We are a society in love with the new. Manufacturers anually make new models of computers and cars and vacuums and TV’s just so we will have the desire to make another purchase. Of course, the reality is that new is not always better. Late in the 1990’s, I bought a new computer with lots of bells and whistles. My intent was to replace an outdated model that I sold to a friend. I have to be honest. I missed the old computer. It didn’t have the features of my old one, but it had one endearing quality: it worked. In used car terms, my new computer was a lemon. I had to replace the monitor twice. It locked up. It overheated. Some of the new features stopped working within a week. Old is sometimes better than new.
In Hebrews 9, the author of Hebrews reminds us that new is better when it comes to the New Covenant established in Jesus. In that case, there is no comparison between old and new. Hebrews 9 highlights 3 ways that the New Covenant surpasses the Old:
1. The new covenant cleans outside and inside. All the Old Testament Law did was really give us a moral appearance. The Ten Commandments didn’t change our heart. In fact, in Romans, Paul says that our sinful natures were actually enticed by the Law to sin. (He also says that is not a knock on the Law. It is a knock on how wicked we are that God’s perfect law would entice to do evil!) Under the New Covenant, though, we are made new on the inside. Verse 14 says that through Jesus are “consciences are cleansed from acts that lead to death.” The New Covenant changes our nature, allowing us the power and desire to live in obedience.
2. The new covenant gives us unlimited access to God. Under the Old Covenant, the message from God was “Danger! Keep away!” Only one man, the high priest, could go directly into the presence of God. And He could go only one time a year after having offered a rigorous round of sacrifices. Under the New Covenant, we have unlimited access to God through Jesus. Verses 23-24 say “It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence” (NIV). Christ appears for us in the presence of God. We have unlimited access.
3. The new covenant is once for all. In Old Testament, offering sacrifices was sort of like doing laundry. Have do laundry again and again because things keep getting dirty. Under the system of sacrifices, sacrifices had to be repeated again and again as acts of cleansing. (And even then, sacrifices weren’t really effective. See 10:4). But under the New Covenant, there is no repeating of sacrifices. Verses 25-28 say: “Nor did [Christ] enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him” (NIV). The sacrifice of Jesus is a “one and done” act. We can rely on it in perpetuity.
New things aren’t always better than the old. But in the case of the New Covenant, there is no comparison with the Old. New is better.
Every Letter, Every Pen Stroke (Matthew 5:18)
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
The Truly New Covenant
“The New is in the Old concealed; the Old is in the New revealed.” That is how I was taught to think about the Old and New Testaments (or covenants) as a young child growing up in a Baptist Church. There is much wisdom in that saying. The New Testament is not a complete departure from the Old Testament. However, it is still a New Testament. Over the years, I have heard several Bible teachers say that the New Testament is simply a new administration of the Old Testament. The difference of the Testaments (or covenants) is not a difference of kind. It is merely a difference of expression. Hebrews 8 ought to lay that argument to rest.
Actually, all of Hebrews ought to lay that argument to rest. The book of Hebrews is written to remind its readers not to backslide into sin. Apparently, those to whom the letters of Hebrews was written were struggling with obedience, much like their Israelite forefathers. The letter is meant to remind the Hebrews that they need to be faithful to God because they have become part of a much better covenant than their ancestors. The point of Hebrews is that the New Covenant is not like the Old. It has far better advantages and blessings and thus there is no excuse for the disobedience that marked the Old Covenant.
Hebrews 8 is one of the places where this argument is made most clearly. Verses 8-12 highlight how the New Covenant is indeed new. Quoting from Jeremiah 31, these verses show how the New Covenant surpasses the Old. Verses 8-12 say this: “‘The time is coming,’ declares the Lord, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord. This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.’”
These verses highlight several advantages of the New Covenant. One, the Law of God is now on the hearts and minds of those who follow. Through the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit, we have the Law internally as well as externally. Two, we have a deep relationship with God. In the coming chapters of Hebrews, the author of Hebrews is going to show that the message of the Old Covenant was “Danger. Stay away!” Under the Old Covenant, God could not be approached except under the most limited of circumstances. Under the New Testament all the people of God may know Him in an intimate way. Three, the priest/laity distinction of the Old Covenant is eradicated. All now have the privilege to minister for the Lord.
The New Covenant is new. I am glad to be part of all of its blessings and provisions.
Actually, all of Hebrews ought to lay that argument to rest. The book of Hebrews is written to remind its readers not to backslide into sin. Apparently, those to whom the letters of Hebrews was written were struggling with obedience, much like their Israelite forefathers. The letter is meant to remind the Hebrews that they need to be faithful to God because they have become part of a much better covenant than their ancestors. The point of Hebrews is that the New Covenant is not like the Old. It has far better advantages and blessings and thus there is no excuse for the disobedience that marked the Old Covenant.
Hebrews 8 is one of the places where this argument is made most clearly. Verses 8-12 highlight how the New Covenant is indeed new. Quoting from Jeremiah 31, these verses show how the New Covenant surpasses the Old. Verses 8-12 say this: “‘The time is coming,’ declares the Lord, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord. This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.’”
