Hebrews 2, Our Suffering Brother

The writer of Hebrews has spent the first chapter emphasizing that the Jewish messiah, Jesus, is the exact imprint of God, creating the universe.  This Jesus is greater than the angels.  Why is this important?  Jewish tradition (and the Septuagint translation) has the angels giving the law to Moses.  So the angels are the agents through which the Law was passed down.  But if Jesus is even greater... then we must take Jesus very seriously!

2:1-4 
We must pay more careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away.  For if the message spoken by angels was binding, and every violation and disobedience received its just punishment,   how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him.  God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.

The salvation offered by Jesus has been passed on by those followers who personally saw and heard Him.  Unlike Paul, the writer of Hebrews appears to have received this message from one of those followers.

Like the miracles of the Exodus, this message has been confirmed by similar miracles in Jesus's day, including the gifts and confirmation of the Holy Spirit.

2:5-8a 
It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking.  But there is a place where someone has testified: "What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?  You made him a little lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honor  and put everything under his feet." In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him.

"It is said somewhere".  The writer knows the passage (from Psalms 8:4-6) and knows that his (her?) readers know the passage also.  There is no need to mention David.  The Davidic passage appears to be talking about mankind but the writer interprets it as speaking of the Son of Man, the Messiah.

Here we are reminded that although Jesus is superior to all angels, he stooped to become a man, for just a time lower even than the angels.

2:8b-10
Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him.  But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.  In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering.

The suffering Messiah (of Isaiah 53) was, just for a time, lower than the angels, in order to lift mankind up.  So we too are (eventually) even superior to angels, as we are lifted up by the Messiah.

In the next passage, we are told that Jesus is both "brother" and "high priest".

2:11-13
Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers.  He says, "I will declare your name to my brothers; in the presence of the congregation I will sing your praises." And again, "I will put my trust in him." And again he says, "Here am I, and the children God has given me." 

These passages are from the messianic Psalm 22 (verse 22) and from Isaiah 8:17-18.

2:14-18
Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death--that is, the devil-- and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.  For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants.  For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.  Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

This passage has a theme we will hear a number of times.  Jesus, the exact imprint of God (verse 1:3, at the beginning of this letter) was also human, so that he might be a sympathetic representative for us.

Note that final verse, Hebrews 2:18.  Don't pass it by.  We have a "brother" who has been tempted and suffered as we have.  As his brothers and sisters, we have One who wants to help.

In the next passage, the writer will move away from angels and compare Jesus to Moses, that ancient hero who brought the divine Law to the people of Israel.

Hebrews 1:5-14, Jesus, Better than Angels!

The author of Hebrews ends our first chapter with a flurry of Old Testament references to prove that the Jewish Messiah is greater than angels.

1:5-9 - Jesus greater than the angels
For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father"?  Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son"?  

These two quotes are from Psalm 2:7 and 2 Samuel 7:13-14, part of God's promise to David and his descendants.  (A passage parallel to 2 Samuel 7:13-14 is 1 Chronicles 17:13.)

And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him."

This quotation is an interesting one, for it is from the Pentateuch, from Deuteronomy 32:43.  Modern translations like the NIV, based on the Masoretic text, don't mention angels, but the Septuagint does, and the Septuagint was the Greek version of the Old Testament available for Greek readers of that day.  The Jewish readers would have been familiar with this quotation.

In speaking of the angels he says, "He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire."

But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.  You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy."

These two quotations are from the psalms, first Psalm 104:4 and then Psalm 45:6-7.

1:10-12  Jesus -- from the beginning
He also says, "In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end."

This beautiful cosmological scene is from Psalm 102:25-27. 

1:13-14 Angels are different
To which of the angels did God ever say, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet"? Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?

The final Old Testament quote in this passage is from Psalm 110:1.  Clearly the psalter and the book of Moses were well known to the readers.  The psalms will be used as references throughout the letter.

Why, suddenly, this essay on angels?  There are two reasons the writer pauses to compare Jesus and the angels.  

First, the Jewish reader of that time would believe (of course) that there is only one God.  But he/she might also believe in other divine beings between God and man, that is, spirits or "angels" or "sons of God" (such as those who showed up in Old Testament episodes with Abraham or Daniel.)  Jewish followers of Jesus might be tempted to believe that Jesus was a spiritual hero, a divine spirit, therefore relegating Him to angelic status.  The author of Hebrews wants the readers to understand that this demotion is unacceptable.  Jesus is far above the angels!  This is intended (with verse 3) to be a clear statement about Jesus's divinity: Jesus IS God.

