God’s Rest in Hebrews

By the end of Chapter 3, Paul has brought up the Exodus, wilderness wanderings and inheritance of the promised land as a "rest" that was denied to some because of their disbelief. He continues this in the beginning of chapter 4 and by the end of chapter 4 has specified this rest for us as a spiritual (yet very real) one:

16 Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

Paul also stacked this section of Hebrews with several "For"s and "Therefore"s. This is an indication that his point through this section is being made through a progrssive flow of thought that contains sets of quasi-parenthetical statements. It doesn't mean much until one analyzes each comment syllogistically and recognizes it as a premesis for an argument that is either the conclusion of a previous argument or if Paul assumes it is a foregone conclusion with his Hebrew readers. Keeping this in mind, I won't go into every statement, but I have a few select observations.

It would seem that to enter into God's rest is our reward for having been obeidient. In verse 11, Paul indicates that we are to "be diligent to enter that rest". It would seem that we must make some effort. However, entering into God's rest is not the goal. The goal is " so that no one will fall" and they fell "through following the same example of disobedience" as the Hebrews during the exodus. If "diligence" means obedience, then what purpose does the "rest" serve and why write this verse? Paul could have only written "be obedient" and it would have meant the same thing. The "example of disobedience" is "unbelief" (3:19). But it appears as though belief is what causes people to enter the "rest" (4:3). Understand that the premises for the conclusion in 3:11 is a principled link between the keeping of the Sabbath and God's resting on the seventh day after creation (3:10), and the effectiveness of revelation (3:12).

To answer this, observe the pattern in both premises. In verse 10, Paul seems to make a distinction between a child of God "entering His rest" and having "rested from his works, as God did from His." In verse 11, Paul indicates that the living aspect of the revelation of Christ is contingent on its ability to distinguish between soul (psuch) and spirit (pneumato), joints and marrow, and thoughts and intentions. A minor debate exists between dichotomists and trichotomists. The debate is silly. It's like debating whether the Bible is one book, two books, or sixty-six books (as far as Protestants are concerned). Dichotomists claim no distinction between soul and spirit where trichotomists do. Paul clearly makes a distinction here whether that distinction is carried over into other passages that also discuss soul and spirit. This is an open reference to something that Paul’s Hebrew audience would have understood. It’s the same two words used in Jude 19:

“These are the ones who cause divisions, worldly-minded (psucikoi), devoid of the Spirit. (pneuma)”

The concept is that people possess a mind like an animal, a “soul”. However, People also possess a capacity to be receptive to God, transcendent, and yet foundational to, mere existence: spirit. In Jude, the “Spirit” is apparently a reference to God’s Spirit. However, other beings can possess a spiritual nature and human beings among them.

As part of the context of Hebrews 4, this reference to the division of soul and spirit indicates that the word (“logos”, a philosophical term used to refer to Christ in John 1, here used to refer to His revelation to us: the scriptures) of God is able to help us judge, or discern, the difference between our animal thoughts and our spiritual intentions. With regard to the difference between “diligence” and “obedience”, “entering rest” and “resting”, I believe the distinction is the same. We enter rest through diligent spiritual intention (justification) so that through our rest, we may bring our animal minds under obedient subjection to God.

This coming Sunday evening, we’re having a special night of music. I’ve been asked to offer a song and God has led me to pull out an old, but little-known favorite of mine that I arranged for my use (I don’t have the music anymore and can’t seem to find the author). The text is a paraphrase of the words of Christ from Matthew 11:28-30

Come to me all who labor and are heavily laden down,
And I’ll give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you and learn from me now
For I’m gentle and low in heart,
Here you’ll find rest
You’ll find rest for your weary soul
For my yoke is easy
And my burden’s light
Come to me

This adds an emotional impact to this teaching. Understanding the condescension of Christ, we know that He has been tempted as we are tempted. Even the strongest Christian recognizes his or her need. As sinners we are broken by the conviction of the Holy Spirit and are quickened. As such our intention becomes inclined toward God and we enter into His rest where obedience becomes a matter of great joy.

The Condescension of Christ in Hebrews

From Hebrews 3:

1 Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession;
2 He was faithful to Him who appointed Him, as Moses also was in all His house.
3 For He has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, by just so much as the builder of the house has more honor than the house.
4 For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God.
5 Now Moses was faithful in all His house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken later;
6 but Christ was faithful as a Son over His house--whose house we are, if we hold fast our confidence and the boast of our hope firm until the end.

I have small children. They're growing, but for now they have little reason to think that they know better than their mom and I. Nevertheless, they often do. One is capable of discerning to some degree the relative intelligence of someone less intelligent. One cannot discern one's own intelligence relative to someone of greater intelligence without some standard because greater intelligence is, by definition, incomprehensible. My children simply cannot conceive all that I can understand.

