I knew I liked those guys

Carl Trueman has said this recently in an interview about his new book on John Owen.

What relevance might Owen have for the contemporary evangelical church?

He offers a model for doing theology which connects biblical exegesis and systematic theology in a way that respects trajectories of previous theological discussion while at the same time grounding everything in pastoral concerns. He also demonstrates how the doctrine of the Trinity should permeate Christian thinking and devotion. Above all, he understands the holiness of God and shows how theological thinking should proceed in this context.I get so tired of modern evangelical writers, whether biblical or theological, who have no grasp of the holiness of God and who treat scripture just like any old book, theology as a kind of entertaining crossword puzzle, and themselves as God’s gift to the church. God is not mocked, especially by those for whom theology seems to be little more than an idiom for self-promotion and patronizing previous generations. Owen was not a perfect theologian; but he knew the importance of that with which he was dealing, and his own comparative unimportance in the grand scheme of things.


Owen is a tough read. I've read his Communion with God. It is slow going, but now it is out in an abridged version with more modernized English. I've also read parts of Overcoming Sin and Temptation. You should read Owen.

I also have always appreciated what I have read by Trueman. One should read his regular column entitled the "Wages of Spin" over at Reformation21.org. His diagnosis of the contemporary church is spot on. His wit and turn of a phrase is a delight to read. In these columns he has an ability to drive home a point with a bit of light heartedness. In some respects, Trueman is like a prophet of old, he has an ability to see the problem he may use wit, parable, and clever phrase but he has this uncanny ability to stand square in the street and shout "the emperor has no clothes." To read him is to take your medicine, maybe it has something to do with his English wit.

I'm sure Trueman would agree that we should read Owen first. But at least somewhere in there, (not second, but down on your list) check out his column.

Owen may be daunting but over a generation ago C.S. Lewis reminded us:

THERE is a strange idea abroad that in every subject the ancient books should be read only by the professionals, and that the amateur should content himself with the modern books...This mistaken preference for the modern books and this shyness of the old ones is nowhere more rampant than in theology. Wherever you find a little study circle of Christian laity you can be almost certain that they are studying not St. Luke or St. Paul- or St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas or Hooker or Butler, but M. Berdyaev or M. Maritain or M. Niebuhr or Miss Sayers or even myself. Now this seems to me topsy-turvy...Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books. All contemporary writers share to some extent the contemporary outlook-even those, like myself, who seem most opposed to it...

Go read Owen, but do it somewhere quiet and read him very slowly, perhpaps with pen and paper in hand. The kind of reading it takes to read Owen requires discipline. I have in the past sat down and picked him up for "light evening reading," often while my children watch a bit of TV (or I have it own for who knows what reason). This does no justice to Owen. One does not sit down at a banquet table with the TV on in the other room, you cannot serve two masters, you will hate the one and love the other. Owen is a banquet table and to feast you must be sitting at the table, knife in one hand, fork in the other and a napkin on your lap. If your attention is elsewhere you will miss savoring the meat that has been thrust onto your plate.

Want to know more about John Owen? Check out this websight: http://www.johnowen.org/.

Church History Lectures

Nothing fancy today, just want to point out two lectures from one of my former Westminster Professors. Carl Trueman is both a churchman and a scholar. He gave some great thoughts on church history and its value for the church today.

Part 1 and Part 2. (HT: Justin Taylor)

The first lecture talks about the early church fathers and is quite helpful. The second deals more with the Reformation. There are a lot of helpful things for the church today in these lectures. I particularly enjoyed what he said about confessions and catechisms in the second lecture. I recommend these lectures to everyone.

