibacy (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:1-40; 1 Timothy 4:1-3), and increasing Gnostic influence in the churches added to the confusion by minimizing and even disparaging everything pertaining to physical life in this world.
Indeed, hadn’t Jesus and His apostles spoken against the flesh as the enemy of the spirit (ref. Mark 14:38; John 6:63; Romans 8:1-13; 1 Corinthians 5:4-5; Galatians 5:16-17, 6:7-8; 1 Peter 4:6; etc.)? These factors and others worked toward a confused and erroneous perception of marriage and its place in the Christian life.
These Hebrews doubtless had their own struggles regarding marriage, but it would be a mistake to conclude that the writer’s only concern was that they hold marriage in high regard and honor their marital vows. For there is nothing peculiarly “Christian” in such instruction; indeed, people can be faithful in their marriage and still fall short of the writer’s exhortation. He was calling for more than a committed marriage free from infidelity; he wanted his readers to view their marriages – and marriage itself – through the lens of what God had accomplished in Jesus and their own relationship with Him.
This perspective makes good sense in the case of two believing spouses. For marriage speaks to the one-Spirit union between Jesus, the Bridegroom, and His Church, and this same one-Spirit union exists in the relationship of the believing husband and wife. They are members of one another in the shared Spirit entirely apart from their marriage, and this essential union simply finds further expression in their marital union. They who are one-Spirit in the Lord now become one-flesh as husband and wife. In their case, then, it is easy to see why it’s so important that marriage be honored in principle and in practice, not least by upholding the sanctity of the marriage bed: The marital union of two Christians expresses their essential, everlasting union in Christ by His Spirit. Therefore, to denigrate or falsify the former is to denigrate and lie against the latter.
The Hebrews writer was jealous for his readers’ abiding love and faithfulness to their Lord, and there could be no such faithfulness apart from holding marriage in proper regard. And this includes faithfulness respecting the marriage bed. This means honoring the truth of the one-flesh union of husband and wife through marital intimacy on the one hand, and through marital fidelity on the other (1 Corinthians 6:13-7:5). Both aspects are critical to truthful and faithful testimony within marriage, and God will judge those Christians whose marital behavior lies against the truth that marriage signifies.
All of this seems clear enough in the case of two believing spouses, but what about Christians who find themselves “unequally yoked”? These readers were Jews who had embraced Jesus as Messiah, and surely some of them (women as well as men) had Jewish spouses who didn’t share their conviction. How could such marriages testify to Messiah’s
“marriage” to His people and the new-creational paradigm of “I in you and you in me”?
The answer is that all Christians have the same obligation to testify to Jesus’ union with His Church by their marital love and fidelity, regardless of their spouse’s faith. Where both spouses are believers, they build each other up in Him; where a believer is married to a non-believer, this faithfulness bears Christ’s fragrance in the hope of salvation.[/b][/font][/font][/font]
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 31, 2023 12:38:16 GMT -5
3. The writer’s next exhortation reflects his letter’s overall concern, namely the enduring faith and faithfulness of his readers. Their embrace of Jesus as Israel’s Messiah brought on them the scorn and abuse of their Jewish countrymen, who were pressing them to renounce Him and return to the fold of Judaism, even to the point of openly persecuting them and seeking their harm. All of this opposition was tempting them to seek relief, and perhaps even question their God, His faithfulness, and their own faith in Him. This is the context for interpreting the exhortation in 13:5-6, which can easily be misunderstood as simply a warning against materialism and greed. But the writer’s concern was more nuanced than that: The issue wasn’t greediness or desire for money, but the natural human propensity to seek relief and well-being through natural resource – to look for deliverance and security in things “under the sun.” All human beings share this instinct, and thus it characterized Israel’s legacy throughout its long history,as the people and their rulers continually looked to their own resources other nations and even other gods to secure their well-being (ref. 1 Samuel 13:1-12; 2 Samuel 24:1-10; 1 Kings 3:1, 10:26-11:11, 18:1-28; 2 Kings 16:1-7, 17:1-4, 18:13-16; Isaiah 44:9-17; Jeremiah 2:1-18; Hosea 2:1-13; etc.). In this way they showed themselves to be children of the patriarchs, who themselves yielded to the same temptation (cf. Genesis 12:1-13, 20:1-11, 26:1-9, 32:1-8).
The wider context supports this understanding of the writer’s meaning, but so do the particulars of the exhortation itself.
a. First of all, he was speaking about an overall disposition or orientation, rather than specific conduct or actions. The Greek noun rendered character by the NAS (conversation in the KJV and life in the ESV and NAB) denotes a pattern, form, or manner that accurately and summarily represents or describes a person, thing, event, or circumstance. By extension, then, it speaks of the defining course or pattern of one’s life. Such is the meaning in this context. Whatever it is that the writer was demanding of his readers, it was to characterize the entire orientation and direction of their lives.
b.Secondly,the noun translated “covetousness” or “love of money” carries the same sort of life orientation connotation. The term literally means love of silver, but it connotes a grasping approach to life; or put negatively, the absence of a generous or open-handed disposition. Covetousness is a common rendering, for it refers to a compelling desire for what one does not possess, and the writer called his readers to be content with what they have (13:5a). But the idea ofcovetousness comes short of the author’s meaning in that it tends to suggest a
materialistic, acquisitive orientation. That is, the “covetous” person is dissatisfied and restless, preoccupied with the “next thing,” and resentful of people who appear to have it better than he does. In contemporary usage, covetousness is associated with an unhealthy and sinful preoccupation with obtaining what one does not have, but this wasn’t the writer’s point. He wasn’t speaking of dissatisfaction or resentment born of materialism and avarice. Yes, he exhorted his readers to be content with what they had, but in the sense of finding contentment in their life circumstance – being settled, secure, and at peace in the things that comprised their present existence.
While it’s true that Christians should be content with their material possessions and level of affluence, the writer was making a different point. The contentment he called for has to do with finding sufficiency, satisfaction and security in the triune God and one’s life in Him, rather than one’s earthly circumstance.
c. The writer’s two scriptural citations make this clear. The first captures God’s personal pledge to His people (“He Himself has said”) – “I will never leave you, nor will I forsake you,” and the second expresses their proper response to that promise: “The Lord is my helper, I will not be afraid. What shall man do to me?”
The first citation is interesting in that it isn’t tied to one passage, and yet the writer introduced it as spoken by Yahweh Himself. It seems he was emphasizing the truth that these words lie at the heart of the scriptural message and its insistence on God’s abiding faithfulness. This was Yahweh’s solemn promise to Joshua (Joshua 1:5) and the children of Israel (Deuteronomy 31:1-8), and David later reiterated it to Solomon as he was preparing to transfer the kingdom to him (1 Chronicles 28:20). Here, the writer expressed it in the strongest, most emphatic terms, underscoring that what was true for Abraham’s covenant descendants remains true for those who are his true children in the Messiah (Galatians 3:23ff).
This promise consists of two parts, the first oriented toward God’s commitment, and the second His disposition that underlies it: He will never let go of His own and will never forsake them. He holds tightly to His children, even when they try to wander from Him, and they need never fear that He will turn away from them.
The second citation (13:6) is the Septuagint rendering of Psalm 118:6, which expresses the appropriate human response to God’s unwavering faithfulness. And that response is faithfulness in kind – faithfulness expressed in
steadfast courage, assured confidence, perseverance, peace, and hope. Because God’s covenant faithfulness (lovingkindness) is everlasting, His children refuse to fear or yield to despair, even in the deepest distress (Psalm 118:1-6). They find their sufficiency in their faithful God and Father because He is for them in a way that other human beings – even the greatest and most powerful – can never be (118:7-9).
Thus they don’t grasp for other resource to deliver from their adversity and secure their well-being. Nor do they fear what men can do to them, for human power is limited to this life and its circumstances. Death is man’s greatest weapon, but the God whose faithfulness is everlasting has pledged to swallow up death in life. The psalmist and his fellow Israelites lived in the hope of that promise, but so must their faithful descendents who embraced the risen Messiah as the firstfruits of life out of death. Jesus’ resurrection is the proof of death’s conquest and the guarantee of its final demise (1 Corinthians 15:20-26, 51-58; cf. Romans 8:12-39).
These Hebrew Christians had suffered much, and the epistle writer didn’t suggest that things would get better for them. Rather, he exhorted them to live in assured hope without fear, having an open hand that finds all resource and sufficiency in their God who has proven His faithfulness by His triumph in Jesus the Messiah.[/font][/font]
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 31, 2023 12:39:31 GMT -5
4. The writer’s next exhortation turned his readers’ gaze outward. After directing them to examine their own hearts and where they were looking for resource and relief in their struggle of faith, he called them to consider those who had been key figures in their journey with Jesus; those who had shepherded them in their faith (13:7-8). His concern
here continued to be his readers’ perseverance in faith, and he exhorted them once again to draw encouragement from others who have run well their own race of faith. But this time, he directed them to look closer to home – not to their Israelite forefathers, but their brethren in the Messiah who led them and nurtured their knowledge and faith in Him.