There is a second reason the author of this letter want to compare Jesus with angels.  That will become clear in the next chapter of the letter.  

I hope to post of Hebrews 2 on Wednesday.

Hebrews 1:1-4, Representation Theory

The letter to the Hebrews opens with an eloquent statement for the Jewish readers.

1:1-3  The Final Representation of God.  
In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 

This is a clear statement claiming that "the Son" is the fulfillment of the Judaic plan of God ... and that this has been part of that plan from the beginning.   Jesus is both an heir at the end of history and the creator of the universe at the beginning of history.

The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. 

In my mathematical research area, a representation is a mapping that takes a very abstract idea, one hard to understand, and creates a concrete example of the idea, an example where one can do precise mathematical computations, where understanding is achieved by "concreteness."  (Yes, there is a whole mathematical theory of this -- I have books on "representation theory" in my office!)  A representation is "faithful" if it carries all the properties of that difficult abstract idea.

When we humans ask about the abstract, strange, scary idea of "God" and want to understand who God is, we have been offered the "exact representation" of God, that is, God in human form (Jesus), as a concrete example.  If you wish to understand God, look at Jesus.

After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

The first two verses could be understood by Greek philosophers.  But this concluding sentence returns to God's work in the Jewish nation, for "the Son" is indeed the Jewish Messiah, the Jewish sacrificial Lamb, the Savior of all mankind.

1:4  Better than angels  

So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs. 

After a strong thematic opening on the identity of "the Son", we have a transition to a lengthy passage about angels.  Of course, if "the Son" is the exact representation of God and was involved in Creation then this Messiah is above all created things, including angels.  But the author wants to dwell on that a bit... and that will be the next half of chapter 1.

I hope to post on Hebrews 1:5-14 tomorrow.

The Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews

The letter to the Hebrews makes no authorship claims within the text.  The letter is quite old; it is quoted by Clement of Rome in 96 AD in Clement's letter to Corinth (says F. F. Bruce and others) and towards the end of the letter, there is a casual mention of Timothy, a traveler with Paul on his missionary journeys.

It has been suggested, from ancient times, that the writer was Paul, the Apostle.  But there are strong arguments against that.  Biblical commentators say that the letter is written in excellent and learned Greek, very different from the rough Greek of Paul's writings.  Some aspects of the style are different too; readers of Paul's letters would expect his customary greeting at the front of the letter, for example.  But most convincing is the simple statement in Hebrews 2:3, that the gospel "was confirmed to us by those who heard him [Jesus]." But Paul repeatedly stressed, in his letters and in his missionary preaching, that he had heard from Jesus directly and that Jesus had appeared to Paul, "last of all, as one untimely born" (I Corinthian 15:8.)  Paul would never have said, "I heard about Jesus from others", as the writer of Hebrews does.

Still, Paul was often suggested as the author of this book in ancient times.  It has been suggested that the motivation for suggesting Paul's authorship was to assist the letter in disputes about the canon of the New Testament, as letters written by Paul tended to be beyond dispute.

If the letter was not written by Paul, it was likely written by someone in Paul's group of travelers. A century later, Clement of Alexandria suggested that it might have been written by Paul in Hebrew and then translated by Luke into Greek.  Origen says that "the thoughts are the apostle's [Paul's]" but that "some say... it was written by Clement [of Rome] ... others that it was written by Luke, the writer of the Gospel and Acts."

Tertullian believed that Barnabas was the author and claims that others in his circle agreed with him.  There is a certain attraction to this claim, as Barnabas was a nickname, "Son of Encouragement" given to Joseph of Cyprus (Acts 4:36) and this exhortation message certainly fits the image of Barnabas as seen in Acts.  This idea also nicely fits with an ending phrase (Heb 13:22) in which the author of the letter even calls it "my word of exhortation."  But then (as others point out), this may have just been a common phrase for a sermon (see Acts 13:15 for example.)

We might agree with Origen that "the thoughts are the apostle's" and suspect that the author was a traveling companion of Paul's.  This would be in agreement with Hebrews 2:3, where the writer claims to have learned the gospel from others who had heard Jesus.  In the late Middle Ages, John Calvin suggested Luke or Clement of Rome as author.  Martin Luther suggested Apollos, another traveler whose ministry and connections with Paul are described in the book of Acts.