While not always overt, the condescension of God is prevalent throughout the scriptures and is the underscore in Hebrews. Theologians and teachers of the Bible often focus on the incarnation while ignoring God's condescension both through Christ Jesus and even the Holy Spirit. It's understandable in that we can hardly fathom our cognitive place relative to an eternal Creator. It's one thing to assent to the truth of it, but another thing to apprehend the truth intuitively. I maintain that temporal minds require bivalent logic to function. However, the eternal Creator is absolute and therefore logically univalent. Such would seem simpler to contemplate, but we need contrasting values.

The bivalence in creation arises from the paradoxical fact that an absolute God creates for coexistence that which is not Himself. This paradox is central to the incarnation. But this paradox also outlines the condescension of God, for it is from univalent eternity to bivalent temporality that He condescends. Therefore, my question at this point is this: How intelligent was Jesus as a man? We know He was wise, but let's not confuse godly wisdom with intelligence. The reason is that our intelligence as fallen human beings must be exceptionally limited. Add to that the mentally deficient God has given us to care for. Does God not save mentally handicapped people? If not, then what about the rest of us? Do we presume that we are intelligent enough to be saved? No. I propose that wisdom and intelligence are mutually exclusive, each with their own scales of maturity. Let's also not confuse either with knowledge, although knowledge can contribute to both.

Christ wrote nothing that we have to read today. Nevertheless, the entire New Testament was written about His actions and teachings and the subsequent writings hinging on Christ's actions and teachings could fill libraries. I suggest that He was exceptionally intelligent and this in conjunction with godly wisdom and a base of knowledge inaccessible to fallen people. But we study the things written of what Christ said because Christ said more than He could have written. The genius of the teaching aspect of his ministry is that He has left it up to others to expound on His teaching. The Sermon on the Mount, for example, is packed with enough material for several books. Christ would have delivered it inside of a couple of hours.

12 Take care, brethren, that there not be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God.
13 But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called "Today," so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.
14 For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end,
15 while it is said,

"TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE,
DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS, AS WHEN THEY PROVOKED ME."

16 For who provoked Him when they had heard? Indeed, did not all those who came out of Egypt led by Moses?
17 And with whom was He angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness?
18 And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient?
19 So we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief.

Despite the crowds and disciples that followed Him, I consider that Christ, possessing exceptional intelligence, would have been a lonely man. For the very intelligent, socialization is unrewarding because most others provide very little cognitive stimulation. Christ could not have received anything from people except such wisdom inspired by the Holy Spirit as the tears and perfume of the sinful woman on His feet at the end of Luke 7. His penchant for communicating with the Father was akin to the domestic parent or child care worker desperate for adult interaction after hours of only small children to converse with. And these, as I have mentioned, think they are capable of challenging adult authority. In truth, children find security when they know where the boundaries are. But we also challenge God, and this not to feel secure, but because of unbelief. We must know that there are things we do not understand, but we too often think that we understand all there is to understand. Jesus didn't need to challenge the Father. If anyone could breach the boundaries of the law, Christ could - and did. And He did it alone. Who better to be our high priest than one who has experienced the great loneliness of a fallen world? Those of us who are partakers of the Body of Christ, coming together as Christ met with Father, should likewise go out to proclaim the gospel of grace. And often we may be lonely. Nevertheless, we will have fellowship with God.

The Holiness of God

In Iraq, the Chaldeans (Assyrian Christians) are heavily persecuted by their Iraqi neighbors and are requesting the U.S. to help them become self-governing much as the Kurds were. My initial observation is that this is what the U.S. did in the American Revolutionary War. My second observation is that this is the opposite of what the U.S. did in the Civil War.

Jump ahead in time to the Superbowl. I’m not much of a sports fan. I don’t understand the whole concept of backing one team over another. It’s one thing to support your school’s athletic teams. It’s even understandable to support one’s local pro teams. However, I know guys who have never been to college who support certain college teams. Why? I know some people who are proud to support teams even during times when they don’t play well. So I can conclude that team fanaticism is something other than supporting a team because of how they actually perform. Despite this, there is a level of familiarity or identification that produces uncertain hope in the success of that team to defeat other teams even against the odds.

I recently purchased a copy of “One Night With The King”, the movie that dramatically portrays the activities of Esther as recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures. I watched it last night for the first time. An aspect of the story that I had never considered, which was well illustrated in the presentation, was the willingness of King Xerxes to allow a breach of protocol in order to save the lives of the woman he loved and her people. Haman’s argument was that the people would not follow him if he allowed a breach in protocol. Xerxes’ thought was that he was king and should be able to do what he pleased.