The exhortation is found in verse 7 and consists of two parts. Both parts pertain to their relationship with their leaders, with the second flowing out of the first: They were to remember those individuals and imitate them.
a. This obligation to remember has suggested to some scholars and commentators that these leaders were no longer part of the readers’ daily life and experience, but had shepherded them in the early period of their faith in Jesus. On the other hand, the writer’s grammar seems to indicate that these individuals were still functioning as leaders among these Hebrews. Thus some have argued that he was referring to their faithful ancestral leaders (ref. 11:39-40), while others believe he was speaking about the apostolic representatives who first brought the gospel to
them (ref. 2:3-4). Still others believe the writer was referring to men who had shepherded them in the past, but were now deceased. And lastly, some argue that he was referring to their present leaders.
The author didn’t identify these men or their specific role in the church, but spoke of them only in general terms (“those leading you”). Elsewhere in the New Testament, the Greek term denotes both a formal ruler (governmental or royal) (Matthew 2:6; Acts 7:10) and an informal leader (Luke 22:26; Acts 14:12, 15:22), but here it clearly refers to spiritual leaders (ref. also 13:17, 24). These were individuals who “spoke the word of God” to these Hebrews, perhaps as leading them to faith in Jesus. But if so, they continued to serve them as shepherds and disciplers. While the exact nature and scope of their ministration is uncertain, these were individuals who played a significant role in the nurture and development of the readers’ faith.
And an important dimension of that ministration was their own personal example. These leaders had provided instruction in the truths of the Scriptures, explaining how all that God had promised to Israel had now been fulfilled in Jesus the Messiah, but their instruction went beyond words: They embodied in their own persons and practice the living reality of the truths they proclaimed and insisted upon. They, as all Christians, were themselves the living proof of God’s triumph in His Son and the new-creational kingdom He has inaugurated in Him. It was from this perspective that Paul challenged the Corinthians to find in themselves the vindication of his apostleship and message (2 Corinthians 13:1-10), even as he insisted that he embodied the good news he proclaimed. He was living proof of God’s “righteousness” – i.e., His faithfulness to His word (2 Corinthians 5:11-21).
b. Thus the writer exhorted his readers to “consider the outcome of their way of life,” and so follow their example (13:7b). Different English versions express his statement differently, and it’s important to grasp his meaning. First of all, the scrutiny he called for isn’t the sort of casual, passing thought typical of human “consideration,” but a close and careful examination along with serious reflection.
And the object of this scrutiny wasn’t their leaders per se,but the lives they led and the fruit it bore. The issue, then, goes beyond conduct to the very fabric and orientation of one’s life. And a key indicator of the soundness of a life is the fruit it bears (Matthew 7:16-20, 12:33-35; cf. also Colossians 1:3-12).
These Hebrews were to take careful note of the outcome of their leaders’ manner of life, which suggests to some that these were men who had completed their earthly race and entered into the Lord’s presence. But a closer look seems to argue otherwise. First, the writer’s grammar indicates that these men were still acting as leaders among his readers. Secondly, the noun rendered “outcome” has the basic sense of egress or outflow, not final product per se. Thus Paul used it to refer to a way of escape (1 Corinthians 10:13). So also, fruitfulness isn’t an outcome of faith that only appears at the very end of one’s life. A good tree bears good fruit throughout the years, and so it is with a sound and godly course of life.
c. It seems, then, that the writer was exhorting these brethren to consider and reflect on the lives of those leading them and the fruit of their faithful labors. And that meant recognizing that they themselves were part of that good fruit. And what they discovered from this consideration they were to replicate in their own lives.
Here it’s important to understand exactly what the writer was calling for. He exhorted his readers to imitate their leaders’ faith, but in a very specific sense: He wanted them to follow the pattern of their faithfulness that accorded with their wholehearted embrace of “the faith once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).
This is crucial, for “faith” is a slippery concept, and people of all sorts of convictions – religious or otherwise – faithfully conform to their convictions. So it is that many who claim Christian faith actually hold to notions and beliefs that differ from the “good news” proclaimed by Jesus’ apostolic witnesses.
The writer was concerned that his readers persevere in the faith, and thus perpetuate the pattern of faithful discipleship they’d witnessed in others and had entrusted to them. They were to imitate their leaders, but only insofar as they bore truthful testimony to Jesus – not just with their words, but by being imitators of Him (cf. 6:1-12 with 1 Corinthians 4:1-17, 11:1; Ephesians 5:1; 1 Thessalonians1:1-7). Thus, by imitating their leaders’ faith these Hebrews would testify to thefaith – the living, transformative truth of God’s triumph in Jesus (ref. Acts 14:21-22, 16:5; 1 Corinthians 16:13; Galatians 1:13-24, 3:23; Ephesians 4:11-16; Philippians 1:12-30; Colossians 1:21-23; etc.). The writer’s charge to his readers, then, wasn’t to follow the example of other men as such, however godly and faithful they might be, but to carry forward the unchanging truth of the faith delivered to them and nurtured in them. And they would do so only by binding themselves – in word and life – to the unchanging Messiah (13:8).[/font][/font]
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 31, 2023 12:41:17 GMT -5
5. The writer exhorted his readers to imitate the faith of those who led them, being fully assured that the Messiah they confessed is the same person their leaders had served with all faithfulness. Those leaders had found Jesus to be faithful and constant, as He bore good fruit from their faithful devotion to Him. Indeed, these Hebrews were themselves part of that good fruit, and they could expect the same fruitfulness in their own lives as they devoted themselves to the Lord who never changes.
a. But precisely because Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever, those who embrace Him must do so according to the truth of who He is, and then hold tightly to that truth, refusing any alteration of it or movement away from it. Binding oneself to “the faith once for all delivered to the saints” is the foundational discipline of a faithful life, and thus the epistle author pressed his readers with this obligation: “Do not be carried away by varied and alien teachings; for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, through which those who were thus occupied were not benefited” (13:9).
The writer exhorted them to guard against diverse and foreign teachings that would lead them astray, and three things in particular are noteworthy here:
1) First, his grammar indicates that at least some of these Hebrews were
being drawn in and influenced by these teachings.
2) Secondly, his clarifying statement that the heart is established and strengthened by grace rather than by foods indicates that these “alien” teachings were associated with Judaism and its practices (cf. 9:9-10).
3) Finally, his contrast between grace and foods underscores a key truth: how a Christian perceives his relationship with God is fundamental to his perseverance in the faith. Thus he was reminding his readers that their status as God’s covenant children was determined by their union with His Son, not their faithfulness to the obligations of the Law of Moses. In context, then, these teachings pertained to the matter of one’s relationship with God and what it means to be faithful to Him. Some of it perhaps challenged Jesus’ legitimacy as Israel’s Messiah, but it seems the main thrust of this teaching was to encourage these Hebrews to rethink their faith in Jesus in the light of their Jewish heritage. From this vantage point, it’s easy to understand the readers’ vulnerability to such teachings, and why the writer pointed to the constancy of Jesus the Messiah to counter them. To the extent that these teachings reflected historical Judaism and its claims and practices, they weren’t at all strange or foreign to his Hebrew readers. Indeed, their familiarity is precisely what made them so appealing and effective. But Jewish doctrine and practice, to the extent that they conform to God’s Torah, testify of His Messiah (John 5:39), so that faithfulness to Torah now entails faithfulness to Jesus. The answer to those who called for concessions to Judaism is that the Messiah is ever the same, whether as promised in the past,triumphant in the present,or fully revealed in the future.
This is the specific circumstance the writer was speaking to, but his concern and instruction have broader significance for Christian life and witness. These Jewish Christians were wrestling with the arguments of their Jewish countrymen that departure from Judaism and Torah is departure from the Living God. But the same fundamental question of what defines Yahweh’s covenant people and their faithfulness to Him was creating conflict within the Christian community as Gentiles were increasingly coming to faith in Jesus. Whether pertaining to their relationship with Judaism or the Gentiles, the most fundamental question the early Christians had to address was the nature, extent, and outcome of Jesus’ work as Messiah, and what this meant for Israel and the Gentile world.
- Israel’s scriptures are clear that Yahweh was going to send His Messiah to deliver and restore His covenant people Israel, but in order that they should fulfill their mission to the Gentiles (Genesis 12:1-3, 28:10-14).
- So the first Christians – who were Jews and Gentile proselytes to Judaism
– understood that, if Jesus is indeed the promised Messiah, then God has renewed His covenant relationship with Israel. But Israel’s renewal through the Messiah meant the time had come for Yahweh to begin gathering in the nations, and Israel (the Abrahamic household) was God’s chosen instrument in this work (cf. Isaiah 11:1-12, 49:1-13, 53:1-55:5; Jeremiah 3:1-17; Amos 9:11-15; Zechariah 2:1-13, 8:1-23, 9:9-10; etc.).
- Thus Jesus commissioned His disciples, and thus the early Jewish Christians commenced the Gentile mission (ref. Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 1:1-8, 8:1-14:28), but without a clear understanding of how Gentiles who embraced Jesus as the Messiah fit into the restored covenant household.
Even as the first Christians were Jews and proselytes, so the early Christian ecclesia was viewed as a movement within Judaism. And the believers themselves saw their community as the first fruits of Israel’s promised restoration through God’s triumph in His Messiah. So both Israel’s scriptures and the nation’s history indicated that Gentiles could find a place in this renewed covenant community, but according to what criteria? How was this new “Israel” to be delineated?
This quandary came into focus in the early decades of the Christian movement and expressed itself in the“Judaizing” phenomenon in which some Jewish Christians were pressing Gentile believers to be circumcised and adopt practices
prescribed by the Law of Moses. Paul addressed it in several of his letters, and it was the primary motivation for the Jerusalem Council recounted by Luke in Acts 15. The New Testament highlights the importance of this issue, but many fail to address it within its historical context.