One of my favorite suggestions is that maybe the letter is written by the couple, Priscilla and Aquila, with, possibly, Priscilla doing the majority of the writing.  Arguments for this (in addition to their close relationship with Paul) are (1) the first-person plural pronoun "we" occurs in numerous places and (2) if Priscilla was the author, the tendency for others to question a woman's role might explain the fact that the author's name has disappeared from the letter!

Regardless of the suggestions, the letter is from someone in the first century church, most likely a traveling companion of Paul. Although it is not clear where the readers lived, it is reasonable to believe that they were a Jewish community in Roman, for the letter was known in Rome within the first century.

The next post will be on Hebrews 1:1-4.

I am using an old edition of this excellent commentary on Hebrews by F. F. Bruce.  (My copy was published in 1964; I bought it in 1972.   I think I was probably 3 years old then....)

The Epistle to the Hebrews

Towards the end of the New Testament one finds a fascinating little book often called "The Epistle to the Hebrews".  It consists of 13 short chapters.  It is absent an "addressee" and it is absent a claim of authorship.  Indeed, like the book of James (which follows it in the English Bible), it reads more like a sermon.

Its authorship is a mystery.  But the audience is most like Jewish Christians in the first century who, probably under persecution, were beginning to drift back to Judaism and away from following the teachings of this Messiah named Jesus.

The book gives some of the clearest statements about the role of Jesus as the Jewish messiah, as the both the perfect Lamb of God and as a High Priest serving mankind.  The letter has some strong statements about commitment to Christ and about thinking longterm about our pilgrimage as Christians.  It also includes some strange passages, emphasizing Melchizedek (who is he?!) and a number of passages about "falling away" and what that might mean.

It has a "boot camp" emphasis about getting back on track and being serious about being Jesus's disciple.  That theme got the letter in trouble with Martin Luther, who did not like its emphasis on "works".  Luther was uncomfortable with this "works" emphasis in both the letter to the Hebrews and the letter of James.  I understand Luther's frustration with the letter of James but the beauty of Hebrews, as it describes Jesus's priesthood, gives us important insight to the Jewish-ness of the gospel.  Every Christian should spend some time meditating on this book!

And so, in the fall semester of 2015, I will be leading a Bible study in the Epistle to the Hebrews at Elkins Lake Baptist Church on Wednesday nights, 6:30 – 7:30 PM (Room 203.)  If you live in Huntsville, Texas, feel free to come join us.  (The church has a meal at 5:45; I think it is free to college students; if not, I'll treat!)  The first meeting is Wednesday, Sept 2.

In my next post I will discuss the authorship of the book of Hebrews.

The God Pronoun

This summer, as I study the Psalms and then, as part of my study, I attempt to write about them, I am routinely faced with the question, "What pronoun does one use for God?"

This is not a simple question.  In current US culture, the question carries a lot of baggage. Some see the use of pronouns as a litmus test for one's beliefs about the role of women, feminism, and one's support for women in general.  Others see, in the use of various pronouns, a statement about "conservative tradition" versus "progressive liberalism."  

If I use a male pronoun ("he", "him") for God, I am presumably supporting a patriarchal religious view that is inherently sexist.  If I use a female pronoun ("she", "her") for God, I am promoting a Mother Earth/Gaia view of creation and abandoning orthodox Christianity altogether.  And if I use a neuter pronoun ("it"), I am suggesting that God is an impersonal force, presumably similar to the divine Force of the Star Wars universe.

Let me seek to ignore all this baggage and address the gender of God.  In the Jewish and Christian scriptures, God is clearly neither male nor female.   Gender is a creation of God's in His/Her creation of human beings.  Genesis 1:27 makes this clear:

So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

Note that this translation, from Hebrew into English, translates the Hebrew male pronoun into an English one ("he", "his".)  But the Hebrew writer of this passage is faced with the same problem I have, since this passage clearly state that male and female are both created in God's image and so both men and women reflect attributes of God.

There are other places where one might be tempted to view God as female.  The mother bird metaphor is common in Scripture for God.  It appears in Psalm 17 and other psalms. Boaz uses the metaphor in Ruth 2:12 in his first meeting with Ruth.  Psalm 123 has a different metaphor:

As the eyes of slaves look to the hand of their master,
    as the eyes of a female slave look to the hand of her mistress,
so our eyes look to the Lord our God,
    till she shows us her mercy.
Have mercy on us, Lord, have mercy on us,
    for we have endured no end of contempt.

