back

Sunday, 25 October 2009 - Hebrews, chapters 1 and 2.

Do you recall not so long ago Christians in one part of India suffered severe persecution? The perpetrators were Hindu extremists - and while the catalyst to this upsurge in persecution was an unrelated murder of a prominent Hindu - the background was the conversion of previous Hindu adherents to Christianity. Because the resulting trauma was widespread the aftermath hit our TV News, and one brief episode I remember very well.

It showed a group of people sitting on the ground going through a religious ritual. And it was explained that this was a 're-conversion' to Hinduism - where the local Hindus were in the process of de-Christianising a group of previous believers. Asked about the ethical nature of what was going on - one of the Hindu officiators said something to the effect that, these people had previously been converted from Hinduism to Christianity, and were now in the process of being converted back to Hinduism.

Now substitute Judaism for Hinduism - and I welcome you to the first century AD world into which the part of the NT we’re going to be looking at over the next few weeks was written - the letter to the Hebrews. It was written primarily to Jews who had accepted Jesus as their Messiah - in fact – 'The Messiah' (in Greek, 'the Christ') - but who now - under the pressure of persecution - were being tempted to recant their faith. It was written to underline the truth of what they'd put their trust in - but also to give them dire warnings about turning there back on their one and only, unique, Saviour.

The 'letter' to the Hebrews has a very interesting place in the NT. For a start it doesn't read like any other NT letter. In fact it's so unlike a letter some commentators have preferred to call it a written sermon. And as today's talk is the first in our series in this book - it's going to be profitable for the whole series to take just a moment or two to look at the background to it's place in the Bible. And I'm going do this under four headings.

The first obvious question is – "Who wrote it?" And the simple answer is - we do not know! But if you use a KJV of the Bible - that statement might surprise you - even - confuse you. Because the heading to Hebrews in the KJV is "The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews". We'll be talking about the recipients in a moment - but you need to know that that heading was not part of the original text - just as the index in your Bible wasn't either.

Quite early on in the life of this document (which originally had no heading) some thoughtful scribe attached the title "to the Hebrews". But in the early days of the church it had trouble being accepted as - what we'd call today - canonical - worthy of being included in the Bible. So first in the Eastern church based on Alexandria - and later in the Western church based on Rome – 'Hebrews' acquired it's acceptability by being associated with the name of Paul.

However Origen (an early church father) is on record as saying around AD 200, "As to who actually wrote this epistle, God only know". And that about sums it up. And as to the obvious next question – "Who else could have written it?" - there are about thirteen people who's names have put forward. But I'm not going to there - because it's all speculation.

But we can look at another useful question – "Who did they write it to?".

As I said just now - quite early on some thoughtful scribe gave it the handle "to the Hebrews". And most commentators over many centuries have accepted that it was written to a group of what we'd called today "Messianic Jews". Hebrews by race, but Christians by conversion – who's forefathers God had previously spoken to 'in various ways'. Where they were located is more of a debate. Jerusalem's one possible location. However, the book has about sixty direct quotations from the Greek translation of the OT (which is why you'll find some quotes different from our own English OT, which comes mainly from the Hebrew). This Greek version would be the one used by second and subsequent generation Jews living outside their homeland. So for this, and one or two other reasons, it's thought it was written to a mainly Jewish group living in Rome.

But wherever they were located - they were facing a crisis similar in nature to that of our Indian brothers and sisters of my opening remarks. In the Roman world of the first century - Jews had a recognized citizenship. And in the very early days of the church Jews and converted Jews occupied the same space. But after a while it became apparent to all that those who had become followers of Jesus Christ were not the same as those who had not. And those who had not were quick to point that out. Persecution followed - not just from the Jewish establishment - but from the host government.