These verses highlight several advantages of the New Covenant. One, the Law of God is now on the hearts and minds of those who follow. Through the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit, we have the Law internally as well as externally. Two, we have a deep relationship with God. In the coming chapters of Hebrews, the author of Hebrews is going to show that the message of the Old Covenant was “Danger. Stay away!” Under the Old Covenant, God could not be approached except under the most limited of circumstances. Under the New Testament all the people of God may know Him in an intimate way. Three, the priest/laity distinction of the Old Covenant is eradicated. All now have the privilege to minister for the Lord.
The New Covenant is new. I am glad to be part of all of its blessings and provisions.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
My Least Favorite Bible Question (Hebrews 7)
As a pastor, I get asked a lot of questions about the Bible. One of the more popular questions that I get asked is this: who was Melchizedek? I have yet to figure out why people like to ask that question so much. Now, in certain contexts, I understand the question. Tomorrow night, when we have a Bible study on the book of Hebrews, that will be a good, legitimate question. But I have been asked the question when a Bible study in Hebrews was the farthest thing from anyone’s mind. When I moved into the Parsonage in Avon, one of the men there came by to install a ceiling fan for me. As he was putting it in, he asked me: “So, who do you think Melchizedek was?” It left me wondering where the question came from.
For those of you who have never heard this question before, let me say that there are two answers that you can give to this question. The first answer is that Melchizedek is a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus. The second answer is that Melchizedek was an ancient king, ruler of what would be come Jerusalem in the time of Abraham. For those of you who are still confused, let’s go back even further. In Genesis 14, Abraham’s nephew Lot is still living in the city of Sodom. Sodom and the surrounding cities are attacked, and the people of those cities are taken into captivity, probably to serve as either slaves or sacrifices. (It is hard to know which fate would be worse). Abraham is alerted to what has happened. Thus, he raises an army from his household that defeats the four kings who have attacked Sodom. Lot and all who are with him are saved. As Abraham journeys back home, he is met by Melchizedek, the King of Salem. Genesis 14:18 tells us that Melchizedek was a priest of God Most High. Genesis 14 also tells us that Abraham gave Melchizedek a tenth of all he had. Abraham’s tithe showed that he considered Melchizedek to be of greater importance.
In our passage today, the author of Hebrews says that Jesus is a priest like Melchizedek. Like Melchizedek, Jesus is not from the tribe of Levi, the tribe of priests. Melchizedek could not be a Levite because Levi had yet to be born. He was Abraham’s great-grandson. Jesus was not a Levite because in his humanity he was a descendant of Judah, the tribe of Kings. So neither Jesus nor Melchizedek were priests based on lineage. Instead, they were priests based on their character and their righteousness. Hebrews 7:15-16 says: “And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life” (NIV, emphasis added). One of the central points in the book of Hebrews is that the New Covenant established through Jesus is better than the Old Covenant established through Moses. In Hebrews 7, the author of Hebrews shows that the New Covenant has a greater priesthood since it is based on the righteousness of the priest not on human lineage.
So why all this discussion about whether Melchizedek is actually Jesus? I think it is because of what the author of Hebrews says about Melchizedek in verse 3. He says: “Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever.” If Melchizedek is described as being without father and mother and being without beginning of days or end of life, he doesn’t sound like any human being I know. That sounds pretty God-like. No wonder people have concluded that Melchizedek must be a pre-Incarnate appearance of Christ. But I think we have to be cautious here. I think the context gives a different sense to verse 3. I think the proper interpretation of verse 3 is that Melchizedek was without recorded father or mother, without recorded beginning of days or end of life. In Genesis, we get a lot of genealogy. But we don’t have any for Melchizedek. He stands out among the righteous in that we do not have a record of his parent’s name or the amount of years that he lived. Not having a recorded father or mother or a recorded beginning and end of his life, Melchizedek becomes a symbol of Christ who in His eternal nature has existed forever without having ever been created.
To me, Hebrews 7 is very clear that Melchizedek and Jesus are not the same person. Time and time again we are told that Jesus is “like” Melchizedek. In addition, we are told that Jesus is of the order of Melchizedek. This really doesn’t make a lot of sense is Jesus is Melchizedek. The language seems to suggest two different individuals. Reading Hebrews 7 and Genesis 14, I would conclude that Melchizedek is a symbol of Jesus’ priesthood. He is not, however, Jesus Himself.
There is much more that could be said on this question. This is really just a start. But next time someone asks who Melchizedek was, I think I’ll just send them here.
For those of you who have never heard this question before, let me say that there are two answers that you can give to this question. The first answer is that Melchizedek is a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus. The second answer is that Melchizedek was an ancient king, ruler of what would be come Jerusalem in the time of Abraham. For those of you who are still confused, let’s go back even further. In Genesis 14, Abraham’s nephew Lot is still living in the city of Sodom. Sodom and the surrounding cities are attacked, and the people of those cities are taken into captivity, probably to serve as either slaves or sacrifices. (It is hard to know which fate would be worse). Abraham is alerted to what has happened. Thus, he raises an army from his household that defeats the four kings who have attacked Sodom. Lot and all who are with him are saved. As Abraham journeys back home, he is met by Melchizedek, the King of Salem. Genesis 14:18 tells us that Melchizedek was a priest of God Most High. Genesis 14 also tells us that Abraham gave Melchizedek a tenth of all he had. Abraham’s tithe showed that he considered Melchizedek to be of greater importance.