- For centuries this Judaizing phenomenon has been widely understood in terms of a law versus grace dichotomy and the contention that Judaism is a religion of “works righteousness” that teaches “salvation by works.”
- Thus the conclusion that these Jewish “agitators” (Galatians 1:7) demanded Gentile circumcision and compliance with the Mosaic Law because of their Judaistic conviction that a person’s salvation depends on his own good works, rather than God’s grace alone through faith in Jesus(ref. Acts 15:1-5; also Galatians 2:1-5, 5:1-11, 6:11-15; Philippians 3:2-3).
This understanding has predominated within Protestantism since the Reformation, but it betrays a lack of historical and salvation-historical consideration as well as a flawed perception of first-century (second temple) Judaism. Beyond that, it reflects a distorted conception of “salvation” and God’s saving work in Christ – specifically, the idea that personal salvation depends on possessing perfect “righteousness” defined as absolute conformity to a divinely imposed standard (moral, ethical and spiritual). In this scheme, a person can only be “saved” if he
meets this standard himself or someone else meets it for him. Thus salvation is by “works,” but those of Jesus, not a person’s imperfect ones.
This perspective, then, becomes the lens for interpreting Jesus’ atoning work and its goal and outcome. But it also underlies the conclusion that the Jewish believers who insisted that Gentile converts “Judaize” were promoting the false doctrine of “salvation by works.” Selfish interest played a part in this Judaizing effort (Galatians 6:12), but the fundamental, legitimate concern was faithfulness to God.
Indeed, the principle that drove the Judaizing phenomenon was one that God Himself established, namely that His people consist of the Abrahamic household – i.e,those, and only those, who are members of Abraham’s covenant family.
- It wasn’t enough to be descended from Abraham; to be a covenant son, one had to bear the covenant sign of circumcision and adhere to the covenant torah (revealed truth and instruction) which later became codified in the Law of Moses (Genesis 17:1-14; Exodus 19:1-8, 24:1-8).
- Circumcision and Torah marked out the Abrahamic people as Yahweh’s covenant children, and the same was true of Gentiles. From the very beginning, covenant membership was open to non-Abrahamites, but only as they joined themselves to Abraham (and Israel) by circumcision and submission to Yahweh’s covenant prescription.
This had been the way God delineated His covenant people since the days of Abraham, and the “Judaizers” simply maintained that the coming of the Messiah hadn’t altered this. Yes, Jesus had renewed the covenant, but in order to restore the covenant household that God had established in Abraham (Luke 1:67-75).
Indeed, Jesus Himself was circumcised, and He repeatedly confronted His detractors with the claim that He was fully faithful to the covenant Torah (cf. Matthew 5:17-20; Luke 24:44; John 5:1-47, 8:20-49, 9:1-10:38; etc.). If Yahweh’s
Messiah demonstrated His covenant sonship through circumcision and Torah, how could it be otherwise for His disciples, whether Jewish or Gentile?
In fact, in a very real way, these Judaizing believers were right; Jesus never denied the foundational principles that God’s covenant household is comprised solely of Abraham’s covenant children, and that those children are marked out by circumcision and Torah. He upheld those long-standing truths, but He also showed by His words and deeds that they had now attained their ultimacy in Him and needed to be interpreted and implemented in light of His person and work.
- He is the true Seed of Abraham and ultimate referent of the covenant promises, so that all people, Jew and Gentile alike, become Abraham’s covenant children and heirs by sharing in Him (Galatians 3:15-29).
- So these new children, like the covenant family that preceded Jesus, are delineated by circumcision and Torah, but as they are now “yes and amen” in Him (Romans 2:28-29, 3:21-31; cf. also Galatians 3:1-14).
Israel’s very existence and life as Yahweh’s covenant household was prophetic and preparatory, and reached its predetermined climax and fulfillment in Jesus’ person and work. This is what He meant when He told His Israelite countrymen that He hadn’t come to abrogate the Law and Prophets, but to fulfill them (Matthew 5:17). Jesus embodied Israel’s life and destiny in Himself (ref. Isaiah 49:1-7), and this is why Paul could insist that God’s promise to Abraham and his seed was ultimately to one Seed (Galatians 3:16). God determined to bind up in Abraham the entire destiny of the cursed creation, but with an eye to one particular descendent – the son He’d previously pledged to Eve (Genesis 3:15).
Jesus of Nazareth was born to fulfill all that God had disclosed, performed and promised since Eden, and this included His covenant with Abraham and all that followed from it. Jesus was an Israelite descendent of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, born under the Law of Moses and subject to it (cf. Luke 2; Galatians 4:4). He didn’t disannul or supplant Israel or its covenant torah, but neither did He recover and reestablish them according to their former existence (as was the expectation of His Jewish countrymen and many contemporary Christians). Rather, He fulfilled both by christifying them – by transforming them in Himself. Jesus’ Church is this transformed Israel, reconciled and related to God through the renewed covenant in His blood (Matthew 16:13-21; Colossians 1:18-20). As such,
the Church has neither replaced Israel nor resuscitated it; it is the resurrected Abrahamic household consisting of Jews and Gentiles who have been raised to share in Jesus’ resurrection life. It has its origin and foundation in Israel, but as Israel has become Israel indeed in the Messiah.
This dynamic of fulfillment and transformation in Christ is crucial to understanding the relationship between Israel and its covenant life and the renewed, ultimate “Israel” that God is forming in His Son. That relationship is
one of essential correspondence along with crucial distinction, and both are key to the writer’s assertion in verses 10-12 and the exhortations in verses 13-15.[/font][/font]
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 31, 2023 12:42:14 GMT -5
b. The alien teachings the writer referred to encouraged these Hebrews to seek resource and strength for their walk with the Lord through foods, which he insisted are of no benefit, because all such things were symbolic provisions during the time of preparation. They were merely shadows whose substance has come in the Messiah to whom they pointed and concerning whom they gave instruction (ref. 9:1-10; cf. Colossians 2:16-17). These food provisions, like everything associated with Israel’s life under the Law of Moses, were christological pointers. This was the case with Israel’s dietary prescriptions, but also of the “meats” associated with the priestly ministration, and that seems to be what the writer was referring to here: We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle
have no right to eat” (13:10).
The first thing to emphasize is that the author was speaking metaphorically, contrasting the covenant resource supplied to Jesus’ disciples with that given to the children of Israel under the Law of Moses. The Levitical priestly system mediated the relationship between Yahweh and His covenant people, so that His provision in that relationship flowed to them through the ministration of the priesthood. And the various altars prescribed by the Law of Moses symbolized the place, circumstance, and resultant benefit of that ministration.
Thus the writer wasn’t saying that Christians have their own literal altar for approaching God and worshipping Him. Indeed, one of the things that was so puzzling about the early Christians is that they claimed to worship and serve the true and living God, and yet had no sacerdotal apparatus or practice; they had no temples, altars, priests or sacrificial rituals. In the ancient world, this was unheard of, for all religious belief and practice was oriented around ritual worship and sacrifices, and such ritual practice was fundamental to a community’s identity and
self-knowledge. Even Judaism, for all its quirky distinctives, was recognizable to the pagan world as a religious faith directed toward a particular deity. No, the writer employed this imagery because he knew it would be effective in making his point to his Jewish audience. Here, he was specifically referring to the eating of sacrificial foods as part of Israel’s priestly ministration (“eating from the altar”). Under the Law of Moses, certain sacrifices provided food for the priests, and sometimes also for the offerer. This was the case with the grain offering, guilt
offering and peace offering (Leviticus 2, 3, 7). The priests also ate the meat of the sin offering, but only in instances where the blood of the offering wasn’t brought into Yahweh’s sanctuary, as it was, for example, on Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement). In those instances, the sacrificed animal wasn’t eaten; its body was burned outside the camp (13:11; cf. Leviticus 4:1-21, 8:1-9:11, 16:1-27, 19:1-6).
The writer likely had Yom Kippur in mind, but his point is the same regardless:
The priests who minister in the temple (here, tabernacle) are not allowed to eat the flesh of Israel’s sin offerings, but they are equally disallowed from eating the sin offering that Jesus presented. This is because they have no share in Him, and yet this “meat” is provided as food to those who embrace Him. Put simply, all who participate in Israel’s altar have no share in the altar of Christ’s sacrifice.
The writer drew on the law of the sin offering to underscore the absolute distinction between Mosaic Judaism and the New Covenant administration in the Messiah. The former has now become “alien teaching,” not by abrogation or
alteration, but fulfillment. The shadow has yielded to the substance, so that all who try to cling to the shadow are actually clinging to nothing, even as they are denying the true substance. So Israel’s sin offerings, in all of their particulars, have been fulfilled in Jesus’ self-offering (13:12-14). He fulfilled them in both aspects: the priest who presents the offering and the offering itself. He shed His own blood to sanctify His people, which He then presented to His Father, as it were, not in the earthly sanctuary,but “the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands” (9:11-12). And being the true sin offering whose blood is brought into God’s presence, Jesus also had His body disposed of “outside the camp.” But in His case, there are two crucial differences:
1) First, Jesus’ disposal “outside the camp” included the suffering that culminated in His death. Israel’s sin offerings were slain at the doorway of the tabernacle (or temple), and then the dead carcass was burned outside
the camp; Jesus was slain outside the holy city away from the temple.