One of the commentaries I've looked at was the Africa Bible Commentary. It's a commentary written entirely by African Scholars and therefore from an African perspective. The guy who writes about Hebrews said that in Ethiopia in the communist era (between 1974 and 1991) it was the Orthodox Church and the Communist Government who combined to persecute born-again Christians. And during those years the message of Hebrews became an encouragement to many Ethiopian believers. Because many believers were imprisoned and tortured, and some killed. However - under intense persecution - some believers went back to the country's ritualistic Orthodox religious system. And I have to tell you the guy who wrote this article didn’t get his information from books. He was one of those who'd been imprisoned and tortured. So you see, 'there is nothing new under the sun'. And sometimes we just do not realise how easy it is to profess a faith in Jesus Christ is in this country in the 21st century.

But when was Hebrews written? Like everything else surrounding this book - we can't be absolutely sure. But we can make a reasonable stab at trying to date it.

Hebrews 13:23 tells us that Timothy was know to both writer and readers, and that he was 'now out of prison'. This has led some to say Hebrews could not have been written before AD50. At the other end of the time frame, Clement of Rome quoted Hebrews in AD96, so it was obviously in circulating by then. But given the extensive content about the rituals of the tabernacle contained in this book - is it conceivable that the destruction of the temple in AD70 would have gone completely unmentioned if it had been written after this had happen? That, plus the fact that the fear of persecution could have been that of Nero's which started in AD65 - makes a number of commentators opt for a probable date around AD60-68. But we don't know.

And finally - "Why did they write it?".

Well we've already touched on this several times. Like the African brother who'd suffered persecution - our writer's not just standing back and writing a theological paper as a disinterested observer. This is a strong pastoral letter (or sermon) written with passion because he cares for what happens to this struggling group or fellowship. He is very anxious they don't go of the rails. So via a combination of encouragement and dire warnings, he tries to ensure they stay on the straight and narrow way. But to say more, we face the old problem we have with many of the NT letters - listening to half a conversation and trying to piece together the other half. We don't know what the writer knew about these Christians (only that they knew each other) or any specific circumstances being addressed.

However - I can tell you what the writer's general message was - not just as a heading - but as the theme running right through this book - just like words in the middle of a stick of rock - 'Jesus is Better'. He is better than all the alternatives - and whatever problem's being faced - in Him is the solution.

Which seems a good point to read the first two chapters of Hebrews. And while it is a long reading - I think we do need to read it all.

OK – I'm obviously not going to be able to cover all of that in detail this morning. But I hope to cover a lot of it, at least in outline.

Some books have very memorable opening lines. Hebrews is one of them. In the first three verse (of course they didn't have verses!) our writer gives us their Christology (their understanding of Who Jesus is) and how that knowledge of Him fits into everything else. And the rest of the book is in some sense merely an expansion of this opening statement.

Having acknowledged that God has spoken before - we're told - but this is different. Then we're told three things about Jesus. First - He is Creator. In fact, this author covers the same ground that John would later memorably cover in the beginning of his gospel by saying, "Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made."

He is also our Priest. Jesus is our Sacrifice - our Substitute - our Redeemer - and our Saviour. But He is also our representative before the Father - pleading His blood as atonement for our sin. It was the priest's role to mediate with God on behalf of sinners. That's what Jesus also does us.

And thirdly, He is King. Once he was called 'king' in derision. But the last book of the Bible sets Him forth as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. So this writer places Him sitting with God the Father on the throne they share as corporately God; Creator; Priest; King.

When I took a mid-week meeting at my place during the summer I gave everyone who came a piece of paper and said – "Describe Jesus"! Of course we don't know what Jesus looked like (having only hints in the Bible) so we need to say what sort of a person Jesus is from the accounts we have of Him on earth. I mean His personality and character experienced by ordinary people, who then wrote it down for us to read. So in 1:3, this writer answers the question that many thousands ask during their lives: "What is God like"? And he says - look at Jesus. [By the way - if I slip into calling the author 'he', that's because they were most probably a man.]

One other thing in these opening verses. When I studied theology a while ago - one idea about God we looked at was that of the 'absent watchmaker'. God set the world in motion - but has since shuffled off the scene and left it to run down all on it's own. However, this writer says that Jesus sustains all things by His powerful word. In spite of the fact it doesn't look like it! We'll talk more about that in a moment. But first - we need to talk about angels.