A favorite of mine is “The Phantom of the Opera”. I’ve had the CD recording of the music by the original cast for years now, but recently obtained the DVD of the motion picture produced by Andrew Lloyd Weber himself. The whole plot pits the Phantom against Raoul as they vie for the heart of Christine. It culminates in a decision Christine must make between sparing the life of Raoul for a life as a captive of the Phantom and being free from the Phantom at the expense of the life of Raoul.

In Hebrews, I’ve been contemplating a passage that appears to make God constrained to protocol in order to defeat the devil who appears to have had a power that Christ did not. The key word is “appears”.

All that I have typed in this post to this point is interrelated to God’s holiness and how His holiness, understood rightly, is harmonious with righteous unity. Theology is a practice that involves much analysis, which takes God’s Truth and breaks it into concepts that are more easily understood. My gift here is to take some pieces and put them back together, much in the same way that all the pieces of a large jigsaw puzzle are scattered and one finds great joy in finding two that fit together.

To be “holy” literally means to be “set aside” or “separated” for a special use or purpose. How, then, can “holy” be associated with “unity”? The answer is that God’s holiness supercedes our understanding of holiness inasmuch as God is not constrained to mere temporal bivalence. That is to say that when I apply my will to a pen lying on a flat surface, it is easy for the pen to consider that I may push it in one direction or another, but not two directions at the same time. It knows, if a pen can know something, that if I push it from one direction, it can know that I intend for it to go in the other. What could I mean, then, if I were to push it from two sides? Under what circumstances would I do such a thing? This I would do if my intention were to pick the pen up. The pen may be confused, if it were so gifted to think at all, as to why I would pinch it and argue in itself as to whether I was pushing from one side or the other and what other force may be opposing me, all the while being astonished as to where the table went. Such is the state of our human minds when confronted with God’s apparent ambivalence. Such is our consideration of God’s holiness.

Inasmuch as God’s holiness is that He is altogether other than His creation, He desires unity with His creation. Inasmuch as the creation is fallen and susceptible to His righteousness, He must remain separate lest all of creation is destroyed. As we discussed in my Sunday School class today, God must remain shrouded from the world. As our minister of education discussed in his sermon this morning, NO ONE comes to the father but by Him and NO ONE can take us away from Him. Christ is God cloaked in creation. He gave us the clear truth we could handle in a messenger who was tempted in every way we are so that his power would be masked and so that we would be saved through the death He willingly submitted Himself to that our sin would be covered.

Therefore, God’s holiness is sacrificial. It’s easy to think that God would simply dominate us and make us do whatever He wants us to do. However, He willingly subjects Himself to our need – but this for His purpose, not ours.

So what does this have to do with the Chaldeans in Iraq and the issue of self-governance? The fact is, we are a fallen people and in sore need of accountability. The way that accountability works out is at the hands of yet more fallen people through protocols and laws devised by fallen people. In the Revolutionary War, the colonies won the right of self-governance, but to what end? Even the system of self-governance our forefathers created for us was abused during the time of the Civil War. Northern States imposed laws on Southern States that sought to bring them under economic subjection to the Northern States. In response, the Southern States turned to such things as slavery (which was the wrong thing to do) and exports. As the North became legislatively and militarily more aggressive toward the South, the South sought to become self-governing. The resulting War was necessary to preserve the Union. While there were some who fought to free the slaves, many in the North treated freed slaves no better than they had seen in the South. As it was the South sought dominance over other people in the act of slavery. The North sought dominance over the South.

In athletic events like the Superbowl, competitors seek to dominate other competitors. Fans desire their favorite teams to dominate over other teams. So great is this compulsion that fights and riots erupt over sporting events. Vicariously, the fans who support winning teams feel likewise victorious.

Xerxes, tempted to dominate over a people falsely accused of plotting against him, uses his power as King to refrain from using his power according to protocol. Instead, he puts Haman to death on the very gallows that Haman had constructed for his biggest Hebrew nemesis, Mordechai.

Christine chooses to sacrifice a life of freedom in order to give Raoul his life. While artsy, Raoul and the Phantom represent two sides of the same heavenly coin. If Christine were my proverbial pen, she would be picked up – that is, quickened by love to recognize the power of sacrifice. Her desire for unity compels her to submit to death to give life. In this movie version, the Phantom recognizes that she doesn’t freely love him and withholds the power that he has gained over her in submission to her need.

The devil had the power of death only temporarily (for the devil is merely a temporal creature) to separate God from creation in order to preserve creation from His righteousness. Christ didn’t dominate even the devil in order to defeat him, but submitted to him to purchase His bride. In so doing, the devil no longer has power.

In the end, then, submission to death for the sake of life is the separation of holiness for the sake of unity. Seek not to dominate, but seek the sacrifice of being set aside or separate for the purpose of giving freedom, unity and life.