2) Secondly, the carcasses of Israel’s sin offerings were burned outside the camp – away from Yahweh’s presence – to signify their uncleanness (cf. Leviticus 16:27-28 with Leviticus 4, 13, 24:10-14; also Numbers 5:1-4,
12:1-15, 19:1-10). The blood was presented to the Lord as an offering of atonement, but the defilement associated with the sin of the offerer was imparted to the flesh of the sacrificed animal. Hence it was to be completely consumed by fire in a designated place.
Jesus’ ordeal outside the camp also involved uncleanness, which the writer hinted at when he mentioned His reproach (13:13). From the vantage point of His Israelite accusers, it was entirely appropriate that Jesus should die on the unclean hill of Golgotha outside the holy city, for He was a blasphemer and enemy of Israel’s God and His Torah. And yet, this, too, was a crucial aspect of His fulfillment of Israel’s sacrificial system. As the carcass of the sin offering bore the offerer’s defilement, Jesus was appointed to bear the reproach of Israel and the nations(10:1-9). The Jews were right in assigning uncleanness to Jesus, but they didn’t recognize that He was carrying the defilement of their sin and rebellion. As the spotless animal selected for a sin offering was defiled by its association with the sins of its human counterpart, so it was with the sacrifice of Yahweh’s messianic Servant: “By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, as He will bear their iniquities” (Isaiah 53:11).
Thus there is both paradox and irony in the tapestry the Hebrews writer wove together from this sacrificial imagery, and out of it he issued his next exhortation: “Hence, let us go out to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach, for here we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking that which is to come” (13:13-14).
Jerusalem, with the temple at its center, was God’s holy city and the focal point of Israel’s life and worship. Thus, Jesus being driven from Jerusalem (the “camp”) to Golgotha spoke powerfully of Israel’s rejection of Him as a traitor to God and His Law. But the way people viewed Him, they also viewed His followers (John 15:18-21). In the case of the unbelieving Jews, they regarded Jesus’ Israelite disciples (including the recipients of this epistle) as fellow sharers in His apostasy and uncleanness. Just like the false messiah they followed, these Israelites had
forsaken Yahweh, and so needed to be persuaded, by whatever means, to “wash” themselves and so return to the “camp” of Israel. This was the thinking of Jesus’ Jewish detractors, but the writer wanted his readers to understand that it was these individuals who actually were unclean and separated from the covenant household. For Yahweh was now reconstituting His people in His resurrected Son, and cleansing from sin was now obtained through His death as the singular sin offering that the Levitical counterparts only prefigured. In an astonishing and ironic twist, a Jew now needed to leave the camp of Israel in order to find cleansing, and consecration to Israel’s God involved rejecting the temple and its ordinances and owning the reproach that fell upon the One who Himself is Yahweh’s true and everlasting sanctuary. And if the temple had served its purpose and found its fulfillment in Jesus, the
same was true of the holy city in which it sat. God had long before marked out Jerusalem as the city where He would place His name forever (cf. 1 Kings 9:1-3; 2 Chronicles 33:1-7), but this pledge, too, had found its essential truth in His messianic Servant, just as the prophets had hinted (cf. Isaiah 2:1-4, 11:1-12). The Messiah was now the point where heaven and earth converged, and where the God of all the earth was to be encountered and worshipped (ref. 1:3, 8-12; cf. John 1:14-18, 14:1-7). Jerusalem and its temple no longer served that function; to the contrary, they were utterly defiled because of the corruption of the priests, rulers, and people (cf. Luke 19:45-46; Galatians 4:19-28; Revelation 11:8).
Those who expelled Jesus from the “camp” didn’t recognize this (John 11:45-50), but their God did, and very soon He would destroy the unclean city and its cherished sanctuary (Matthew 23:37-39; Luke 19:28-46, 21:5-22). It’s not clear whether the Hebrews writer saw this coming, but he recognized the truth that there is no enduring city in this present world; the everlasting habitation Yahweh pledged is the new Jerusalem that has come down from heaven in the incarnate Son (13:14, also 12:26-27). This renewed Zion is gathering her children, and will one day encompass all creation (cf. Isaiah 53-55; Revelation 21-22).
And so it is that God’s true children have the New Jerusalem as their mother, and they, like her, are free. But this freedom obliges them to never return to the yoke of slavery, whatever form it may take, and however appealing its inducements. Jesus’ brethren have found freedom outside the camp – outside the enslaving patterns and persuasions of the former fallen order, Jewish or otherwise. And having found freedom with Him in that place of reproach, they must remain there.[/font]
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 31, 2023 12:43:25 GMT -5
6. The writer’s exhortation to go to Jesus outside the camp and abide with Him there was a call to embrace Him in truth, which meant embracing His reproach. Jesus incurred this reproach by assuming authority over Israel’s structures and practices and sitting in judgment of them. So it would be for His followers; His reproach would fall upon them if they embraced and lived out His claims and judgment. That is true of every disciple, but the writer was here concerned with his Hebrew brethren. In their case, sharing Jesus’ reproach involved joining Him outside the “camp” of Israel, abandoning Judaism as having found its goal and fulfillment in Him.
Israel’s covenant life had revolved around its sacrificial system; in the words of the author, the covenant was founded upon the Levitical priesthood (7:11-12). Indeed, sacrifices and offerings were the very marrow of Israel’s ongoing life with God. No Jew could conceive of a relationship with Yahweh apart from them. But now, the entire
former order of things was set aside in Jesus the Messiah – not because He denied or abrogated them, but because He fulfilled and transformed them. Living with Yahweh as His covenant children is still a matter of sacrifice and offering, but in a new way that the former sacrificial order only hinted at. Those who abide with Jesus outside the camp have the obligation to offer up the sacrifices of praise, thankfulness and love (13:15-16).
a. The writer seems to have drawing from Israel’s thank offerings, which were a particular form of peace offering. The peace offering signified the right relation – the state of peace or completeness – between the offeror and Yahweh, and so focused on a fellowship meal in which both priest and offeror ate of the sacrifice
(Leviticus 7:11-34). The peace offering presupposed that there was no offense or uncleanness standing between the offeror and Yahweh, and so it often followed a sin offering and/or guilt offering (Leviticus 4-6).
Being one form of peace offering, the thank offering allowed various sacrificial animals (Leviticus 3), but that animal was presented along with an offering of unleavened cakes (Leviticus 7:11-12). Thus the offeror supplied “fruit” from his own provision as the content of the fellowship meal between himself and Yahweh. This is the imagery the Hebrews writer alluded to when he spoke of the fruit of thankfulness – i.e., lips that give thanks to Yahweh – being the substance of the sacrifice of praise (13:15; cf. Psalm 54:6, 56:12, 116:17).
It is also noteworthy that the writer specifically mentioned thanksgiving directed toward God’s name. This is a Hebraic idiom that expresses the idea that God’s name is synonymous with God Himself. The premise is that God has disclosed His name to human beings, and by this means has identified the truth of who He is. This is most evident in His covenant name given to Israel: I am and will be who I am (Exodus 3:13-14). This name expresses, not the nature of God’s inner being, but who He is in relation to His creation. As His covenant name, it told Israel that they were to know Him as the faithful, unchanging God who always keeps covenant and fulfills His word and promise (cf. Exodus 3:13-17, 6:2-8). Thus “giving thanks to God’s name” entails expressing gratitude to Him for His faithfulness to His word (cf. Psalms 18, 44, 54, 100, 105, 106, 138).
This idea is reinforced by the fact that the Greek verbal form rendered “give thanks” actually denotes confession. It literally translates speak the same, and in biblical usage characteristically refers to a person’s agreement with the truth as God discloses it. Confession, then, is agreement with God, and this is the basis for the connotation of thankfulness/thanksgiving This parallels the Hebrew scriptures, which have no distinct concept of thankfulness, but treat it as an aspect of confession. And because confession is verbal agreement with God, it is closely aligned with the idea of praise. Confession, then, is typically expressed in thanksgiving and praise; hence the Hebrews writer’s assertion that the “sacrifice of praise” consists in “giving thanks to God’s name.” The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament underscores the same truth in its treatment of thanksgiving:
“The best rendering of the term is confession… this verb was predominantly employed to express one’s public proclamation or declaration of God’s attributes and his works. This concept is at the heart of the meaning of praise. Praise is a confession or declaration of who God is and what he does. This term is most often translated “to thank” in English versions, but such is not really a proper rendering… the O.T. does not have our independent concept of thanks. The expression of thanks to God is included in praise; it is a way of praising.”
In summary, then, to offer to God a sacrifice of praise is fundamentally to agree with Him concerning His disclosures in word and work – not only what He has said and done, but the meaning, purpose and goal of His words and deeds. And this agreement in the heart and mind cannot help but provoke gratitude and praise
– inward exultation that erupts in words and actions that attest, affirm, and adorn what God has said and done; words and actions that “speak the same” as He has spoken in His Son: “Through Him then…” (cf. 1:1-3; ref. also John 1:1-18).
