The Hall of Faith

Hebrews 11:39 And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.

39 Καὶ οὗτοι πάντες μαρτυρηθέντες διὰ τῆς πίστεως οὐκ ἐκομίσαντο τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν, 40  τοῦ θεοῦ περὶ ἡμῶν κρεῖττόν τι προβλεψαμένου, ἵνα μὴ χωρὶς ἡμῶν τελειωθῶσιν.

This ends Hebrews 11, which is sometimes called the "Hall of Faith," kind of like Cooperstown, NY houses the Baseball Hall of Fame.  Here we read about the great saints of the Old Testament who were faithful.  You don't have to read much of Genesis to see some striking stories of faith.  These folks serve to inspire us.  They inspire me because as I look at their whole lives as portrayed in Scripture I see that they struggle with sin like I do.  Yet here we see them commended for their faith.

But what I want to focus on is the ἡμῶν κρεῖττόν τι  that God provided.  What is better for us?  Christ.  He is better than any of the sacrifices in the Old Testament.  He is the perfect sacrifice for sin.  He is the perfect man.  He is the perfect example for us. It is only by His blood that we can be free.

Keep this in mind as you go about your day.  Our natural inclination is toward the Law.  We want to curry favor with God through our lives.  At least I know that I do.  However, Christ already came as the perfect sacrifice for sins.  We can find true freedom and hope through Him.

Do you know Him?  Have you accepted this precious gift of "something better?"

Better than the Prophets

Hebrews 1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

1 Πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως πάλαι ὁ θεὸς λαλήσας τοῖς πατράσιν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις 2  ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ, ὃν ἔθηκεν κληρονόμον πάντων, δι᾽ οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας·

I admit that the book of Hebrews has always intimidated me.  I've never been quite sure what to do with it as I've tried to jam it into a theological system.  I've decided that this time through I'm just going to take it as face-value as much as I can.

Even if you don't know much about the book of Hebrews you've probably at least heard the "at many times and in many ways" line.  What did God do?  He λαλήσας τοῖς πατράσιν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις.  More literally it is that He "spoke to the fathers by the prophets."  But since this is a book addressed to Jews and presumably written by a Jew, it is fine for the author to use "our" here.  Whether or not that is appropriate for a Gentile to read it that way is another discussion.

I notice that there is no adversative in verse 2, but that is added by the translators.  The phrase ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων is most literally understood as "on these last days" or something similar.  We need a conjunction here to make it work as good English.  Incidentally, the HCSB, KJV, NASB, and NET do not add the conjunction, but the ESV and NIV do.  This is one of those places where the ESV goes a bit beyond the literal.

I think it is valid to add the conjunction here because it would seem that there is a contrast between God speaking through the prophets and now speaking through the Son.  You may note that the word "his" does not exist in the Greek, but that it is consistent with the phrase ἐν υἱῷ.

Why am I going into all this detail?  I think it is important that we handle the text faithfully, which is one of the goals of this blog.  And, frankly, because I have a little bit more time this morning than usual :)

What do we get from this?  What I see is that the prophets had their place.  God spoke to the Jews through the prophets.  As we see one fulfilled prophecy after another we can take great assurance in God's faithfulness and His sovereignty to accomplish His will.  But in the times of the author of Hebrews (I suspect Paul, but we can't be sure), God spoke to His people through His Son.

This means that the Son is better than the prophets.  It means that He fulfilled what was predicted of Him.  The Jews missed it as they were waiting for a king like David who would throw off the shackles of Rome.  They didn't realize that Jesus was the better David who would ultimately come to set the captives truly free, rather than simply politically free.

There is much debate about whether the NT should interpret the OT.  When I read this I see no question.  We'll get into this more when we get to 1 Peter 1.  The point for now is that God has spoken to us through His Son.  Let's listen to what the Son and His apostles have to say.  That is not to say that we throw out the OT.  Far from it.  But let us realize that Jesus came as the fulfillment of the law.  I am finding that it really makes things much clearer as I read my Bible.

The Need for Discernment

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.

9 μωρὰς δὲ ζητήσεις καὶ γενεαλογίας καὶ ἔρεις καὶ μάχας νομικὰς περιΐστασο· εἰσὶν γὰρ ἀνωφελεῖς καὶ μάταιοι.

Paul is wrapping up this short letter with some commands to Titus.  This is the first of three verses about the kind of person who gets involved in μωρὰς δὲ ζητήσεις, or "foolish controversies."  The δὲ in there is the weak adversative that we translate "but."  Incidentally, the difference between this word and the stronger αλλα is one of the good reasons to study Greek.

Any conservative reader of Scripture will of course agree to this.  But this is where the discernment comes in.  What is it that makes a controversy μωρὰς (from which we get our word "moron," and in this case I do not think this leap is an exegetical fallacy) instead of essential?  We all agree that the gospel is primary.  When we get to Jude we'll see an extremely clear command to contend for the faith.  How do we decide whether or not it is a vital doctrine or one that is μωρὰς?

