Hebrews 11 and the Hall of Faith

This post is the second and final post that I will write on Hebrews 11 and the idea that it is the “Hall of Faith.”

Once again, before we start, we must remember what a Hall of Fame/Faith is.  A Hall of Fame is a place where the best of the best in a particular field are enshrined above the rest of their competitors.  In other words, in any Hall of Fame, the people who have been nominated to be included, are seen as better than everyone who is not in the Hall of Fame.  Thus, if you approach Hebrews 11 with this same mentality, then you have some serious questions to answer.

In this post, I want to ask about Hebrews 11:29.  The ESV reads, “By faith the people crossed the Red Sea as on dry land, but the Egyptians, when they attempted to do the same, were drowned.”  Of course, the Greek does not read, ‘the people’ but rather reads, ‘they passed through.’    Here is the big question…who is the author of Hebrews referring to when he says, ‘they passed through?’  If he is referring to the Exodus generation, then we have a serious issue with the idea that Hebrews 11 is the “Hall of Faith.”  Psalm 95 refers to this Exodus generation as the generation who will NEVER enter God’s REST.  As one does a thorough study of God’s rest, one will find that the ultimate REST that God refers to is heaven.  Thus, God is saying that this Exodus generation, for their unbelief, will never enter heaven!  The author of Hebrews comments on Psalm 95 and adds that this generation will not enter God’s rest because they did not believe/trust God in full faith!  Thus, if you are clinging on to Hebrews 11 as the Hall of Faith, you have some difficult explanations of Heb 11:29.  Is the Exodus generation in the Hall of Faith even though the testimony of Scripture says that they are not even saved?

If Heb 11 is not the Hall of Faith, then what is it?  Why does the author of Hebrews use the Exodus generation in the middle of this chapter?  And why does he say, ‘by faith they passed through the Red Sea as on dry land?’  I will attempt to answer these questions in my next post.

Your thoughts????

Canton, OH, Cooperstown, NY, and the New Jerusalem? Does Hebrews 11 really talk about the Hall of Faith?

Does the author of Hebrews really want us to see Hebrews 11 as the “Hall of Faith?”  Before we answer that question, let’s think about what a “Hall of Fame” is.  First, let us think about Canton, OH and the Pro Football Hall of Fame.  Enshrined in this place are those players who have played their positions better than anyone else in NFL history.  Walter Payton, Tony Dorsett, Troy Aikman, Terry Bradshaw, and many others who, by the fact that they are in the HALL, must be better than all those who are not in the HALL.  Thus, when we enter into that place, then we know that we are looking at the very best…ever!  The same holds true for the MLB Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, NY.  Babe Ruth, and the greats of MLB are in the Hall because they were the very best baseball players in history.  When you walk up and down these darkened hallways, you are in awe, your children want to be like them, and you paid good money to in.  

 

Is this what we are to do when we get to Hebrews 11?  Are we supposed to read through this chapter and look at these characters in awe?  Does the author of Hebrews, who has been lifting up Jesus Christ as the expense of Moses, Aaron, the Priesthood, the Sacrificial system, and the angels, now want us to take our eyes off of Christ and lift up men?  In context, the “Hall of Faith” or “Heros of the Faith” view of Hebrews 11 is a difficult one to hold.  

 

Here is something else to think about… when was the last time that you or your Christian friends were talking about OT saints and someone said, “I want to have faith like Abel” (remember that he was murderd for his faith)!  Has that ever happened?  What about Rehab the prostitute?  Has your daughter ever said, “I want to be like Rehab!”  The answer of course, is no.  Now, I am not knocking them at all!  In fact, they are people who lived and died believing the Word of God until death.  The point is this… are we supposed to read Hebrews 11 and end up in awe of these people?  Are we to say that Hebrews 11 is about great OT heros?  If so, then the faith described in Heb 1:1 is not regular faith, but it belongs to the realm of Hero faith!  If Heb 11 is about heros in the Hall of Faith, then certainly the readers of Heb do not have to match up with THAT kind of hero faith.  We can elevate them and merely pass by with something much less than the faith found in that chapter.  