In our passage today, the author of Hebrews says that Jesus is a priest like Melchizedek. Like Melchizedek, Jesus is not from the tribe of Levi, the tribe of priests. Melchizedek could not be a Levite because Levi had yet to be born. He was Abraham’s great-grandson. Jesus was not a Levite because in his humanity he was a descendant of Judah, the tribe of Kings. So neither Jesus nor Melchizedek were priests based on lineage. Instead, they were priests based on their character and their righteousness. Hebrews 7:15-16 says: “And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life” (NIV, emphasis added). One of the central points in the book of Hebrews is that the New Covenant established through Jesus is better than the Old Covenant established through Moses. In Hebrews 7, the author of Hebrews shows that the New Covenant has a greater priesthood since it is based on the righteousness of the priest not on human lineage.
So why all this discussion about whether Melchizedek is actually Jesus? I think it is because of what the author of Hebrews says about Melchizedek in verse 3. He says: “Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever.” If Melchizedek is described as being without father and mother and being without beginning of days or end of life, he doesn’t sound like any human being I know. That sounds pretty God-like. No wonder people have concluded that Melchizedek must be a pre-Incarnate appearance of Christ. But I think we have to be cautious here. I think the context gives a different sense to verse 3. I think the proper interpretation of verse 3 is that Melchizedek was without recorded father or mother, without recorded beginning of days or end of life. In Genesis, we get a lot of genealogy. But we don’t have any for Melchizedek. He stands out among the righteous in that we do not have a record of his parent’s name or the amount of years that he lived. Not having a recorded father or mother or a recorded beginning and end of his life, Melchizedek becomes a symbol of Christ who in His eternal nature has existed forever without having ever been created.
To me, Hebrews 7 is very clear that Melchizedek and Jesus are not the same person. Time and time again we are told that Jesus is “like” Melchizedek. In addition, we are told that Jesus is of the order of Melchizedek. This really doesn’t make a lot of sense is Jesus is Melchizedek. The language seems to suggest two different individuals. Reading Hebrews 7 and Genesis 14, I would conclude that Melchizedek is a symbol of Jesus’ priesthood. He is not, however, Jesus Himself.
There is much more that could be said on this question. This is really just a start. But next time someone asks who Melchizedek was, I think I’ll just send them here.
Monday, July 28, 2008
The Immature Church
Hebrews 6 is a passage that causes me to make a sober evaluation of the church in our country. In verses 1-2, the author of Hebrews lists several elementary teachings of the faith: baptism, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. Apparently, these were matters of some controversy in the churches of the Hebrew Christians. This distresses the author of Hebrews. He sees these as elementary truths, truths that long ago should have been settled. Since the Hebrew Christians are still wrangling over these issues, the author of Hebrews is concerned for his readers, discerning that they are immature and possibly even unsaved.
It is interesting to me that these issues continue to stand at the heart of church controversy today. Baptists and Presbyterians (and others) argue the proper mode of and recipients for baptism. Pentecostals and non-Pentecostals argue over the state of so-called sign gifts like the laying on of hands. Liberal and non-liberal Christians squabble over the historical reality of the resurrection. And evangelicals are now divided as to whether or not there is a hell. There is little certainty about the nature of God’s eternal judgment. These disagreements do not speak well for any branch of the church. They remind us that we are in deep need of the maturity that comes from repentance and from our faith in the work of Jesus Christ.
It is interesting to me that these issues continue to stand at the heart of church controversy today. Baptists and Presbyterians (and others) argue the proper mode of and recipients for baptism. Pentecostals and non-Pentecostals argue over the state of so-called sign gifts like the laying on of hands. Liberal and non-liberal Christians squabble over the historical reality of the resurrection. And evangelicals are now divided as to whether or not there is a hell. There is little certainty about the nature of God’s eternal judgment. These disagreements do not speak well for any branch of the church. They remind us that we are in deep need of the maturity that comes from repentance and from our faith in the work of Jesus Christ.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Godless Chatter
There is a great deal that I could say about 1 Timothy 6 today. But I am currently preaching through the book of 1 Timothy and I don’t want to preach sermons before their appointed time! Let me just say that I am struck by Paul’s words in verses 20-21. Those verses say: “Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, which some have professed and in so doing have wandered from the faith.” I guess we are tempted to think that godless chatter is foul mouthed speech or bawdy jokes. But note the context of the chapter. Paul is again warning Timothy about false teachers throughout the passage. Godless chatter is not swearing or lewd humor. It is religious talk that has nothing to do with God. The false teachers claimed to be teaching of God, but there reaching was really godless. The power of God was not behind it and people were not led to God through it. We need Paul’s warning today. There are many who are preaching what they consider to be knowledge, but it is not. Turning from godless chatter happens not just in the world. It also happens in the church.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)