There is a lot that we in the contemporary church should be learning from Church History. We have this preoccupation in our day with the "new" but the church universal is ancient. There is a faith handed down "once for all" and while in some ways the church today will look different, we must hear the past, not just pillage the past. This upcoming year at my church, I want to encourage my people, alone with their Bible reading and study, to familiarize themselves with church history. When we understand the issues of the past we begin to understand how to address the present. We find out what issues should be most important. Many of the questions we ask today are so self-centered and betray a youthful arrogance. The issues we fight over in the church are petty (pews or chairs) compared to the issues people divided over in the past (the nature of Christ's deity (Arian vs. Nicea/Athanasius)). How did the church conduct itself in the past and how should that influence the present?

Warfield on the Catechism

B.B. Warfield (left) tells this story about D.L. Moody (below):

An anecdote told of Dwight L. Moody will illustrate the value to the religious life of having been taught these forms of truth. He was staying with a Scottish friend in London, but suppose we let the narrator tell the story. "A youngman had come to speak come to speak to Mr. Moody about religious things. He was in difficulty about a number of points, among the rest about prayer and natural laws. 'What is prayer?," he said, 'I can't tell what you mean by it!' They were in the hall of a large London house. Before Moody could answer, a child's voice was heard singing on the stairs. It was that of a little girl of nine or ten, the daughter of their host. She came running down the stairs and paused as she saw strangers sitting in the hall. 'Come here, Jenny,' her father said, 'and tell this gentelman "What is prayer."' Jenny did not know what had been going on, but she quite understood that she was now called upon to say her Catechism. So she drew up, and folderd her hands in front of her, like a good little girl who was going to 'say her questions,' and she said in her clear childish voice: 'Prayer is an offering up of our desires unto God for things agreeable to his will, in the name of Christ, with confession of our sins and thankful acknowledgement of his mercies.' 'Ah!' That's the Catechism!' Moody said, 'thank God for that Catechism.'"

Qtd. from B.B. Warfield, Selected Shorter Writings, I.382-83.

To that I want to add "Amen." I have two little girls who are just the loves of my life (along with their beautiful mom), we also have one on the way, which they tell me is probably a girl. I can't think of anything better to do with my daughters then to train them up in the LORD through reading God's Word, praying with them and study the Catechism.

Chrysostom on Heaven

In Chrysostom's exposition of the Lord's prayer, he says the following:

For He did not at all say, “Thy will be done” in me, or in us, but everywhere on the earth; so that error may be destroyed, and truth implanted, and all wickedness cast out, and virtue return, and no difference in this respect be henceforth between heaven and earth.

Is Chysostom denying that heaven and earth are distinct places? Is he following some sort of "integrated view" that we have in a previous series critique of Doug Pagitt, a leader in the emergent church? Pagitt argues for an overrealized eschatology that denies the "vertical eschatology" of the Bible where heaven and earth are distinct places. We shall argue that Chrysostom does not deny the basic distinction between heaven and earth. Yet Chrysostom's ethics do seem to have an "already" aspect to them without denying the distinction between heaven and earth.

(1) We begin by examining Chrysostom's exposition in context. Here is what Chrysostom says:

He teaches, moreover, to make our prayer common, in behalf of our brethren also. For He saith not, “my Father, which art in Heaven,” but, “our Father,” offering up his supplications for the body in common, and nowhere looking to his own, but everywhere to his neighbor’s good...When therefore He hath reminded us of this nobility, and of the gift from above, and of our equality with our brethren, and of charity; and when He hath removed us from earth, and fixed us in Heaven; let us see what He commands us to ask after this. Not but, in the first place, even that saying alone is sufficient to implant instruction in all virtue. For he who hath called God Father, and a common Father, would be justly bound to show forth such a conversation, as not to appear unworthy of this nobility, and to exhibit a diligence proportionate to the gift. Yet is He not satisfied with this, but adds, also another clause, thus saying, “Hallowed be Thy name.” Worthy of him who calls God Father, is the prayer to ask nothing before the glory of His Father, but to account all things secondary to the work of praising Him. For “hallowed” is glorified. For His own glory He hath complete, and ever continuing the same, but He commands him who prays to seek that He may be glorified also by our life. Which very thing He had said before likewise, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.”