The writer underscored all of this by calling for giving thanks to God’s name. Moreover, by specifying the divine name as the subject of this gratitude, the writer shifted it away from personal concerns or benefits. It’s not that
thankfulness for personal blessings and benefits is wrong, inappropriate or irrelevant. Indeed, God wants His children to be mindful of and give Him thanks for His myriad mercies and acts of care and concern for them. But this fatherly care isn’t arbitrary or sentimental, but derives from and serves His ultimate purpose for His children in His renewed creation.
And if God’s interaction with His children is set within His larger purpose, their thankfulness and praise needs to follow this same pattern. Gratitude and thanksgiving are the centerpiece of praise, which itself is confession – agreeing with God. And agreement with God involves perceiving and acknowledging His words and works as He does, according to the truth of their intention and ultimate end. Thus true gratitude for personal blessings and benefits – gratitude that is praise and pleases God – regards those blessings in terms of His goal to perfect a people in His Son, through whom He will fill His creation with His own wisdom, love and power (1 Corinthians 15:20-28; Ephesians 1:9-23; Revelation 21-22).
b. The sacrifice of praise, then, consists in a life of continual, conscious thankfulness to the God who has made Himself fully known in the Word and Work that are Jesus the Messiah. It is a life that confesses the truth as it is in Him, thereby bringing to the covenant God and Father the sacrificial “fruit” that is worthy of true worshippers, even as His prophet Hosea longed: “Return, O Israel, to Yahweh your God, for you have stumbled because of your
iniquity. Take words with you and return to Yahweh. Say to Him, ‘Take away alliniquity, and receive us graciously, that we may present the fruit of our lips.’” The sacrificial fruit of confession consists in continual praise and thanksgiving. But because confession involves owning the truth, it goes beyond verbal agreement. It expresses itself in a truth-affirming manner of life. Hence the writer includes the sacrifice of enacted love within his sacrificial prescription (13:16): “Stop neglecting the mutual care, helpful kindness and goodness appropriate to your common union in Jesus, for God takes great delight in such sacrifices.”
The writer didn’t elaborate further, but he clearly was aware that the pressures and adversity afflicting his readers were distracting them from a proper concern for one another (cf. 13:2 – “stop neglecting to show hospitality to strangers”). Their suffering was turning their attention toward themselves and their own need, and so undermining the common-union and burden sharing that should mark them as Jesus’ followers (cf. Acts 2:42-47). But if they were to be truth-tellers, their confession needed to go beyond thanksgiving and praise; they needed to confess with their lives the truths they extolled with their lips. And yet the author had a concern beyond simply his readers consistency in practicing what they preached.
He wanted them to step back from their circumstances and challenges and rethink hem in the light of their new life in Jesus and what it means to share in Him.
- This reordering of their minds would provoke a disposition of grateful praise, whatever hardship and injustice they were enduring.
- And it would also turn their gaze away from themselves to their brethren who were also experiencing the same ordeal of suffering as fellow-sharers in the Messiah (ref. again 10:32-34).
- In this way they would become ministers of goodness and truth to those outside the household of faith, bearing Jesus’ fragrance and attesting the power of His gospel by being one as He and His Father are one.
Thus they would show themselves to be true children of God, sons and daughters who manifest His life and likeness by devoting themselves to His perfect law of love – the law that is the fullness of the Father’s Torah (Matthew 22:35-40; Romans 13:8-10); the law that is fully revealed, fully embodied, and fully realized in the Son of the Father’s love and His loving sacrifice (1 John 4:7-12).[/font][/font]
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 31, 2023 12:44:44 GMT -5
7. The writer exhorted his readers to stop permitting their trying circumstances to fix their gaze on themselves and their own concerns and needs. This self-focus was causing them to neglect their obligation of hospitality toward outside brethren (13:2), but equally their obligation to care for those who were part of their immediate community of believers – brothers and sisters in Jesus who were enduring the same ordeal of suffering. Hardship and affliction didn’t remove their responsibility to care for one another and minister to one another’s faith, and this same obligation extended to those who led them (13:17).
a. The writer’s exhortation consists of two parts, which English versions tend to express in terms of the parallel concepts of obedience and submission. But his meaning is more nuanced, and distinguishes between the internal and external aspects of obedience. The verb rendered obey actually has the basic sense of being persuaded, which indicates that the writer wasn’t calling for absolute or blind obedience, but the sort of voluntary submission that results from persuasion. His exhortation, then, is best rendered, Be persuaded concerning those who lead you,
and so yield to their leadership.
This persuasion is the inward conviction of a good conscience and trust respecting a leader that results from knowing him well and observing his life and leadership. Those who possess such confidence and trust in a leader will submit to his leadership willingly, not out of compulsion or demand. The outward submission is the expression of an inward conviction and good conscience. And so the obedience the writer sought is simply loving deference to a fellow Christian who is recognized as gifted, called and equipped to shepherd God’s children. Thus this leadership-obedience dynamic is bilateral, not unilateral. It expresses mutualdeference and submission, in that leaders who secure the good conscience (persuasion) of those they lead do so because they have demonstrated themselves to be servant-shepherds who strive for the well-being of those under their care.
b. The writer made this clear in his qualifying phrase: The submission he called for presupposes that these leaders “keep watch over your souls, as those who will give an account.” The noun rendered soul refers to the entire self – the totality of a person’s life, and this watching literally denotes sleeplessness, which alludes to a sentry who vigilantly stands watch so that those under his care can rest or focus on their work without fear of outside threats (cf. Job 21:32; Psalm 127:1; Mark 13:33; Ephesians 6:18). A company of soldiers will readily entrust their well being to their sentry when they are fully confident of his trained and watchful eye, his personal discipline, and his genuine concern for them.
c.God ordained leaders in His Church, but in accord with the principle of mutual indwelling in the Spirit (Ephesians 4:1-6). Proper submission to leaders is grounded in a good conscience born of intimate knowledge, but this persuasion must also show itself in a good attitude. It’s not enough to be outwardly compliant; a Christian’s inner demeanor must match his outward deference for his submission to be genuine and fruitful. Thus the writer’s second exhortation: “Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.”
The relationship God intends between leaders and congregation is one of mutual devotion and care, but such a relationship is hindered, undermined, or even destroyed when there is resentment, discontent, divisiveness, independence, or any form of self-seeking in the body of believers. On the one hand, autonomy and selfishness can compromise the relationship between leaders and those they shepherd, but so can the natural human tendency to attach oneself to appealing personalities (1 Corinthians 1:10-12). Factions rob leaders of their joy just as
much as discontentment or an autonomous spirit.
God has obligated His children to work toward their leaders’ joy, recognizing that they undermine their own genuine interests when they cause them grief. Because Christ’s body functions through mutual care, trust, and dependence, leaders must strive to secure the confidence of those they serve. This means working for the edification and joy of those under their care, but the same is true for believers in regard to their leaders. The saints’ faithfulness to those who lead them is just as crucial to the Church’s well-being as the leaders’ faithfulness to them. By the
Spirit’s design, the whole Body causes the Body’s growth (Ephesians 4:7-16).
But this obligation of mutual care and edification involves mutual accountability as well. The writer specifically mentioned that leaders will give an account to the Lord of the Church, but this doesn’t imply that other Christians are exempt from accountability. They, too, will give an account for their relationship with their leaders (and with one another) – not only their submission and good attitude toward them, but also their wisdom and sound judgment in identifying and assessing them. Christians who defer to illegitimate, unqualified or unfaithful leaders are just as guilty as those leaders themselves. Christ’s sheep are to submit to His shepherds as unto Him, and this demands that they be careful, discerning and wise in assessing those who would claim to take up the mantle of leadership.
Where such men fail the test, the saints must refuse them as leaders.
All of these considerations, then, point to several important implications regarding leadership in God’s Church:
- First and foremost, church leaders are servant-shepherds, not executives or ministry professionals hired to oversee and direct a religious organization. They are spiritual leaders, under shepherds who serve the Chief Shepherd and His flock, and it is to Him that they are accountable (John 10:11-15; 1 Peter 5:1-4).
- Being Jesus’ under shepherds,church leaders shepherd His people in His name and according to His purposes and goal for them. They have a delegated and defined authority, and have no right to establish their own leadership aims or
pursue their own agenda regarding those they lead. Neither are they permitted to exercise their office with any inclination toward their own personal benefit, whether money, status, power, influence, etc.
- Leaders function according to the Spirit’s gifting (Romans 12:6-8), whose work is to perfect a people for the Lord Jesus by conforming them to His likeness (Ephesians 4:7-13). Thus church leadership is about people and their care and nurture, not activities suited to running a religious organization. As such, good leaders – leaders who are worthy of being followed – are distinguished by their intimacy with Christ and their fellow believers. They win the consciences and confidence of those they lead because they bear Jesus’ fragrance and manifest His mind and love in their interactions with them. Submission to such leaders, then, is simply one aspect of submission to the Lord Himself (ref. 1 Corinthians 4:1-16, 10:31-11:1; 1 Thessalonians 1:1-7; 1 Timothy 4:1-16; 1 Peter 5:1-3).
- Leaders are to be persistent as well as vigilant in their labors on behalf of Jesus’ followers. Leadership in Christ’s Church is a matter of divine gifting and calling, and so isn’t a position that one fills temporarily, like serving on a committee.
Leaders don’t serve for a predetermined period of time, or with a limited commitment. To be worthy of others’ confidence and submission, they must devote themselves relentlessly to serving the good of those under their charge
without concern for the cost it exacts on them.