Hebrews: A Human Messiah in Chapter 2

There are many issues briefly addressed in the last verses of chapter 2 of Hebrews that I've been pondering. Paul skips through them like they were nothing. However, they are weighty nuggets and Paul links them together in this context.

To restate, the context here is that Paul is encouraging the Hebrews to grow in their faith in Christ. He is doing so in this part of his letter by revealing Christ through related comparative dichotomies, in that Christ was revealed in the law and the prophets with which the Hebrews were already well familiar. Verse 14 begins with "therefore", but this is hardly the culminating passage of the letter. So, we can take the following passage (vv14-18) as an intermediate conclusion of some sort derived from this first section of the letter.

The first thing I notice is the reference to "flesh and blood." It sounds like he's writing about the Lord's Supper. The "children" are a reiteration of the quote from Isaiah 8:18 in the previous verse and is a reference to the elect, otherwise I would say that the apparent reference is merely coincidental and this has nothing to do with the Lord's Supper.

The debate between sacrament and ordinance is founded on the question, "What is the bread and wine?" On the one hand we have the hermeneutical principle that we should take the Bible literally except where it is obviously figurative. On the other hand, how could Christ have meant it as His literal body at the Feast of Unleavened Bread when He was standing right there? Did He create some meat and blood miraculously that had his DNA in it? Besides, Christ was known to speak figuratively and be misunderstood as speaking literally. On the way to raise Lazarus from the dead, Christ said Lazarus had "fallen asleep." The disciples didn't have a clue because they took Him literally. The fact is, the Bible doesn't answer the question clearly enough. In my mind, that means it's the wrong question. The question should be, "What is the body and blood of Christ?" Paul answers this clearly in I Corinthians 10:3-4;16-17:

2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3 and all ate the same spiritual food;

16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ
17 Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.


Compare also Heb 2:18 with I Cor. 10:13:

18 For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.

13 No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.


The underlying truth is that the elect, while made up of individuals, is a corporate entity that shares a failure to resist temptation. We also share the grace whereby Christ came as one of us to be tempted as one of us, but to exhibit divine resistance. He did this to demonstrate His worthiness to pay for our failure on the cross. But Paul jumps over this as though the Hebrews don't need much explanation. This because the context of the crucifixion during Passover was still fresh in the minds of the Hebrews who understood Christ already as the Lamb of God - the only Passover Lamb who could remove sin once and for all. They understood their identity as the ones for whom the token lamb had been slain each year prior.

A curious comment is made by Paul regarding the means by which He rendered "powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil..." I notice it only because we've been studying this in Sunday School. I need to do a study of the Greek to see if this is accurate, but I notice that the English of the NASB is here rendered temporally: "had". If accurate, this means that the devil no longer has the power over death. Paul writes later about those of faith who came prior to Christ. If their faith is accounted to them as righteousness, then the devil never really had power over death. I'll take any insight to the meaning of this. Perhaps Paul merely took a turn to the rhetorical. I'd like to ascribe better accuracy to Paul's comments than that, however.

Another observation is that this appears to be what Christ HAD to do in order to render the devil powerless. It could be that this is simply the way God CHOSE to handle it because it was more fitting to demonstrate His gracious nature than simply denying any of the devil's requests to work ill in the hearts and lives of men.

The Narrative Context of Paul's Teaching to the Hebrews

One comment that has always plagued me on composition papers is my utter lack of examples. Perhaps ther reason is that too many examples in other people's writing bore me. Too many nonfiction books written these days for the general reading audience can be condensed into a few paragraphs. That's all I need. Instead, what I find are books of seemingly endless anecdotes as though such accounts constitute proof that the conclusions are true. Certainly, the use of storytelling can be persuasive. However, it lends itself to the current state of anti-intellectualism in which our ideas are propogated.

That said, there is a place for narratives.

Textual critics of the Bible have as their purpose the undermining of the foundation of orthodox Christian doctrine. However, nearly all such theology is derived from the historical narrative of the Bible. Often the Pauline theological applications, gospel accounts, pre-Mosaic narratives and a key prophet or two is generally held under the highest scrutiny. The part of the Bible most left unadulterated by the foolish speculations of the textual critics are the bulk of the narrative.

Hebrews, like many other Pauline texts, contains extensive references to the Hebrew scriptures. The quotes here are usually from the prophets, but the prophets and their prophesies are found in the historical narrative which lend itself hansomely to appropriate context. The Jews to whom Paul wrote would have understood this.

God, however, doesn't offer anecdotal evidence as proof of the the claims made through Paul's teaching. Instead, the history provides incontrovertible substance within which the narrative of God's redemption of His creation through Christ plays out. Therefore, history is not a mere example, it itself constitutes the revelation of Christ. In turn, God's prophets within the historical context spell out the revelation for us.