Later in the expostion:

From beneath, out of the heart, draw forth a voice, make thy prayer a mystery. Seest thou not that even in the houses of kings all tumult is put away, and great on all sides is the silence? Do thou also therefore, entering as into a palace,—not that on the earth, but what is far more awful than it, that which is in heaven,—show forth great seemliness. Yea, for thou art joined to the choirs of angels, and art in communion with archangels, and art singing with the seraphim. And all these tribes show forth much goodly order, singing with great awe that mystical strain, and their sacred hymns to God, the King of all. With these then mingle thyself, when thou art praying, and emulate their mystical order....

Chrysostom sees us in our prayers entering heaven, which is greater than entering a house of a king here on earth.

“After this manner, therefore, pray ye,” saith He: “Our Father, which art in heaven.” See how He straightway stirred up the hearer, and reminded him of all God’s bounty in the beginning. For he who calls God Father, by him both remission of sins, and taking away of punishment, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption, and adoption, and inheritance, and brotherhood with the Only-Begotten, and the supply of the Spirit, are acknowledged in this single title. For one cannot call God Father, without having attained to all those blessings. Doubly, therefore, doth He awaken their spirit, both by the dignity of Him who is called on, and by the greatness of the benefits which they have enjoyed. But when He saith, “in Heaven,” He speaks not this as shutting up God there, but as withdrawing him who is praying from earth, and fixing him in the high places, and in the dwellings above.

Chrysostom sees the prayer entering heaven, where God Himself dwells. This seems to be in some sort of spiritual sense through our communion but not a denial that heaven is a separate place. Rather it is this place we enter, as our spirit is awakened.

For because He had said thus, “Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven,” but was discoursing to men encompassed with flesh, and subject to the necessities of nature, and incapable of the same impassibility with the angels:—while He enjoins the commands to be practised by us also, even as they perform them; He condescends likewise, in what follows, to the infirmity of our nature... For ye must long, saith He, for heaven, and the things in heaven; however, even before heaven, He hath bidden us make the earth a heaven and do and say all things, even while we are continuing in it, as having our conversation there; insomuch that these too should be objects of our prayer to the Lord. For there is nothing to hinder our reaching the perfection of the powers above, because we inhabit the earth; but it is possible even while abiding here, to do all, as though already placed on high.

Notice that this applies to while we are living here, on earth, which is different than ‘on high’. We do it as though we are placed on high, although we are not yet ‘on high’ (e.g. in heaven).

Seest thou how He hath taught us also to be modest, by making it clear that virtue is not of our endeavors only, but also of the grace from above? And again, He hath enjoined each one of us, who pray, to take upon himself the care of the whole world. For He did not at all say, “Thy will be done” in me, or in us, but everywhere on the earth; so that error may be destroyed, and truth implanted, and all wickedness cast out, and virtue return, and no difference in this respect be henceforth between heaven and earth. “For if this come to pass,” saith He, “there will be no difference between things below and above, separated as they are in nature; the earth exhibiting to us another set of angels.”

The grace to do these things comes from heaven above. He does see us obeying here on earth, but if we do we will make it like above (heaven). We will "exhibit" another sense of angels. Chrysostom elsewhere sees the angels as dwelling in heaven and without earthly passions. He sees us being able to do the same here on earth if we obey. This is not a denial that heaven is a place but clearly does see what we would call an "already" aspect to his eschatology. It is precisely because heaven and earth are distinct in his worldview, that Chrysostom sees us being to emulate here "below" the life of heaven "above".

Even with this hope of obedience in the present life to obey on earth as God is obeyed and His will is done in heaven, Chrysostom is quite clear that heaven and earth are distinct places.

(2)While Chrysostom does have “present” aspects of the kingdom, for example: he calls the church heaven in some places. And we experience the present realities of the kingdom and heaven; He also very clearly distinguishes heaven and earth as separate places.