- Finally, all of these things underscore that church leadership is a function of the ecclesia – the Church as Christ’s own fullness in the Spirit. This leadership exists and operates within the community of believers and serves its needs, not outside interests or goals, even those of parachurch or other religious entities and
organizations. Such entities might reflect and serve Christian interests, but they are not the Church. The Church is a human spiritual organism, not an earthly organization. It is formed and ordered by its union with Christ by His Spirit, and it alone is the realm of new creation and His life and mind in the world. Thus the sort of intimacy, trust, submission and mutual care the writer called for doesn’t exist outside of local church bodies. This is the reason leaders in the early Church were raised up from within a body of believers and not brought from elsewhere.
(ref. Acts 6:1-4, 14:21-23). Sadly, this principle is largely a casualty of the modern age and the Christian paradigm of the professional, credentialed minister and the clergy-laity divide. In many cases, leaders are selected based on academic and professional credentials and achievements rather than the biblical criteria of demonstrated gifting and qualification attested through intimate and faithful service and devotion to a body of believers.
Leadership in Christ’s Church, then, reflects and serves the oneness and harmony of His Body as a community of people who are members of one another as they are members of Him (John 17:20-23; 1 Corinthians 12:12-14). It exists within the new creational paradigm of Jesus’ kingdom and rule, and so conforms to them. It is leadership that
mirrors Jesus’ lordship – leadership that overturns the natural pattern of hierarchy and the “procedure of the king” (1 Samuel 8:1-17), and finds the leader becoming the servant and the greatest becoming the least (Luke 22:24-27). It is servant leadership that is the ministration of faith working through love for the sake of the Chief Shepherd, His
beloved saints, and His glory in His Church and in the world.[/font]
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 31, 2023 12:45:58 GMT -5
8. After a series of exhortations directed at his readers and their abiding faithfulness, the writer petitioned them to pray for him in the same way (13:18-19). Though he instructed them as a teacher and assumed the authority to challenge them to continue on and grow in their faith and faithfulness, he was not above them or exempt from the pressures they faced. His perseverance in the faith was just as dependent on their ministry to him as theirs was on him. He recognized with respect to himself what he pressed upon his readers: By the Spirit’s design, it is the Body that causes the well-being and growth of the Body. These Hebrews needed his encouragement and exhortation, and he needed theirs.
Specifically, the writer exhorted them to keep him (and his unnamed companions) in their prayers to the Father, that they would be able to stand firm and faithful in whatever circumstances or challenges confronted them: “Pray for us, for we are sure we have a good conscience, desiring to conduct ourselves honorably in all things. And I urge you the more to do this, that I may be restored to you the sooner.” He didn’t elaborate further, and this has led scholars down different paths.
- Some believe the writer was imprisoned at the time, and this makes sense of both aspects of his petition: seeking to persevere in his own faithfulness, and to be reunited soon to this community of believers. It’s impossible to be sure, but this view certainly fits the sort of circumstances and experiences he addressed with his readers (ref. again 10:32-36).
- Others believe that the writer wasn’t referring to anything in particular, but was simply asking for prayer that he and his associates would continue to be faithful in their walk, maintaining a good conscience, and that the Lord would see fit to allow him to be reunited soon with these brethren he loved. Paul often spoke this way, and this is exactly the sort of prayer request one would expect a Christian to present in a letter to fellow believers (cf. Romans 1:8-10, 15:30-32; Ephesians 6:18-20; Philippians 1:12-20; 2 Thessalonians 3:1-2; Philemon 19-22).
Again, there’s no way to be certain about the writer’s circumstance – indeed, his personal identity is uncertain. But his petition does illumine a few important considerations.
a. First, he expressed his conviction, on behalf of himself and those with him, of a good conscience – i.e., that they were faithful disciples of Jesus. He didn’t identify those other individuals, but asserted that they as a group were unaware of anything that could strip them of a settled conscience. Speaking collectively like this, it seems clear he was speaking ministerially rather than personally. That is, their “good conscience” pertained to their faithfulness in fulfilling their calling on behalf of the Lord and His gospel; the writer wasn’t in any way claiming a faultless personal life, either for himself or for his companions. Such perfection doesn’t exist; the most a person can claim is that he has no conscious awareness of error or violation (cf. 2 Corinthians 1:12; 2 Timothy 1:1-3 with 1 Corinthians 4:1-4). All the writer was saying was that he and his associates were persuaded of
their integrity and faithfulness in carrying out the work the Lord had entrusted to them, and he sought prayer toward the end that they would persevere in it.
b. Secondly, the writer’s petition underscores his closeness with these Hebrews and his sense of dependence on them and their ministry to him. His heart was intertwined with theirs, and thus he wrote to them as a brother in Christ – not as presenting them with a technical theological treatise, but to encourage them and strengthen their faith by nurturing their knowledge and maturity in Jesus.
He wrote out of a heart of intimate, devoted love, and he believed these readers shared the same love for him. Thus he petitioned them for their prayer, not as a platitude or passing sentiment, but with the conviction that their ongoing intercession on his behalf was vital to his own faithfulness, and that the Father who loved and heard them would honor their prayers and meet his need. Though in many ways he was their rabbi and discipler in the faith, the writer recognized that he was just as dependent on his readers as they were on him. He ministered to them according to the obligation of faith working through love, but he was in need of exactly the same ministration from them (Galatians 5:6; cf. also 2 Corinthians 1:8-14, 6:1-7:16, 11:1-12:21). He petitioned their prayer on his behalf, not as a superior calling upon the service of his inferiors, but as a brother and fellow-sharer in the faith and life of the Lord Jesus. Whatever his authority regarding them, he was dependent on them, and their ministry to him was
precious as well as necessary. It is the Body that brings growth to the Body.
c. The writer acknowledged his dependence on these Hebrews by petitioning their prayer on his behalf, but he also shared with them his specific burdens. His closeness with them allowed him to profess his good conscience without seeming arrogant or pretentious – they knew him well enough to know that he wasn’t making a foolish or flippant claim. But that same intimacy also allowed him to humble himself before them and confess his concern that his faithfulness should not give way, but that his good conscience would endure, whatever might come.
Interestingly, many scholars and commentators have viewed the writer’s petition for prayer as his way of explaining and defending his instruction and tone in his epistle. The premise is that the author expected his letter’s directness (and perhaps his treatment of Judaism) to likely offend some of the readers and cause them to push back against him. Thus he asserted his good conscience in the hope of reassuring them that he wrote out of a heart of concern and devoted love, not to indict or “lord it over them,” but to encourage them and minister to their faith. He wanted them to understand that he wrote with a good conscience; it was his love and jealousy for them that motivated his instruction, exhortations and warnings.
There is perhaps some truth in this, yet it seems to oversimplify the writer’s point. The epistle makes clear the intimate relationship between him and these Hebrews, so why would he need to justify his words and explain his motives? Yes, he had been away from them for some time, but the letter itself indicates that time and distance hadn’t diminished their closeness. But whether or not he felt he needed to explain himself, he clearly wanted to affirm his solidarity with these brethren: he, too, needed to persevere in faith; to conduct himself honorably in all things.
d. The author wanted his readers to know that he was committed to proving himself faithful in all things. Indeed, this commitment provoked his letter and all that he wrote in it. He was determined to persevere in faith as Jesus’ disciple, whatever may come, and he had the same burden for these beloved Hebrew brethren. What he sought for himself, he sought for them, and he penned this letter out of that longing. Thus he asked them to pray, not only that the Lord would enable him to maintain his good conscience, but also that He’d be pleased to reunite them soon.
Some have viewed this reunion in terms of reconciliation, with the premise being that some form of tension or estrangement had developed between the writer and his readers. But there is no hint of this in the epistle. Yes, he spoke directly and pointedly, even strongly warning them at times, but he did so because of the mutual love and devotion that existed between them. He wrote to them as beloved brethren, and instructed and exhorted them as being one with them (cf. 2:1-4, 3:1-14, 4:1-11, 5:11-6:12, 8:1-2, 10:19-39, 11:39-40, 12:1-10, etc.).
And so, whatever had kept him from these Hebrews (imprisonment, sickness, ministry obligations, travel difficulty, etc.), he longed to be reunited with them. Perhaps he was originally part of their local community as a Jewish believer, or he may have simply developed a deep intimacy with them because of his labors among them. There’s no way to know for certain, but his statement about Timothy (13:23) indicates that he had some connection with Paul’s ministry, and so perhaps he was traveling with Paul at that time. (This is one reason some believe Silas or Barnabas penned this letter, or even Paul himself.)
e. Finally, it’s important to note that, though the writer longed to return to these brethren he so dearly loved, he recognized that his times and seasons were in the Lord’s hands, and he needed to yield himself to His providential and ministerial will. Thus he communicated his longing, not in terms of his own agenda and plans, but in a petition for prayer. His desire was to be reunited with them, but only as their Father brought it to pass. And so he asked his readers to join him in seeking the Father’s leading and provision for that outcome, while resting, as he did, in His wise purpose and good pleasure.