I do not think that the author of Hebrews has that in mind.  I think that he is telling these people, who are ready to walk away from Christ due to persecution, that they must have faith!  Not super hero faith or hall of fame faith, but TRUE and AUTHENTIC faith.  Does Heb 1:1 describe REAL faith or SUPER HERO faith?  If it is regular and authentic faith, then the examples that follow are not HEROS or HALL of FAMERS, but people from the OT who had TRUE and AUTHENTIC faith!  Not great hero-like faith, but just regular and true faith!  This is not a list of the OT saints who deserve to be in the Hall of Faith (as if there is such a thing… in heaven, we will not strut around talking about each other and who is in a HALL of Faith, but we will be worshiping Christ in all of His glory) over and against those who are in heaven but not in the Hall of Faith.  What about those not listed in Heb 11?  Are they the ones who were just average and not worthy of accolades?  When you think about this label, “The Hall of Faith” or “The Heros of the Faith,” it is a sad view of this chapter.  You end up taking your eyes off of Jesus to emulate and lift up men and women who would tell you to keep your eyes on Christ.  

 

The point of Hebrews 11 is to give examples of people who have died in faith without receiving the fulness or fulfillment of the promises.  These are the people who heard and received the promises of the coming Messiah, and they heard the Word of God, believed it until the point of death!  They had true and authentic faith, not super hero faith.  The author of Hebrews is almost ridiculing his readers who are ready to walk away from Christ for persecution…and he is telling them and if they shrink back (end of chapter 10), then they have no faith.  If you are anything less, in your faith to the Word of God, than the people mentioned in Heb 11, then you are lost and you will never enter God’ rest.  

 

True faith believes until death…true faith lives in a sense of longing and waiting for the Messiah!  If you lose your life in the process, through natural causes or through murder, then so be it.  Anything less that true faith is no faith.  Keep your eyes on Christ believing all that God has spoken in His perfect Word.  

 

For us, we must look to God’s Word and know that our lives must be spent in living for Christ’s return.  We endure, we persevere, and we do all things because we are driven by God’s Word.  We endure suffering because Christ will return.  We keep believing because eternity with Christ is the reward for those who die in faith.  That is the point of this chapter…not a section whereby we lift up other believers and declare them better than those not mentioned.  Keep your eyes and faith in God!  

Remember that this letter contains the highest Christology in the NT, so we must keep our eyes on Christ as we read it.  

If you desire, here is the sermon that I preached on Heb 11:1-7 at Central Baptist Church of Aurora, CO.

Your thoughts?  

 

Ben

LImited Atonement; How does the Passover Event Help us to Understand the Specific Application of the Blood of Christ?

The issue is limited atonement.  THe problem is the the wording (yes, I know that is was a response to the earlier Arminian counsel).  To the average Christian, the word ‘limited’ and Christ do not seem to go together.  Many people wonder if Christ can be limited to anything since He is the Son of God. Can Jesus be LIMITED?   Well, the answer of course, is yes.  He is limited to the plan of redemption of God the Father.  If He is the true Son of God, which He is, then He cannot create a new plan of salvation.  In other words, He cannot decide that the way of atonement is through His blood one day and through the blood of a mule the next.  THus, He is limited.  He cannot lie, He cannot cheat, and He cannot act in anyway outside of the context of HIs Sonship.  THerefore, Jesus is limited to some things.  Is His blood limited?  For whom did He die?  

With that preview in mind, let us address the ancient question of limited atonement.  Is the blood of Jesus Christ limited in any capacity, or did He die for all souls of all people everywhere in every generation throughout human history?  Since there has been volumes written about this matter and thousands of them are better than you and I could possibly articulate…then we must assume that this post will not solve the issue either.  But, I THINK that we can add to the argument.  I think that we can look at this issue in a christocentric view of the OT to find the answer.  

Is there an event in the OT whereby the blood of a lamb allows some (not all) to live rather than to die?  Yes!  If we look back at the Gospel According to Exodus, then we will see this issue played out before our eyes.  All of the people who apply the blood of the passover lamb to their house are indeed “saved” from the death angel.  The death angel is out to judge, condemn, and destroy all of those who are not protected by the blood of the lamb (the blood of the lamb is not applied to them).  However, the death angel does PASSOVER all homes that are covered by the blood of the lamb!  

This event is more than mere history!  This event is the type of passover that points forward to the true Passover Lamb, Jesus Christ!  Ephesians 5:25 shows us that Jesus did not shed His blood for all people everywhere (just as the blood of the passover lambs in Exodus was not applied to all people everywhere…the Egyptians’ firstborn died!!!!), but that He died for His church.  Thus, the True Passover Lamb will apply His blood for all Christians (His church) and thus the death angel will PASS OVER us in judgment.  

 

I hope that this brief post aids you in your thought about the issue.  We can all have our own opinions, but not one of us should ever contradict the clear teaching from Scripture.  Thus, by looking at the TYPE set forth in Exodus, we can see our answer in the anti-type of Christ for us.  What a Savior!  Let us praise Him.