Personally, I use salvation as my filter.  Is this something that someone needs to understand in order to be saved?  That's a bit nebulous though.  Does someone need a perfectly-articulated understanding of the Trinity?  Maybe or maybe not, but I would consider Christology to be pretty important.  Relegating Jesus to "a God" as the Arians do is a problem.  Relegating him to Lucifer's brother as the Mormons do is a problem as well.  Do we have to get Jesus right?

This is where discernment is vital.  I think that at the core we need to simply recognize that we are sinners who desperately need a savior.  We need to recognize that there is absolutely nothing we can do to merit our salvation and trust completely on Jesus' finished work on the cross.  If we agree on that as the core then some of the questions I asked above get answered pretty easily.  It does matter who Jesus is because we have to understand Him as fully God (the perfect sacrifice) and fully man (representing us).  We recognize the Holy Spirit and His work in salvation.  This covers the Trinity pretty well.

It's tough to do this though and I fear that I may have missed something.  But what I don't want to do is elevate any secondary or tertiary doctrine as primary.  I will fight you long and hard over the gospel.  I will fight very hard over God's sovereignty in electing and preserving His saints.  I won't fight quite as hard over the mode of baptism.  I will hardly lift a finger over eschatology.

We all need to determine where we put various doctrines.  How many things are in the core that must be believed?  How many do we hold with a fairly tight grip, but can let go of when pushed?  And how many do we hold with a very loose grip?

Thoughts?

What to Teach

Titus 2:1 But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine.

1 Σὺ δὲ λάλει ἃ πρέπει τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ.

Paul continues his instruction to Titus.  He just finished describing the folks who do not teach sound doctrine and have no use for it.  Although the word δὲ is a weak adversative, it is one nonetheless.  Paul is setting up a contrast between those who are doing the wrong thing and how Titus should act as a pastor.

What does it mean to teach τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ?  There are a few glosses for the word ὑγιαινούσῃ.  The general idea is that it speaks to something that is healthy.  In other words, the doctrine that Titus is to teach should be healthy, like a healthy person or a healthy tree is healthy.  The word "sound" is good too.  You get the sense that the doctrine he is to teach is sound like something that is built well.

This is a vital truth for anyone who calls himself a Christian.  Certainly he should always teach sound doctrine if there are opportunities to teach.  It also means that we should be discerning as we are taught doctrine.  Read your Bible and make sure that what you are teaching is sound.  If not, then there is a problem with that teacher.

Every teacher is going to make a mistake here and there.  None of us is like Paul with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit behind us.  However, we should still be sure to do our best to teach sound doctrine.  We also should expect our pastors to do the same.  Let us be discerning with this.

How can we be discerning?  We need to read our Bibles!  Know what it says.  Be ready to look things up to check.  How can we discern if we don't know the standard?

Imitating the Father

Ephesians 5:1 Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children.

1 Γίνεσθε οὖν μιμηταὶ τοῦ θεοῦ ὡς τέκνα ἀγαπητὰ

As I started to look through this chapter to pick something to write about I realized that this verse pretty much says it all.  We are to be μιμηταὶ τοῦ θεοῦ.  I'm pretty sure that the word μιμητης is where we get our word "mimic" from.  We are to mimic God because we are His beloved children.

This has far-reaching implications, doesn't it?  As children of God we see Christ as an example for us.  He is certainly more than an example as He was the perfect lamb that was slain for our sins, but He is also an example of how we are to behave.  He is certainly not less than an example.  Christ's life shows us how to live ours.

This also has implications for me as a father.  My son is naturally going to imitate me.  I can see where he already does.  What kind of an example am I setting for him?  The old phrase, "Do as I say, not as I do" is absurd.  It didn't work for me as a child and I don't think it works for any other child.  It's just an excuse to tell our children that grownups can be hypocrites.  I certainly do not want to communicate that to them.

Read the rest of the chapter and you will see how this plays out.  Paul gives several tangible examples.  And note how he ties this back to the end of chapter 4 as well.  That also gives us some examples.  If you are in Christ you see the expectations of you.  This does not merit our salvation, but is the natural result of it.

How does this verse hit you?

False Gospels

Galatians 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

8 ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐὰν ἡμεῖς ἢ ἄγγελος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ εὐαγγελίζηται [ὑμῖν] παρ᾽ ὃ εὐηγγελισάμεθα ὑμῖν, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.

There is so much in this chapter to write on, but I want to focus on this verse.  Paul gets right down to business after a very brief introduction.  Here he makes quite a bold statement.  Even if he who was the Apostle Paul preaches a different gospel then even he should be declared ἀνάθεμα.  A lot hinges on the meaning of this word.

Thayer has a fairly extensive entry on it.  First, it mentions that in the Septuagint it refers to a "thing devoted to God without hope of being redeemed, and, if an animal, to be slain."  Here is the entry for the NT:

a. a curse b. a man accursed, devoted to the direst woes and in  Rom. 9:3 (pregnantly equivalent to doomed and so separated from Christ). 