Recognizing the new creation that God has inaugurated in Jesus, the writer understood
that the day is coming when there will no longer be any separation of any sort. Separation
– in every one of its expressions – marks the cursed creation, and Jesus has conquered the curse by His death and resurrection. He reconciled the entire creation to His Father (Colossians 1:19-20), and even now is gathering up human beings into His Father’s life (Ephesians 2:1-22). That ingathering is the firstfruits of the new creation – the pledge of the future day when all things in the created order will be perfectly united and “summed up” in the Messiah, so that the Creator-Father will at last be “all in all” (Romans 8:18-23; Ephesians 1:9-10; 1 Corinthians 15:20-28). But for now, prayer is the fundamental and most profound expression of the new creation and the “I in you and you in me” intimacy it established. Animated and empowered by the shared Spirit, prayer binds the children to
their Father and one another, thereby enabling the Body to grow the Body.[/font]
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 31, 2023 12:47:10 GMT -5
D. Invocation and Closing (13:20-25)
Verse 19 concluded the writer’s final practical exhortations to his readers. Yet in his closing
comments he indicated that he regarded the entire epistle as an exhortation (13:22). This
underscores that he wrote to these Hebrews as a shepherd seeking to strengthen and nurture their
faith, not as a theologian presenting a theological treatise. It’s true that his epistle is the most
intricate and thorough treatment of Christology in the New Testament, but the writer’s goal was
greater insight and understanding of Jesus for the sake of living faith and faithfulness, not
doctrinal knowledge as such. He understood that the key to his readers’ faithful perseverance in
the face of hardship, persecution and deception was to be more thoroughly rooted and nourished
in their knowledge of their Lord (cf. Ephesians 4:1-24, 5:1-16, 6:10-20; Colossians 2:1-8). At
bottom, his longing was to see these Hebrew brethren endure to the end, and so join their faithful
forefathers in receiving the glorious inheritance pledged to Abraham’s covenant offspring.
1. With that goal in mind, the writer brought his exhortations to their climax by directing his
attention where it ultimately belonged, to God Himself. In the end, his readers’
faithfulness and endurance depended on their Father’s faithfulness toward them, and so
he concluded by offering up a marvelous and earnest invocation on their behalf. An
invocation is a prayer that entreats God for help or provision, and this one specifically
asked Him to supply what was necessary for these Hebrew saints to fulfill His purposes
for them (13:20-21). The writer didn’t ask for material blessing, or even that God would
meet their essential needs, though he recognized that such needs must be satisfied.
Rather, he focused on the overarching concern that all earthly provision serves, namely a
person’s fulfillment of the purpose for which God created him. The Father provides His
children with food, clothing, shelter, etc., but so that they will be able to devote
themselves to the work He appointed for them (cf. Matthew 6:25-33).
a. God’s ultimate purpose, regardless of individual gifts and calling, is the same for
all of His children, and the writer hinted at this by identifying Him as the God of
peace, an expression that he used uniquely in this closing invocation (cf. Romans
15:33, 16:20; Philippians 4:9; 1 Thessalonians 5:23). This peace is the Hebrew
concept of shalom, which refers to the settledness, harmony, and flourishing that
result when every created thing is perfectly conformed – in itself and in its
relation to all other things – to its created nature and function.
b. The Scripture identifies this peace as God’s ultimate intent for His creation. It was
destroyed by the fall and its curse, which introduced fracture, alienation, and
hostility into the fabric of the created order and all of its inter-relationships. Thus
peace – shalom – became a central theme in God’s scriptural promise of
creational renewal (cf. Psalm 29, 72, 85; Isaiah 9:1-7, 52:1-10, 54:1-17, 55:1-13,
57:14-21, 66:1-24; Jeremiah 33:1-26; Ezekiel 34:1-31, 37:1-26; Micah 5:1-5;
Haggai 2:6-9; Zechariah 6:12-13, 9:9-11; etc.). The prophets connected this
renewal and its peace with a messianic figure – the promised Seed of Eve,
Abraham and David, and thus the Hebrews writer furthered described God as the
One who “brought up from the dead Jesus our Lord.”
305
Notably, this is the author’s first and only reference to resurrection, though he
clearly suggests it (and presumes it) throughout the letter (ref. 1:3, 13, 2:9, 3:14,
5:7, 7:23-8:5, 9:11, 24, 10:11-13, 36-37, 12:1-2, 22-24, etc.). Only here, however,
did he explicitly state that Jesus was raised from the dead, and he ascribed that
work to the God of peace. Earlier he stated that Jesus offered Himself to God
“through the eternal Spirit” (9:13-14), but his focus here was on the fact that the
Creator-God raised Him from the dead with a view to His stated goal of peace (cf.
Romans 5:1-11; 8:18-39; Ephesians 2:11-22; Colossians 1:15-23).
Thus Jesus’ death and resurrection secured more than forgiveness and cleansing
from sin; they ended the alienation and enmity between Creator and creation,
reconciling all things in the heavens and the earth to their God (Colossians 1:19-
20). This cosmic reconciliation, in turn, has its ultimate goal in cosmic renewal –
the gathering up of everything in the Messiah, such that the Creator-Father will at
last be all in all (1 Corinthians 15:20-28; Ephesians 1:9-10).
c. Creational renewal and shalom were God’s goal in Jesus’ death and resurrection,
but this outcome has mankind at the center. The creation cannot exist in harmony
with God except as man experiences this same harmony, for God determined to
relate to and rule His creation through the creature that bears His image and
likeness. God is Lord over all creation, but His sovereign will is to administer His
lordship through His image-children. Thus the raising of Jesus unto the goal of
peace had in view the formation of a new human family. The Hebrews writer
understood this, and so referred to Jesus as “the great Shepherd of the sheep.”
As with his mention of resurrection, this is the writer’s one reference to Jesus as a
shepherd. He was drawing on the scriptural imagery of God as the shepherd of
His people, but who leads, feeds and protects them through appointed leadershepherds. David was preeminent among those shepherds, and so also the primary
prototype of the great shepherd to come, the son in whom Yahweh would
establish David’s regal house, throne and kingdom forever (cf. 2 Samuel 7:1-13
with Isaiah 40:1-11; Jeremiah 23:1-8; Ezekiel 34:1-31, 37:21-28; Micah 5:1-5;
also Matthew 2:1-6, 26:26-31; Mark 6:32-34; John 10:1-16).
d. The writer emphasized that Jesus was raised from the dead in view of His regal
vocation as the Great Shepherd of God’s people. He is the One who feeds and
cares for them and leads them in safety and security to dwell with His Father. His
resurrection culminated with the Father exalting Him to His right hand to become
His Shepherd and Lord of all, which outcome fulfilled the intent embodied in all
of the divine covenants. Behind each of them lay God’s determination to create
and then fill His creation with His life, love and goodness in and through man, the
image-bearing son (Luke 3:38). The chain of covenants progressed toward this
goal, finding their destiny in the New Covenant in Jesus’ blood. Hence the
writer’s assertion that God raised Jesus from the dead with a view to His shed
blood that inaugurated and confirmed “the everlasting covenant” (cf. 9:11-26,
10:26-29, 12:22-24; also Zechariah 9:11; Luke 22:20).
306
e. These observations are the crucial framework for understanding the writer’s plea
that God would equip these Hebrews “in every good thing to do His will.” For
without this context, the idea of being fitted to do God’s will is naturally
understood in terms of one’s own unique personal calling. That is to say, “doing
God’s will” is seen as a matter of discovering God’s “plan for my life,” which is
typically viewed in purely personal terms – marriage, vocation, family, lifestyle,
etc. But the way in which the writer described God and His work shows that this
“will” for His children concerns their role in attesting and advancing what He has
accomplished in Jesus. Doing God’s will involves giving oneself in the cause of
His kingdom – the kingdom of new creation in the enthroned Image-Son.
This meaning is further reinforced by the writer’s verb rendered “equip” (NAS). It
has the fundamental meaning of reparation, restoration, or completion, and in this
context carries the sense of configuring something or setting it in order so that it
can fulfill its intended purpose. Here, that “setting in order” concerns God’s
children, unto the end that they should fulfill their created design. Thus the writer
spoke of their completion in relation to “every good thing” – all that is inherently
good in accordance with God’s good pleasure in perfecting His people. The point
of the invocation, then, isn’t that God would equip His children to do “good
works,” but that He would perfect them in all goodness, conforming them to
Himself as the good God (cf. Luke 18:19 with 3 John 11), thereby making them
fit to do His will as image-children (Ephesians 5:1-10; 2 Thessalonians 1:11).
This is God’s work in human beings, the work of His good pleasure. And it was
also the writer’s longing, not only for his brethren, but for himself:
“May the God of peace perfect you in all goodness, working in us what is
pleasing in His sight, unto the end that we should be fully fitted to do His will.”
f. All of this divine intent, working, accomplishment, and fruition have their
substance in the Son; the God whose goal is perfect peace achieves that outcome
“through Jesus the Messiah.” Thus the writer closed out his invocation with a
brief doxology acknowledging the significance of this truth. Jesus is the Great
Shepherd of mankind and the Father’s true Image-Son, the One through whom the
entire creation has been reconciled unto its destiny of shalom. Thus He is the
rightful object of all glory, honor and praise, not only in the present age, for all
eternity: “To Him be the glory forever and ever. Amen.”