In the New Testament, Jesus calls himself a mother hen, desiring to gather Israel under his wing, in Luke 13:34.  (A parallel passage occurs in Matthew 23:37.)

Again in the New Testament, as Paul elaborates on the unity of the church, as he invites Gentiles too to follow Jesus, he writes (Galatians 3:28):

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

There is NO good pronoun for God. God is neither male nor female.  But the neuter "it" carries an obvious implication that God is impersonal (since most neuter objects, in English, are indeed impersonal.)  As I read the Psalms, which emphasis the personal aspect of God, I can't see referring to God as "It".

So, I've given up on trying to have a consistent pronoun.  Sometimes I use "He", sometimes "She", sometimes "He/She".  In other cases I try to avoid pronouns all together and just keep saying "God."

Maybe "God" is the best pronoun?

Radical

A small group at my church has been working through the book Radical: Taking Back Your Faith From the American Dream, by David Platt.  It seems pretty obvious (isn't it?) that the American dream is not Christian.  But we in American churches need to be reminded of this.  (It has nothing to do with politics!)

The American culture borrows heavily from ideas of Greek elites two thousand years ago.  We are Epicureans.  We learn how to carefully cultivate pleasure.  Most Americans, like Epicurus, look down on a wild chaotic uncontrolled life, trapped in addictions.  We believe in living modestly, but living well.  We have nice homes and nice cars.  We taste good wine (but not expensive wine) and we eat at nice restaurants (but not too fancy!)  We move from one modest subtle pleasure to another.

Well, at least I do.  I know that the $200 bottle of wine is a waste, but that there are good bottles to be had for $10.  I drive a Honda Civic with 135,000 miles (but it is in good running condition!)  The three adults in my home (yes, we own our own home) all have their own cars.  I have a Mac laptop, an iPhone, iPad and mini iPad.

We live modest lives of pleasure.  This is classic, orthodox Epicureanism.

It is not Christianity.

Good Epicureans learn to have modest desires and modest pleasures.  So (unless they are true philosophers) they will have modest religious beliefs.  They will enjoy a religion that supports their life of steady, subtle pleasure.

If one wants to see a practiced practical application of Epicureanism, look to the middle class white Christian church in America.

When Jan and I married (in the 1970s) we wanted to live a radical, missional life.  We would resist American materialism.  We lived in a mobile home.  We had one car, a VW diesel Rabbit, which got 50 miles to the gallon.  (It was a nice car.)  We worked with a singles group in our church, enjoyed hikes in the mountains.  We agonized as to whether we were letting down our guard when we started going to Colorado ski resorts and buying ski equipment.  (My first skis, K2s, were purchased for $2 in a Colorado ski swap.)  We owned one TV, a small black and white with an antenna.  We watched the Broncos play on Sunday afternoons, but on our small screen we couldn't always see the ball Craig Morton threw. (This was before Elway.)  We promised to raise our children (Alex arrived in 1983) on love and the teachings of Jesus, with simplicity, without giving in to American materialism.

But American materialism is pervasive.  Good things, by themselves, are not bad.  I like Starbucks coffee.   Gnarly Head red zinfadel is less than $9 a bottle.  Buying things is not, of itself, wrong, but somehow I have bought into the teaching of Epicurus.  I'm not sure how to go back.

Following Jesus has been a significant value in my life.  It has helped me focus on my wife and children, on friends and church and ministry.  For many years, Jan and I gave 25% (or more) of our income to ministries and charities and we matured in our involvement with (for example) the women in crisis pregnancy centers and organizations like Good Shepherd Ministry in Huntsville, Texas, organizations which work with those struggling with abuse, addictions and poverty.  We have supported ministries across Asia, Africa and Europe.

At times, under family stress or job pressures, we began to take shortcuts, moving away from focus on that invisible Kingdom of God.  And, of course, this added confusion and struggle.

But as I get older, I am tired and sensitive to pain.  I want to relax and drink a glass of wine and enjoy the pleasures that have come with the practices we developed over the years.  I'm not sure how to go back to the missional life.  I am afraid that I have become an Epicurean, not a Christ-follower!