Notice the distinction between heaven as “there” and earth as “here”. While we clearly enjoy in the present the benefits of heaven (here):

[3.] Here we must apply our minds attentively, and consider the Apostolic wisdom; for again he shows the difference of the Priesthood. “Who” (he says) “serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things.” What are the heavenly things he speaks of here? The spiritual things. For although they are done on earth, yet nevertheless they are worthy of the Heavens. For when our Lord Jesus Christ lies slain [as a sacrifice], when the Spirit is with us, when He who sitteth on the right hand of the Father is here, when sons are made by the Washing, when they are fellow-citizens of those in Heaven, when we have a country, and a city, and citizenship there, when we are strangers to things here, how can all these be other than “heavenly things”? For in the former place after saying, “according to the power of an endless life” ( Heb. vii. 16 ), he then said that “there is a disannulling of the commandment going before” ( Heb. vii. 18 ); and then after that, he set forth something great, saying, “by which we draw nigh unto God.” ( Heb. vii. 19.) And in this place, after leading us up into Heaven, and showing that instead of the temple, we have Heaven, and that those things were types of ours, and having by these means exalted the Ministration [of the New Covenant], he then proceeds suitably to exalt the priesthood. Yea, verily. And whence does it appear that [the first Covenant] came to an end? He showed it indeed also from the Priest, but now he shows more clearly by express words that it has been cast out. But how is it “upon better promises”? For how, tell me, can earth and heaven be equal? But do thou consider, how he speaks of promises there [in that other covenant] also, that thou mayest not bring this charge against it. For there also, he says “a better hope, by which we draw nigh unto God” ( Heb. vii. 19 ), showing that a Hope was there also; and in this place “better promises,” hinting that there also He had made promises.

Chrysostom speaks of heaven being a dwelling place:

Paradise was entrusted to us, and we were shown unworthy to dwell even there, yet He hath exalted us to heaven. In the first things we were found unfaithful, and He hath committed to us greater; we could not refrain from a single tree, and He hath provided for us the delights above; we kept not our place in Paradise, and He hath opened to us the doors of heaven.

Christ ascended into the place of heaven and is seated there in the flesh:

Thus, they learned that there is a Son of God, and that God has a Son equal with Himself in dignity (John v. 17–20); they learned that there will be a resurrection (Matt. xvii. 9); that when He ascended He sat on the right hand of God (Luke xxii. 69); and what is still more stupendous, that Flesh is seated in heaven, and adored by Angels, and that He will come again (Mark xvi. 19); they learned what is to take place in the judgment (Matt. xvi. 27); learned that they shall then sit and judge the twelve tribes of Israel (Luke xxi. 27); learned that the Jews would be cast out, and in their stead the Gentiles should come in (Matt. xix. 28)...

(in the context Chrysostom is expounding why the angels had to tell the disciples Jesus went into heaven; eyes could not see that he went into heaven so the angels had to tell him. This only makes sense if heaven is a place distinct from earth:)

Inasmuch, however, as the sight of their eyes even here was not all-sufficient; for in the Resurrection they saw the end, but not the beginning, and in the Ascension they saw the beginning, but not the end: because in the former it had been superfluous to have seen the beginning, the Lord Himself Who spake these things being present, and the sepulchre showing clearly that He is not there; but in the latter, they needed to be informed of the sequel by word of others: inasmuch then as their eyes do not suffice to show them the height above, nor to inform them whether He is actually gone up into heaven, or only seemingly into heaven, see then what follows. That it was Jesus Himself they knew from the fact that He had been conversing with them (for had they seen only from a distance, they could not have recognized Him by sight), but that He is taken up into Heaven the Angels themselves inform them. Observe how it is ordered, that not all is done by the Spirit, but the eyes also do their part. But why did “a cloud receive Him?” This too was a sure sign that He went up to Heaven... And He did not merely say, “I go,” lest they should again grieve, but He said, “I send the Spirit” (John xvi. 5, 7); and that He was going away into heaven they saw with their eyes. O what a sight they were granted! “And while they looked stedfastly,” it is said, “toward heaven, as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven”—they used the expression “This” demonstratively, saying, “this Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall thus”—demonstratively, “in this way”—“come in like manner as ye have seen Him going into heaven.” (v. 10, 11.)... Moreover the Angels did not say, ‘whom you have seen taken up,’ but, “going into heaven:” ascension is the word, not assumption; the expression “taken up,” belongs to the flesh. For the same reason they say, “He which is taken up from you shall thus come,” not, “shall be sent,” but, “shall come. He that ascended, the same is he also that descended” (Eph. iv. 10).