This doxology seems to be directed at Jesus, but focusing on the Son actually
exalts the glory of the Father and Spirit. For Jesus is “the radiance of God’s glory
and the exact expression of His nature” (1:1), so that to behold the Son is to
behold the Father (John 1:1, 14-18, 14:1-9; cf. 2 Corinthians 3:18; Colossians
1:15, 2:9). So God Himself affirmed that He is glorified in the Messiah’s glory
(cf. Isaiah 40:1-5, 49:1-3, 59:16-60:2 with John 12:20-28, 37-41, 13:31-32, 15:7-
8, 17:1-5; cf. also Revelation 5:1-14, 21:22-23). Likewise, the Spirit displays His
own glory by testifying to Jesus and summing up all things in Him. He is the Recreator Spirit, the Spirit of Jesus unto the creation (John 14-16; Romans 8:8-10).
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 31, 2023 12:48:05 GMT -5
2. Before extending his closing greetings and benediction to his readers (13:23-25), the
author made his final plea to them, namely that they would bear with his “brief word of
exhortation” (13:22). This underscores both his pastoral intent in writing and the great
burden he had for them. For all its scope and depth, he viewed his letter as simply a brief
correspondence penned to exhort them to persevere in their faith and devotion to Jesus,
and his earnest hope was that they would embrace it as such.
He wrote to them as a brother, a fellow Jew who had come to recognize the man Jesus as
the promised and long-awaited Messiah of Israel. In Him, God had brought to its climax
and fulfillment all of Israel’s history, including its covenants, structures, circumstances,
promises and longings. Jesus had come into the world, lived, suffered, died and been
raised as Yahweh’s “amen” to all that He had disclosed in word and deed from the time
of creation; Jesus is the embodied Word of the Living God. Thus everything that had
marked out these Hebrews (and all Jews) as Abraham’s covenant offspring had reached
its ordained destiny and found its fulfillment in Jesus the Messiah. The shadows had
given way to the substance behind them, so that there was no Judaism or Mosaic Torah to
continue in or return to. What had constituted covenant faithfulness in the time of
preparation now amounted to the sin of unbelief. For that which Yahweh’s Torah had
promised and prepared for had now come to pass, so that continuing one’s relationship
with Torah as if that fulfillment hadn’t come is refusing to listen to it (Galatians 4:21-31);
it is disregarding the Lord’s salvation and failing to enter His appointed rest (2:1-4:13).
The writer’s overarching concern was his readers’ perseverance in faith, and their Jewish
background presented them with challenges and pitfalls unknown to their Gentile
brethren. Gentile believers faced their own trials of faith, but trials deriving from their
pagan background and perspectives.
- In one sense, the faith of Jewish Christians was more natural and intuitive,
because they had the scriptural, historical, and cultural foundation for making
sense of the person and work of God’s Messiah. In Paul’s words, they “were
entrusted with the oracles of God” and had received from Him “the adoption as
sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple
service and the promises.” Indeed, Jesus of Nazareth was an Israelite who met the
messianic genealogical criteria (Matthew 1:1) and served the children of Israel as
the prophets predicted (ref. Romans 3:1-2, 9:1-5; cf. also Matthew 4:12-17, 8:14-
17, 11:1-15, 12:10-23, 15:22-28, 21:1-9, etc. with John 1:11).
- On the other hand, a Jewish heritage was a very real impediment to embracing
Jesus as Israel’s Messiah. This was in large part due to prevailing flawed
conceptions of the Messiah and the messianic work that the rabbis had developed
over the centuries. But the scriptures themselves were part of the problem, in that
their messianic revelation didn’t provide a complete or fully coherent portrait.
Though God disclosed the framework and essential components of the future
messianic phenomenon, it yet resided in the realm of shadow and mystery, and so
was subject to speculation and distortion. God’s prophets and scriptures spoke
truthfully, but only fulfillment in Jesus would show how that was the case.
308
Thus the Hebrews writer was jealous for his readers to comprehend how Jesus had
fulfilled and transformed all of Israel’s life and covenant relationship with Yahweh. That
understanding alone would keep them from straying from Him and slipping back into
their Jewish perspectives and practices. This, then, was his reason for writing and the
very substance of his “brief exhortation” to them.
3. The writer previously exhorted his readers to pray that the Lord would restore him to
them soon, and here he noted that Timothy had been released and his hope was to bring
Timothy with him when he came (v. 23). It’s reasonable to assume that this “Timothy”
was the same individual who labored with Paul, but this doesn’t explain what the writer
meant by saying that he had been “released.”
a. This statement suggests imprisonment, but there’s no record in the New
Testament of Timothy being incarcerated. Of course, this doesn’t prove that
Timothy was never imprisoned, but the verb can indicate other sorts of “release.”
It generically denotes a discharge or loosing, and so has a wide semantic range
with both negative and positive connotations (cf. Matthew 1:19, 14:15, 15:23,
18:27; Luke 6:37, 13:12; Acts 15:30). In a few instances it refers to discharging
men for the sake of gospel ministry (Acts 13:3, 15:33), and that could suggest a
possible meaning here. The writer might have been saying that Timothy had been
released from ministry obligations elsewhere and so might accompany him when
he returned to these Hebrews.
In the end, the context does seem to support the idea of Timothy being released
from some sort of custody. Though there’s no record of him being jailed, he was a
long-time companion of Paul, and Paul was incarcerated several times. Indeed,
incarceration in the cause of the gospel was so commonplace in the first century
that it’s hard to imagine that Timothy escaped it altogether, especially given his
close association with Paul.
b. This reference to Timothy has also been cited in support of the claim that Paul
wrote the Hebrews letter. Taken as a whole, the evidence for authorship points
away from Paul, and the mention of Timothy isn’t as compelling as some might
think. Timothy was closely tied to Paul and his ministry, but his work as Paul’s
emissary distinguished him in his own right, and Timothy’s personal labors would
have made him well known in the churches of the first century. This Hebrew
community obviously knew him – “our brother Timothy has been released.”
4. Typical of New Testament epistles, the writer asked his readers to greet their leaders and
brethren on his behalf, and also extended the greeting of “those from Italy” (v. 24). The
fact that he didn’t identify anyone by name has led to some speculation as to how well he
knew this community of believers. But Paul also commonly issued general greetings,
though he did name specific individuals in his Roman epistle (Romans 16:3-15; cf. also
Colossians 4:15-17; 2 Timothy 4:19). The content and tone of this letter certainly
indicate that the writer knew his readers well, and he may well have extended a general
greeting because those readers comprised a wide audience.
309
The phrase, “those from Italy,” has also generated much speculation. It is inherently
ambiguous, and could refer to Italian brethren who were present with the writer at the
location where he penned his letter. This suggests the possibility that the letter was
addressed to Hebrew Christians who were themselves living in Italy. In this case, the
writer was saying, “your Italian brethren here with us send you their greetings.”
Alternatively, this phrase could indicate that the writer penned this epistle from Italy, and
he was simply sending the greetings of the brethren with him. If this was his meaning, his
statement says nothing about his readers’ nationality or the destination of his letter.
5. Finally, the writer closed his epistle with a simple benediction that parallels all of Paul’s
epistles and the final words of the New Testament: “Grace be with you all.” This pattern
suggests that the plea for grace was a common blessing in the early Church. Because
grace was a core concept in the doctrine and faith of first-century Christians, it’s
important to understand what they meant when they blessed one another in this way.
In contemporary Christianity, grace is often defined simply as unmerited favor – that is,
God’s saving mercy toward those who don’t deserve it. This definition isn’t entirely offbase, but it is overly simplistic. As a scriptural concept, grace does connote favor, but
more broadly than the idea of God’s undeserved saving favor toward sinners (often
expressed in terms of the phrase “salvation by grace” and the implied antithesis between
grace and works). Grace speaks of favorableness, both as a personal quality
(graciousness) and one’s disposition toward another. So the Scripture applies it to human
relationships as well as a person’s relationship with God. Not surprisingly, then, the
scriptural concept of grace has no inherent salvific connotation (cf. Genesis 30:27, 32:5;
Exodus 3:21, 12:36; Judges 6:17; Proverbs 11:16; Jeremiah 31:2; etc.).
The salvific connotation of God’s graciousness comes to the forefront in the New
Testament, specifically in relation to the saving work of Jesus the Messiah. Thus the
gospel accounts don’t address the concept of “saving grace” (John alludes to it – John
1:14-17), but it emerges in the book of Acts and is common in the epistles. Most
importantly, this “grace” is always treated as God’s loving, restorative disposition toward
His creation that has man at its center; the disposition that God manifested and exercised
through the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Jesus (cf. Romans 3:21-26, 5:1-2,
19-21; Galatians 2:20-21; Ephesians 1:3-10, 2:1-10; Colossians 1:1-6; 2 Timothy 1:8-10;
etc.). As such, the New Testament speaks of “grace” in two inseparable aspects: God’s
restorative intent realized in Jesus’ person and work, and the full accomplishment of that
intent. Thus “saving grace” is more concerned with a person’s conformity to Christ than
his initial conversion; the latter finds its purpose and significance in the former. And this
is the premise behind the common benediction “grace to you,” in all of its various forms.
This benediction acknowledges God’s devoted, invincible, and ever-faithful commitment
to see His creation fully liberated from the curse and restored to Him in His Son, so that
His eternal will of love and intimacy will be realized and He will forever be “all in all.”
This divine intent determines, defines and drives the life of every Christian, and so
reveals the significance and preciousness of the Hebrews writer’s parting words: “Grace
– this grace – be with you all.” Having poured himself out in instructing and exhorting
his brethren, he now entrusted them to their faithful Father and His unfailing purpose.
|
|
