by D. S. Parrack (England)
Hebrews is a book which was for a long time approached with some trepidation because it had become something of a bone of contention. Could the first part of chapter six, for example, really be understood as meaning that some believers might slip back into unbelief and so into a state of no further opportunity of salvation? Is chapter three, using the example of the Israelites, really warning us that we cannot be totally sure of a place in “the promised land” until we actually arrive there because of the above referred to alleged possibility of slippage? Even some well known Bible teachers have come very close to at least inferring that these kind of things may be true. But what does the writer himself say about the aims and motives that led him to write as he did?
Right at the very end of his letter he says, “I beseech you brethren, suffer the word of exhortation.” To exhort means to give full encouragement, so that was his aim, and the above cited interpretations of his writing cannot possibly claim to come anywhere close to doing that. But he goes on “For I have written a letter unto you in few words,” 13.22. So, like John, see Jn.20.30-31, he is limiting his writing, but without in any way restricting the force of it, making it easier for his readers to follow the way he puts his case without being overwhelmed by the sheer volume of his argument.
But as we look back at some of the detail of his overall exhortation, we find that he is neither whipping up nor cajoling his readers into some form of response. He proceeds point by point, making it plain that what he says is supported by reliable and demonstrable facts. Each plank in his carefully laid out treatise, consists of a set of statements, with Scriptural support, followed by a plea prefaced by “therefore” or “wherefore.” His approach might be summarised as “Because of that being so, we then ought to ….”. Remember though, we are not attempting a detailed consideration of the whole book, we are just endeavouring to sort out the reasons for, and the methodological reasoning behind, what the writer actually wrote.
In ch.1 we are told very clearly who it is that we are to be pre-eminently concerned with in this letter. It is “God — in the Person of the Son,” 1.1-2 (JND). Not a human messenger, however dedicated or exalted, nor even a created heavenly being, but someone “so much better than the angels,” v4, and this latter statement is supported by Old Testament Scriptures right through to the end of the chapter. “Therefore” because of who it is that we are talking about, “we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard,” 2.1. His readers were facing problems resulting from the change from a God-given set of religious ordinances to something entirely new, so the writer says, consider seriously who is at the very heart of what you have entered into, to whom you have committed yourself.
But just how are we to view this Person, seen to be so superior even to angels when, and have no doubt about it, they themselves are in turn superior to humans. He too though was “made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death — He also took part of the same,” i.e. flesh and blood, “that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil, and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage,” 2.9 and 14-15. So He is shown as being the eternal Son of God and at the same time the One who suffered death on our account, giving Him the perfect credentials for being “a merciful and faithful high priest,” 2.17.
Based on those facts comes the exhortation, “Wherefore holy brethren, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus,” 3.1. So the Person on whom we are urged to centralise our thinking is now presented to us as the One who because “Himself hath suffered being tempted — is able to succour them that are tempted,” 2.18, which includes every one of us. Have your mind and heart centred on, and occupied by, Him, in all of the many varied aspects of His divine character.
But if that Old Testament system of God-designed worship was superseded by one which the epistle insists again and again is so much better, see e.g. 7.19-22, 8.6-9, 22-23; is it not just conceivable that this newer system might itself be replaced by something better still? No, says the writer. Just look again at who it is that has brought this new covenant into being. Not Moses, faithful though he undoubtedly was as a servant carrying out God’s orders in God’s house, see 3.5. Keep your eyes fastened on “Christ as a son over His own house,” 3.6. Just stop and think of those who claimed to be following Moses, what happened to them? Well, you may say, most of them, instead of getting into Canaan, died in the wilderness, see e.g. 3.11-17. But why did they not get in? “We see that they could not enter in because of unbelief,” 3.19. Oh, they wanted to get away from the slavery of Egypt alright, who wouldn’t, but they never did really believe. How do we know that? God said of them “They do always err in their hearts and have not known my ways,” the present and past tense, “So” because of that “I sware in my wrath they shall not enter into my rest,” 3.10-11. Reliance on Moses, good leader though he was, or on Aaron, good high priest though he may have been, was insufficient to see them safely through.