Genesis 6:1-4 What are the Nephilim?

According to many great interpreters of the Bible, this passage gets weird in a hurry. They claim that angels from heaven above left their domains (using Jude and 2 Peter to support themselves here) to engage in intercourse with the women of the earth. The result is a strange breed of quasi human/angel giants which are called the Nephilim.

Before I get to my interpretation of the passage, we must agree that this passage is nothing to divide over. Second, we must agree that one interpretation is correct and the other is incorrect, but we should remain humble in this attempt, knowing that the interpretation that we hold could be the one that is incorrect.

Concerning the above interpretation, we need to ask several questions. First, do angels have the ability to procreate? Are angels having sex with each other and having angelic offspring? If so, then the interpretation of Gen 3:15 must change since the offspring of the serpent would be a literal offspring. Thus, Satan would be literally creating his own seed. But, Gen 3:15 should be seen as the line of the woman and the line of Satan in that those who are not chosen will be at war with those of the woman’s line. ALso, we must ask how Matthew 22:28 is seen in light of the above interpretation. If, in the resurrection, there will not be marrying or marriage (implied: no sex) since we are like the angles, then we have to ask if the angels have the ability to engage in sex at all? If so, then what is the point of having the ability without the ability to accomplish the act itself? Next, we have to ask how the above interpretation changes Luke 17? If, as Jesus says, that the days of the Son of Man, will be like those of Noah (when men were marrying and given in marriage), then (in light of the above interpretation) Jesus is saying that angels will again come to have sex with women of the earth.

Second, if the angels did have intercourse with women, then why would the offspring merely be large people? Why would they not have more angelic traits rather than human characteristics?

Third, do we really have to say that 2 Peter and Jude must be read in this light?

Fourth, where does the context of Genesis allow for the view that angels leave their domain and have sexual intercourse and offspring with women of earth?

Finally, Matthew 22:29-ff provides what I think is concrete proof against sons of God meaning angels.  The text in Genesis says that these sons of God took the daughters of men in marriage.  Matthew 22:29-30 has Jesus claiming, “FOr in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.”  I am not saying that angels cannot marry, but I certainly think that  Jesus is saying that the angels cannot marry!  Therefore, the sons of God cannot mean angels in this passage as they DO MARRY the daughters of men.  

There must be a better and more natural interpretation of Genesis 6. There must be an interpretation that fits the context. Therefore, I think that we must remember the context of the passage. Genesis 4-11 seems to be the story of two seeds (flowing from Gen 3:15). Gen 5 shows the line of Cain as that line which contains the seed of the serpent. The last verses in 5 and most of Gen 6 deal with the line of Seth, the godly line. The first line seeks to create a name for themselves and to throw off the sovereignty of God. The second line seems to highlight those who seek after God and lift up His name. Thus, in Gen 6 when the sons of God (the godly line from Seth) saw the daughters of men (the sinful and wicked line of Cain) and they have offspring. This interpretation does fit the context, but there is another question that must be addressed.

What does the term Nephilim mean? Does it mean GIANT? Well, I think that it can IF and only if we define this word by Numbers 13-14. “We would be as grasshoppers compared to them.” Of course, the word could simply mean that those in the land were of great renown and known for their warring abilities. THis definition would fit the context of Gen 6 as the Nephilim seem to be those who are known, renown, for their wickedness! Thus, the word could be that these Nephilim are well-known for something. Besides, if the definition of Giants is used, then why does the passage say that these Nephilim were on the land then and later? If giant is the correct definition, then one of Noah’s sons would have to be a giant since they were the only ones saved from flood. Rather, it fits that Nephilim is more naturally seen as men of renown and known for their wicked and warring ways…as they would be later on in Scripture in a post-diluvian world (unless God lied to us and that some of these Nephilim somehow managed to escape from the flood…which would not be the case).

In the end, I think that the context and the rest of Scripture demands that we interpret Gen 6 as the combination of the 2 lines that create evil and wicked men who are well-known for their acts of evil and war. 2 Peter and Jude can simply be understood as those angles who fled with Satan when he rebelled against God.

What are your thoughts in the matter?