So that's pretty heavy, right?  The Council of Trent made a big deal about this.  As Luther worked to return the world to the true gospel the Roman Catholic Church needed a response to save their false view of the gospel.  You can read their declarations. Clearly there are two different views of the gospel here.  Paul makes it clear that there is only one true gospel; therefore, either Protestants are ἀνάθεμα or those holding to the Roman Catholic view of salvation are ἀνάθεμα.  It cannot go both ways.

This business between Protestants and Roman Catholics goes back five centuries.  It is vital that we pay attention to this as this is a matter of eternal life or eternal torment.  But we can't stop there.  What about those nice young men wearing white shirts, blue pants, and ride around on bikes while knocking on doors and telling them the "good news of Jesus Christ?"  If part of their story involves The Book of Mormon then you need to be aware of what Paul has to say here to the Galatians.  Joseph Smith claimed that the angel Moroni gave him gold tablets with inspired text.  The problem is that the Mormom gospel is subtly different from the Christian one.  Therefore, one group or the other is ἀνάθεμα.

The Jehovah's Witnesses don't claim special revelation, but they do claim to be God's faithful stewards of His truth here on earth.  They preach a different Christ and they preach a different, works-based salvation.  Therefore, either the Christians or the Jehovah's Witnesses are ἀνάθεμα.  You can't have it both ways.

So, despite our age of ecumenicalism and the desire to forget all our differences while singing "Kum-Ba-Ah" around the campfire, Paul draws a very clear line in the sand.  We need to understand what Scripture has to say and stop there.  I join what Luther said at Worms:

Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason-for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves-I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one's conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me. Amen.

Where do you stand?

Seeking and Saving

Luke 19:9-10
(9)  And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham.
(10)  For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost."

(9)  εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι Σήμερον σωτηρία τῷ οἴκῳ τούτῳ ἐγένετο, καθότι καὶ αὐτὸς υἱὸς Ἀβραάμ ἐστιν· 

(10)  ἦλθεν γὰρ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ζητῆσαι καὶ σῶσαι τὸ ἀπολωλός.

This comes at the end of the narrative about Zaccheus.  Incidentally, it is ambiguous from the text as to who was the short man.  I don't think it necessarily matters, but I think it's interesting that we let tradition define this and even turn into a song about how Zaccheus was a wee little man.  It probably makes a little more sense to take the "he" and apply it to Zaccheus because that was the antecedent of the "he" in the previous clause.

At any rate, this is one of my favorite passages in the New Testament.  The Son of Man came ζητῆσαι καὶ σῶσαι τὸ ἀπολωλός.  I didn't really notice this until just now, but τὸ ἀπολωλός is the name given to the destroyer in Revelation.  The word means "to destroy."  In other words, Jesus came to to seek (ζητῆσα) and to save (σῶσαι) those who are going to be destroyed.  

This is no small thing.  Think back to 9/11 and the heroism of the men and women who ran up those burning buildings to save those who were going to be destroyed.  We remember those folks with reverence, and I believe rightly so.  Jesus did more than that.  He humbled Himself by coming down to earth and taking on a human nature along with His divine nature.  He did that not just to make the lost able to be saved, but to save the lost.  He came to rescue dying sinners.

Incidentally, this is just one more piece of evidence regarding the reality of eternal punishment for those who do not know Jesus.  If you are lost please realize that Jesus came to save you.  Won't you let Him save you from destruction?

The Non-Metro Prophet

Luke 7:25
(25)  What then did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft clothing? Behold, those who are dressed in splendid clothing and live in luxury are in kings' courts.

(25)  ἀλλὰ τί ἐξήλθατε ἰδεῖν; ἄνθρωπον ἐν μαλακοῖς ἱματίοις ἠμφιεσμένον; ἰδοὺ οἱ ἐν ἱματισμῷ ἐνδόξῳ καὶ τρυφῇ ὑπάρχοντες ἐν τοῖς βασιλείοις εἰσίν.

This verse comes in Jesus' discourse with the people regarding John the Baptizer.  He is asking them what they expected of John.  I find the word μαλακοῖς fascinated based on its glosses.  Thayer has the following:

1) soft, soft to the touch

2) metaphorically in a bad sense

2a) effeminate

2a1) of a catamite

2a2) of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man

2a3) of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness

2a4) of a male prostitute

This is the same word used in 1 Cor 6:9 that is usually translated as "men who practice homosexuality."  Here it is used to describe the garments that John did not wear.  We know that he wore a coat made of camel's hair and a leather belt around his waist.  Basically, he was dressed pretty roughly.

I don't think that this leads to a theology of dress.  I don't want to commit the exegetical fallacy of using the semantic range of a word inappropriately.  In the context of clothes it does refer to soft.  However, I find it interesting that it is also used to describe men who are homosexual.  Maybe it's a stretch, but I would see this today as saying that John was not dressed like a metrosexual worship leader.