Now, says the writer, with examples like that, “Let us therefore fear lest a promise being left us of entering into His (i.e. God's) rest, any of you should seem to come short of it,” 4.1. It was the “any of you” with whom he was concerned and about whom we should be concerned too. It was only too possible that there were some amongst that early group of professing believers who didn't really believe at all, just as is possible in our day. But, you may say, we have heard the gospel made a profession, being baptised. Quite so. “Unto us was the gospel preached as well as unto them, but the word preached did not profit them.” Why not? What went wrong? “Not being mixed with faith in them that heard it,” 4.2. Since there is, and always has been, the possibility of a misplaced dependence on knowledge, feelings or unjustified aspirations, rather than on genuine faith. “Let us labour (use diligence JND) therefore to enter into that rest, let any man fall after the same example of unbelief,” 4.11.
But isn't the sort of things being discussed here likely to cause doubts to rise in the minds of true believers about the genuineness of their faith? To start with, and infinitely more important than what we think or feel, God knows what the true situation is, see 4.12-13. Added to that we have already been shown the position held by the Lord Jesus now, “A merciful and faithful high priest,” 2.17. In Him, “we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin, 4.15. Because of that there is an unshakeable justification for the exhortation. “Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need,” 4.16. It is in times of need that help is most required and we are encouraged to come for it in total confidence because of the Person to whom we are coming and what He, as a Man, has gone through to make that necessary help both available and meaningful.
Well, it is understandable that any Old Testament high priest could “have compassion on the ignorant and those that are out of the way, for that he himself is compassed with infirmity,” see 5.1-2. But if our “Great High Priest — Jesus the Son of God” was, as we have already been told, “without sin,” 4.14-15, how can someone like that understand the inner feelings, the heart concerns, of someone as frail as I? “Though He was a Son, yet learned He obedience by the things which He suffered,” 5.8. He can understand and empathise perfectly because He has been through it all Himself. At some point along the road of trial, testing or temptation we fail, but He saw things right through to the very end and remained unsullied. So the level, the degree, of His enduring went far beyond anything that any of us have had, or will have, to suffer.
But although the writer is obviously very sympathetic regarding the problems being faced by his readers, he is not going to allow that sympathy to be misconstrued as compromise. Their failures needed straight talking as a first step to remedial action. He reproves them for being “dull of hearing,” v11, of “need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God,” v12. But none of that would be necessary if only you took to heart what you have already been told. Show that you are not, in spiritual terms, “a babe” but “of full age,” v13-14. I have made it clear to you that the only fully reliable foundation on which your Christian lives can be firmly established is the Person and work of the Lord Jesus. “Therefore, leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on to perfection (full growth JND)” 6.1. “Full growth is directly linked in the original to “of full age,” 5.14.
What has been said so far then, was not meant to merely increase their knowledge per se, nor even just to allay any apprehensions they might have, it was to encourage them onwards. After a list of all the land already occupied by the Israelites, see Josh.12.1-24, God said to Joshua, “There remaineth yet very much land to be possessed,” Josh.31.1. But it was not just going to fall into their laps, they had to make it their own. Joshua said later to the children of Israel “How long are ye slack to go to possess the land which the Lord God of your fathers hath given you?” Josh.18.3. Doubt feeds on lethargy and what we do not learn, or do not choose to enjoy, of God’s blessings we will soon come to believe are not perhaps for us. That was most certainly not what the epistle writer wanted for his readers, then or now. Rather “we desire that every one of you do show the same diligence (see “let us labour,” 4.11) to the full assurance of hope unto the end. That ye be not slothful but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises,” 6.11-12.
We might still though, perhaps have a hankering after what we see as the tangible certainties of a priesthood that appeared to be so disciplined and organised. But, asks the writer, why should you think like that when, from whatever aspect you view things, you have something far, far better? He points them back beyond the Aaronic priesthood to a person who much more clearly portrayed what God’s final purposes were “Melchisedec King of Salem, priest of the most high God.” His very name means King of Righteousness, “and after that also King of Salem, which is King of Peace,” who, “made like unto the Son of God, abideth a priest continually,” see 7.1-13. If you want to know how God envisages perfect priesthood look at Melchisedic not Aaron “For He (i.e. God)” speaking of His Son, “testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec,” 7.17. We were shown, from a whole variety of viewpoints, the superiority of that order over that of Aaron, see 7.1-28, precisely in the words “Now of the things which we have spoken, this is the sum. We have such an high priest who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens. A minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched, and not man,” 8.1-2. The total transcending of that perpetual priesthood is spoken of in terms of it being “a more excellent ministry — a better covenant — established upon better promises,” 8.6.
—to be continued (D.V.)