The OT's full of angels - in case you hadn't notice! Jewish readers of the OT had - alongside their basic OT text - other writings that attributed the Law being given to Moses by angels. And angels, as well as being the normal mediators of revelation in the OT, were powerful and awe-inspiring beings. Not surprising therefore that there was the risk of them being elevated to a position above there status.

And it's the risk of the erroneous elevation of angels that seems to be behind the opening argument in this sermon - because the risk of wronging viewing angels shouts at us from these verses. Elsewhere, Paul wrote to another church condemning people who, amongst other things, delighted in the worship of angels. (Colossians 2:18, if you want to note the reference.) And the Essenes - a religious community probably existing at the same time as the recipients this letter (and who's modern claim to fame is their library of Dead Sea Scrolls) had a developed hierarchical structure for angels.

I haven't got time to look in more detail at these verses in chapter one, because I need to move on to the warning at the beginning of chapter two.

The (three I think it is) severe warnings in Hebrews are what some people remember most from this book. That's good up to a point, because they are intended to be taken very seriously. But often they're remembered as statements of condemnation. So we need to also remember this writer's motivation. He's a pastor trying every which way he knows to rescue and encourage a church running the risk of turning their back on their true Christian faith. Maybe that's a passion we could learn from this writer - even try to emulate. How should we - in the 21st century - love back into the light those who are slipping back into this world's fallen lifestyle?

Actually – 'slipping away' - rather than being driven away - seems to be what the writer is concerned about here, as he talks about 'drifting away'. Not so much a response to persecution, as an abdication to spiritual apathy. So my picture on the screen of a lighthouse is perhaps quite apt. Half a lifetime back I can remember spending time one dark night on the deck of a yacht anchored in the Solent. I was sitting there just to check our anchor didn't drag and we didn't drift into some very large warship anchoring buoys. He's telling his readers to be alert to drifting - and to do this by - using his words – "pay more careful attention" to the content of the message they'd believed in.

And we're told in 2:3 & 4 that the writer's confidence in the message he doesn't want them to ignore is based on four witnesses -
First - Jesus, God the Son Himself, had announced it.
Then - Those who heard Him witnessed to the salvation He brought.
Also - It wasn't 'just words'. God the Father confirmed it with the powerful actions of signs and miracles. When John the Baptist sent messengers to Jesus from prison to ask if he (John) had really had got it right about Jesus -Jesus pointed John's friends to His miracles as evidence.
And finally, The Holy Spirit that Jesus had promised - indeed that God had promise way back in the prophecy of Joel - had come and filled the church, confirming the message by distributing gifts as previously promised.

The writer then apparently quotes from memory a chunk of Psalm 8 - which I'm not going into in detail. But I want to draw your attention to an application he makes of it. At 2:8 (second half of the verse) he says: In putting everything under Him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him. But we see Jesus...

I said earlier we can have real problems in seeing everything sustained by His power when we look at what's happening in the world today with eyes open and a sensitive heart. Why doesn't God do something about all this - we (I anyway) say...

I'm not a cricket fan: but I do remember a story associated with the Ashes series earlier this year - and a match played in Cardiff. By all accounts it was a close run thing that England won. I not sure - but think it must have finished on a Sunday - because a preacher who was a cricket fan wanted to watch it - so recorded it for when he got home. And he didn't want to know the result before he got home. But before he got to see the match someone came up to him and said "didn’t we do well" and gave him the score! So all the time he's watching it later - he knows what the outcome's going to be.

And our writer says to his readers - we don't see God's Lordship over everything at the moment do we - but we do know the final score. We see by faith - Jesus - now crowned with glory and honour - who by the grace of God has tasted death for us.