Hebrews 6:4-8 Apostasy and Its Implications

Thia passage has brought difficulty for many expositors.  Wild interpretations have spawned different theological debates based upon this single passage.  For instance, due to this passage, there are some who think that genuine believers can lose their salvation.  The problem here is that there are multiple attestations to the fact that a genuine believer cannot lose salvation.  Others, think that this warning is merely a loss of rewards.  THe problem there is that the true reward for the Christian is not the crowns that so many wrongly assume we will receive as the the real reward is Christ.  He is our reward of righteousness, He is our reward of life, He is all of the rewards that we will ever receive.  The crowns in Rev 4:10 that are cast before the feet of the throne are the 24 elders…not us.  And no, the 24 elders are not a combination of the 12 tribes of Israel and the 12 Apostles…they are who they are…the 24 elders.  Also, if our rewards COULD be lost, why would the author of this letter warn in such harsh language?  He does not say, “If you continue in your ways, then you will lose rewards”….rather he says that apostasy is unforgivable.  Therefore, we have to throw that view out.  We are left with the hypothetical warning…and that one just does not have any teeth.  Verses 9-12 are not a sure and certain indication of their non-apostateness, but it is more of a hope.  If all know that salvation cannot be lost, then what good is it to pretend, with a warning, that it can be?  The warning then falls flat.  Although, I do agree with Tom Schreiner that some warnings are the means of grace that God uses to move His elect and spurn them on toward repentance…but not in this case.

So, what are we left with?  How about remembering that we cannot Christianize these 5 phrases.  How about remembering that this list was familiar to the Hebrews….not to modern day Christians.  Thus, as with the rest of the letter, one MUST move to the OT to understand what they already knew.  ALso, since the author does not reintroduce the “they” in this passage, he must have already introduced them….which he has.  He is referring directly to the Exodus generation.  Yes, since he feels that he must recover some ground before continuing on with Christ in the High Priestly line of Melchizedek, he has to go over some things again.  And that ground is another comparison with the Exodus generation that did not make it to the promised land and will never receive God’s REST.  Why did they not enter into God’s rest…because they had been enlightened, tasted the heavenly gift, partook of the Holy Spirit, tasted of the goodness of the Word of God, the powers of the age to come and they still did not believe.  Their punishment for breaking the covenant with God…see Deut 29:23-ff.  Now, compare Neh 9:12-21 with Hebrews 6 and see if you cannot find the precise and exact list.  Now, doesn’t that make the passage much more understandable?  We do not have to dream anything up, we do not have to play with our theology, but we can rest, not on our own understanding, but rather, we can rest in God’s declared Word.  Of course the author of Hebrews is going to stay in the OT, that is the premise for his entire argument…Christ is the fulfillment and is better that all things OT.  Any thoughts?

Expository Preachers: Does Every Sermon Have to Contain a Basic Gospel Presentation?

I have a very basic question for you to consider…Does Every sermon have to contain a basic gospel presentation in it? In other words, according to that new but familiar saying, “If the preacher does not present the gospel, then he did not preach,” is this really true? I remember when I first alerted my home church (Meridian, Idaho) to the fact that God was calling me into His service as a preacher of His perfect Word, that a deacon told me that he only listens for the gospel presentation in every sermon…if it is there, then the Word was preached…if not, then not.

I do not hold to this recent view. I think that the true Expositor of Scripture must preach the text that is before him (which includes Christ…see below). The main point of the passage MUST BE the main point of the sermon. The sub-points of the passage MUST BE the sub-points of the sermon. If we change the passage in any way, or alter it’s meaning in any way, then we have failed to preach the text and we cannot call ourselves EXPOSITORS.

Now, before we get too far, allow me to say that I think that we must preach Christ in every sermon as this is what distinguishes Christian preaching from Dr. Phil, Joel Olsteen, and Oprah. Christ is in every rightly divided division in Scripture (type, shadow, prophecy, fulfillment…), but does that mean that the preacher MUST give a gospel call to be an expositor?

In order to answer this question without allowing human emotion to run the day, we must first look at the preaching in the Bible. Many of the sermons do have a call to believe in Christ, but some do not. So, are those sermons, by definition, not expositional? Take Hebrews 5:11-6:3 for instance. As the Expositor ponders this passage for the sermon, he must face (and preach) what the text says. It clearly states that there are times when we must press on toward deeper subjects ABOUT CHRIST, and leave the foundational fundamentals for a time. In this sermon, does the preacher contradict the inspired author and then preach a foundational message in order to check that proverbial box {I GAVE THE BASIC GOSPEL CALL}? OR, does he actually remind the body that the foundational messages of Jesus are wonderful and vitally important, but there are times to press on (as the author of Hebrews does) IF we are to move toward maturity?