More on the ascension into the place of heaven. Again it is the notion that heaven is the specialized dwelling place of God (without denying omnipresence):

For the thing required in the first instance was this, that it should be believed that He was risen, and ascended into heaven. As then the point on which Christ himself most insisted was, to have it known that He was come from the Father, so is it this writer’s principal object to declare, that Christ was risen from the dead, and was received up into Heaven, and that He went to God, and came from God.

Christ's flesh went into heaven; note the continuing incarnation in heaven. Notice that he speaks of "any place" and he refers to "heaven...or upon earth", heaven is clear a place distinct from earth:

He inhabits this tabernacle for ever, for He clothed Himself with our flesh, not as again to leave it, but always to have it with Him. Had not this been the case, He would not have deemed it worthy of the royal throne, nor would He while wearing it have been worshiped by all the host of heaven, angels, archangels, thrones, principalities, dominions, powers. What word, what thought can represent such great honor done to our race, so truly marvelous and awful? What angel, what archangel? Not one in any place, whether in heaven, or upon earth. For such are the mighty works of God, so great and marvelous are His benefits, that a right description of them exceeds not only the tongue of men, but even the power of angels.

Speaking of Daniel, and our unworthiness to be like him, there is the reference to the distance between heaven and earth, it is just a passing reference, but he takes this worldview so much for granted that he can speak of the distance between them.

He was in the den for God’s sake, and yet he counted himself unworthy of His remembrance, and of being heard. Yet we though daring [to commit] innumerable pollutions, and being of all men most polluted, if we be not heard at our first prayer, draw back. Truly, great is the distance between them and us, as great as between heaven and earth, or if there be any greater.

Notice what He says about the kingdom, in despising the earth and thinking of heaven. They are clearly distinct. Notice the distiction between the things "here" offered by men and "eternal life" followed by the contrast between heaven and earth:

To teach us to despise worldly dignities, and to show us that He needed nothing on earth. For He who chose all things mean, both mother and house and city and nurture and attire would not afterwards be made illustrious by things on earth. The things which (He had) from heaven were glorious and great, angels, a star, His Father loudly speaking, the Spirit testifying, and Prophets proclaiming Him from afar; those on earth were all mean, that thus His power might the more appear. He came also to teach us to despise the things of the world, and not be amazed or astonished by the splendors of this life, but to laugh them all to scorn, and to desire those which are to come. For he who admires things which are here, will not admire those in the heavens. Wherefore also He saith to Pilate, “My Kingdom is not of this world” ( c. xviii. 36 ), that He may not afterwards appear to have employed mere human terror or dominion for the purpose of persuasion. Why then saith the Prophet, “Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass”? ( Zech. ix. 9.) He spake of that Kingdom which is in the heavens, but not of this on earth; and on this account Christ saith, “I receive not honor from men.” ( c. v. 41.)... In a word, if thou wilt desire glory, desire it, but let it be the glory immortal, for that is exhibited on a more glorious stage, and brings greater profit. For the men here bid thee be at charges to please them, but Christ, on the contrary, giveth thee an hundredfold for what thou givest Him, and addeth moreover eternal life. Which of the two then is better, to be admiredon earth, or in heaven? by man, or by God? to your loss, or to your gain? to wear a crown for a single day, or for endless ages?