Some commentators tell us we'’re living in the in-between time of 'now - and not yet'. God's kingdom exists now - and we are part of it (I ought say, we who've accepted Jesus as our Saviour, are part of it) - but it's still not complete. Which is why in the Lord's Prayer we pray "Your Kingdom come. Your will be done on earth, as it is done in Heaven". That's total completion in the future. But it's also now - in the sense that where God's born - again children are is where God's kingdom exists and is working. And you can do your own homework to find out where Jesus tells you that!

The final part of chapter 2 concentrates on the humanity of Jesus. Very briefly for the sake of time - there were two biases in the early church when thinking about Jesus - and they've carried on up to today. One concentrated on the Christ being God - but played down His humanity. In fact it gave rise to a heresy called Docetism, which said that Jesus was spirit, and only 'appeared' to be human. We know of course that's not true from the several resurrection accounts. The other majored on His humanity but played down the fact that He is also God. The Bible - and the early church after much debate - says - He is both - and He is equally so.

And Jesus - as a human being - recovered our lost status. Paul talked in Romans about 'the first Adam' throwing it all away by disobeying God - and Jesus (as 'the second Adam') regaining it - that status implied in Psalm 8. But this author says more. He says that Jesus has now brought us into the glory of His family. All the stuff about us being sons, and children, refer to this. Incidently sons - and not sons and daughters (although I understand the use of gender inclusive language of course). In Jewish culture the sons were the inheritors. So now we (who've excepted Jesus as our Savour) inherit the glory of being in God's family. The status of the son.

And Jesus also defeated the Devil for us to deliver us from the power of death. When sin came into the world and we lost our status and our relationship to God - we also lost our authority to live His way - and brought death upon ourselves. But in Jesus the Devil had a rematch with humanity - and he lost! And in losing - he also lost what he'd previously gained. Not completely then - because of the damage he's introduced into the world - and not with everyone - because it's up to us personally to accept the Devil's defeat and participate in Jesus victory - but in the final accounting – he's going down. Remember - we now know the final score.

And we can participate in this victory because of a title for Jesus that’s a significant image in this book - Jesus has become our sympathetic, merciful and faithful high priest. I've mentioned the priests before - but the emphasis on the '‘high priest' points us to the Jewish day of atonement - which in turn points us to the seriousness of sin in God's eyes. I'm not going into this more now, because we'll be considering this on another Sunday.

But we can say all the above was only possible because Jesus knows our situation from the inside. He was a real human being - as well as being - really God.

I'm going to finish by briefly mentioning something that might have raised a question in your mind as we read chapter 2 verse 10 earlier. How could Jesus - who is God and sinless humanity - be "made perfect through suffering?" Wasn't He perfect from the start? Yes He was. But...

And the 'but' is to do with the language Hebrews was written in. Because 'perfect' also means – 'complete'. And the thing that made Jesus 'complete' was the experience of suffering. Not just the suffering on the cross - or even the humiliations heaped on him immediately before it - but the experiences of life that had Him facing misunderstanding and overcome with grief - being tired and thirsty - and in pain when He hit his thumb with a mallet or stubbed His toe on His workbench. The sort of things we experience. And also - when He faced our temptations.

So he wasn't surrounded by internet porn and the status symbols we are tempted to embrace every day. But human nature is the same in every era – it's just the expressions of Sin (with a capital S) that change. And He didn't just experience temptation for the forty days in the desert. When Jesus said to Peter 'Get lost Satan' - it was because He recognised the Devil's words in Peter's mouth. And don't you think Satan was constantly trying to attach thoughts to Jesus mind like he does to ours? Paul said - Jesus was tempted in all points as we are - but without sin.

Which is why 2:18 is (and is meant to be) so encouraging. "Because He himself suffered when He was tempted" (and tempted can also mean 'tested' or undergoing some trial) – "He is able to help those who are being tempted." And that seems a good point to stop.

We aren't going to have a closing hymn - but we are going to have a closing item up on the screen - with acknowledgements to a S.M.Lockridge. [Use this link to see the presentation video in a new window.]

Granville Richards