Allow me to insert my opinion here. I think that by mandate, expositors MUST preach Christ from every text. I think that many sermons should include a basic gospel call in them (not overriding the points of the text mind you). However, I do not think that EVERY SINGLE SERMON MUST CONTAIN a basic gospel call in it. There are times when the preacher must press on and motivate the body to get beyond (never forgetting or taking for granted the basics) the basics and preach doctrinal truths that go beyond John 3:16. If we do not move beyond this point in our preaching, then we are guilty of making our congregations dependent upon milk and we will never preach the whole counsel of God.

Hebrews 4:11-13

How many poor sermons have you heard form this text of Scripture?  I was at a conference recently where a favorite speaker of mine took this passage and ran away with it.  He made this passage sing a song that the passage would not allow (although it was a good sermon….just not allowable from this text).  So, I want to hear your opinion as to what this passage means.  Now, before you answer the question, please do not rush off to your shelf of commentaries, as we all have them and we can all read.  But, I want you to read the passage in context (the flow is from 3:6-4:13) and tell me what this passage means.  1)  Does the passage say that the Word of God is a double edged sword OR does it say that the Word is SHARPER than a double edged sword?  2)  Is the Word of God (in this passage) to be used as an offensive weapon to ward off the enemy OR does it cut to the very core of your being to discern if you are in the faith?  3)  Is the REST mentioned throughout this passage merely a physical rest, and if so, then how does that compare with the Sabbath Rest?

Thanks for your thoughts!

Do Christians receive rewards in heaven for earthly works?

I have asked the question and I have been shocked by the results. Before I disclose my answer, I want to ask the blogworld about their opinions on the issue. So, here it is…Do you think that Christians will receive rewards of crowns in heaven? Do you think that we will cast them at the feet of Jesus? At what point will that take place? What was Paul talking about when he wrote about his reward in 1 Cor 3? What are your thoughts?

If you do a study on the rewards that Christians receive, you will find that we receive the crown of life and righteousness. Now, neither one of these things actually belong to us. Instead, you will find that Christ’s righteousness is given and imputed to us (thus, He fulfills the Covenant of Works) and we are given IT as a reward. Since we have IT, then the crown of life is given to us…in other words, we will not receive crowns or external rewards. Our sole reward is Christ and the effects of His work. In other words, we are given eternal life. He is our reward, we will not wear crowns, not for a moment, and only our CHrist will be hailed as our King.

Just so you know, we are not the 24 elders in Rev 4:10, thus we will not throw our “crowns” at God’s feet…of course, we have no crowns to offer! Think about this for a moment, is heaven a place where Christians are celebrated and a place where we compare rewards with one another? Of course not! It is that place where the subjects worship the Conquering King! Only the King wears a crown and our reward is the eternal praise that we GET to offer Him.

Praise be to the King of kings, Jesus Christ!

I preached a sermon on this issue, so if you want to listen, give it a listen

www.cbcaurora.com and hit the ’sermons’ link or go to sermoncloud.com.

How was the Entry in Jerusalem Triumphant?

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself this important question? Have you ever wondered why Jesus stops on the Mt. of Olives just outside of Bethpage (3 miles short of His goal) to order his disciples to go and retrieve a donkey? Have you ever wondered why this action takes place since the pilgrims were supposed to walk to the passover festival? And again, have you wondered why on one hand, the crowd shouts, Hosanna, then shouts, “He is a prophet from Nazareth of Galilee, then three days later they shout, “Crucify Him?” Why do our children bring palm branches into the church and wave them around on Palm Sunday? What does this passage mean?

I would like to hear your answers on this issue and then I will respond. The answers are directly out of the Old Tastement…yes that first half of the book that few read and even fewer call “relevant.” The answers to these questions do not mesh with the popular notion of Jesus as a hippie who loves and does nothing in violence. Responses?

Expository Preaching Questions

What is Expository Preaching?  I am in the writing phase of my doctorate in this area and have been surprised to find the varied explanations to this question.  I think that I have been most stunned by the comments from those who understand that expository preaching consists of a foundational understanding of the sufficiency of Scripture but who, then in practice completely ignore their claims of E.P.  Does the preacher simply read and explain the text as in Nehemiah 8?   In that case, Ezra simply reads and explains the Word of God and the people are cut th their hearts in repentance.  Is expository preaching that simple?  Tied up in this question are your other beliefs on the matter…for instance, if that is the true definition and practice of expository preaching, then you must have a sincere belief in the sufficiency of Scripture!  If that is the definition of expository preaching, then you must truly believe the promise made to Isaiah that when the Word of God is proclaimed that God’s Will is accomplished.  If however, you then give way in your sermons to the culture and modern times, then can you truly be an expositional preacher who holds to the sufficiency of Scripture?  I would love to hear your comments.