Hope for the future in Hebrews

The author of Hebrews explains that "God subjected the world to come, of which we are speaking" to Jesus and, in him, to humanity (2:5).

This captures much of what Hebrews is about. It is not a about incorporeal reality in contrast to a corporeal sub-reality. Instead it is profoundly eschatological. It is a book about our future ("the world to come") which has already happened in Christ. "At present" we do not see this future world except when we look to Jesus where it is encapsulated (2:8-9).

Hebrews regularly exhorts its readers to "hope" that endures through present difficulties "to the end". This involves "patience" and "waiting" but we are not to be "sluggish", but should "run" towards the eschaton.

Jesus is our "forerunner" who has entered the future before us. The OT temple is not modelled on heavenly realities only in the sense that it is modelled on an incorporeal dimension to reality. The Holy of Holies is symbolic of the future age which is "not yet opened" (9:8), and the Holy place "is symbolic for the present age" (9:9). Indeed the whole law is a "a shadow of the good things to come" (10:1).

Christ "entered once for all into the holy places [plural]" (9:12) to secure an "eternal redemption" (9:12; cf. 9:15).

We are waiting now for him to come a "second time" (9:28), just as he is "waiting [...] until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet" (10:13). The "Day" is "drawing near" (10:25) so we should encourage each other to hold firm and do good for "a little while" longer (10:37). Because "here [that is, in our present age] we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come".

Stairways to heaven

Listening to: Bob Dylan: Blood on the Tracks

The people of Babel said to themselves "Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens" but YHWH saw the ladder they had created and said "Come, let us go down [it?] and there confuse their language" (Gen 11).

At Bethel Jacob dreamed of "a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven. And behold, the angels of God were ascending and descending on it!" God stood at the top and blessed Jacob below (Gen 28).

Samson's father, Manoah, made a burnt offering to YHWH and "the angel of the Lord went up in the flame of the altar" (Judg 13).

Centuries later Jesus promised his disciples "you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man"

Jesus, by his sacrificial offering of himself, is a ladder down which God's ministering spirits come to serve God's people (Heb 1:14). If we build alternative ladders angels will use those to come to us as well, but they may not be coming to serve.

The one mediator

"there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5)

There is a discussion going on at the Coffee Bible Club Blog concerning whether the Angel of YHWH in the OT is God the Son. It is at 166 comments and counting - I've never seen anything like it. I haven't had the time to get involved and I don't have firm enough opinions on it anyway.

But I do have a nagging question:

Can there be a mediator between God and humanity who is not human?

Further, can there be a mediator between God and sinful humanity, who does not share in the suffering which is the just punishment for our sin?

The letter to the Hebrews has been brought into the discussion on the blog, although I've only skim read how people have dealt with it. However it would seem to me that Hebrews says several things that are relevant (that I can think of off the top of my head):

• The Old Covenant was mediated by Angels but the New by God's own Son.
• The Old Covenant was also mediated by imperfect sinful priests the New by a perfect sinless priest.
• Jesus was tempted like we were and so can sympathise with our weaknesses.
• Jesus was made perfect for his mediatory role by suffering.

The OT is characterised by a distance between God and humanity. We have to take at full seriousness the verses about people being unable to see God and live because of their sinfulness. Only in the NT did God come close. As Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:5 it is 'the man' Christ Jesus who is our mediator. That is why the most common places that the NT writers see Christ in the OT are in men - the priests, the kings, the nation.

I don't think the debate is really about whether the Israelites knew the Triune God or a Unitarian God, with the Angel of YHWH as a test case. I think the debate is really about mediation and revelation.

... sorry Glen. I perfectly understand if you want to shoot me now.

Foundations of faith

The author to the Hebrews lists as foundational the following (Heb 6:1f):

• repentance from dead works
• faith toward God
• instruction about washings [or baptisms]
• the laying on of hands
• the resurrection of the dead
• and eternal judgment

When I read this I wondered to myself how many of us 21st century Christians would list the same things as foundational to our faith. Having said that, I think a fair number of Catholics and Charismatics might (with different understandings of what the words mean of course). Sadly you would not hear anything like that coming out of my mouth (reformation needed).

It is interesting though that understood in context the author's list is really an expression of faith in the story of a Christian's life, when we are so often told today that redemptive-historical is the New Testament way of describing faith. An interesting comparison is Tertullian (AD 155-220) who wrote the following summary of the teaching of Christ, or rule of faith:

Now, with regard to this rule of faith—that we may from this point acknowledge what it is which we defend—it is, you must know, that which prescribes the belief that there is one only God, and that He is none other than the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of nothing through His own Word, first of all sent forth; that this Word is called His Son, and, under the name of God, was seen “in diverse manners” by the patriarchs, heard at all times in the prophets, at last brought down by the Spirit and Power of the Father into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb, and, being born of her, went forth as Jesus Christ; thenceforth He preached the new law and the new promise of the kingdom of heaven, worked miracles; having been crucified, He rose again the third day; (then) having ascended into the heavens, He sat at the right hand of the Father; sent instead of Himself the Power of the Holy Ghost to lead such as believe; will come with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of everlasting life and of the heavenly promises, and to condemn the wicked to everlasting fire, after the resurrection of both these classes shall have happened, together with the restoration of their flesh. (source)

Again, sadly, not like something you would come out of my mouth (except thanks to CofE liturgy when reading the creed). Like the earlier list of the author of Hebrews it is a story. However it is a different story. Nevertheless it is in perfect harmony with the biblical letter's whole argument, and a few verses later the link between the two stories is made (v.6).

The gospel is a many faceted jewel which can be described in a multitude of different ways. We should not try and make other Christian's sound the same but listen to all the different stories in wonderful harmony. But this embrace of diversity within the church does not remove all boundaries, or embrace 'multiple' gospels. As Tertullian saw his summary could raise 'no other questions than those which heresies introduce', and in extension we should reject all discordant notes in the different 'core stories' Christians tell, and recognise their danger.

Just wandering in thought...

Letter to "the Hebrews"

I've bought and have just read the introduction to Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle "to the Hebrews" by David A. DeSilva. Interesting reading so far, especially on the reason for the scare quotes in the title. DeSilva is convinced that that there is no reason to believe that the recipients of the letter were Hebrews (specifically that is). I have to say it is fairly convincing in its debunking of any reasons to believe the title given is unhelpful.

DeSilva believes that the pressures on the recipient church to apostatise are primarily social (regarding honour and shame within the society) rather than ideological.

I may come back to this, but that's all you are getting for now.