(3) Notice how with respect to ethics, living in this earth actually has heaven in view. He says the following about treasures in heaven be saved up in distinction from that which is for this earth. Notice the language of our journey to heaven in distinction from the riches upon earth:

Let us store up righteousness in the heavens. Instead of riches upon earth, let us collect treasures impregnable, treasures which can accompany us on our journey to heaven, which can assist us in our peril, and make the Judge propitious at that hour. Whom may we all have gracious unto us, both now and at that day, and enjoy with much confidence the good things prepared in the heavens for those who love Him as they ought, through the grace and lovingkindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom, to the Father and the Holy Ghost, be glory, now and ever, and world without end. Amen.

(4) Chrysostom does the very thing that Pagitt says in unorthodox. Pagitt refuses to speak of people in heaven and hell and talk about them as places or “wheres”. This is unorthodox. Chrysostom does exactly the opposite of Pagitt. He is speaking of one of the Roman emperors, Julian. Julian is in Hades and Christ is in heaven. He clearly sees them as places. In the interview, when asked "where" Pagitt said this would be Platonic, Chrysostom clearly describes them as "where" and distinct places where these guys are now, respectively:

What then do the deeds say? Christ said that it was easier for heaven and earth to be destroyed, than for any of his words to fail. Luke xvi. 17. The emperor contradicted these words, and threatened to destroy his decrees. Where then is the emperor who threatened these things? He is perished and is corrupted, and is now in Hades, awaiting the inevitable punishment. But where is Christ who uttered these decrees? In Heaven, on the right hand of the Father, occupying the highest throne of glory; where are the blasphemous words of the Emperor, and his unchastened tongue? They are become ashes, and dust and the food of worms. Where is the sentence of Christ? It shines forth by the very truth of the deed, receiving its lustre from the issue of the events, as from a golden column. And yet the emperor left nothing undone, when about to raise war against us, but used to call prophets together, and summon sorcerers, and everything was full of demons and evil spirits.

There is a clear distinction between heaven and earth in Chrysostom. This continues throughout Chrysostom’s writings. A simple search will affirm this. The texts I have cited are not exhaustive merely representative. The texts you quoted about heaven being here and now are much the same pattern we see in other places, for example Jonathan Edwards’ “Heaven is a World of Love”, Christians can speak of present aspects of the kingdom, particularly in love and ethics without denying in the slightest that heaven is a place separate from the earth. Just this introductory reading of these quotes of Chrysostom show that he does not deny that heaven is a separate “place”. Pagitt does deny this—and what he says is a problem, particularly if he claims to be an orthodox Christian.

While there are clearly present aspects of the kingdom for Chrysostom, it is not to the extent that heaven and earth are not distinct places. In his thought they quite clearly are. There is no such this as the "integrated way" either in Hebraic thought of the first century or in Chrysostom's thought. There is no "holism" that Pagitt advocates. There clearly remains the distinction of places with respect to "heaven" and "earth" in Chrysostom's thought.

Thankful to whom?

Like many pastors, I spoke last night at a thanksgiving eve service. I spoke at Psalm 111. I talked quite personally about how I am often not thankful enough. I do not marvel enough at the works of God or think about his wonder.

I started some of the my thoughts from Romans 1:21:

Romans 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

I pointed out that the person who doesn't believe in a personal God has no one to really thank. They thank people and have a warm feeling of 'thanks' but it is impersonal and void. It is really a pride in self. I pointed out how often I in my sin thank, but secretly reserve a bit of "I earned this" or "I deserve this".

I made the point that our whole life is to be about thanking God. We are created to "glorify God and enjoy Him forever." So often we fail to ponder the works of God. But it is the height of impeity and ungodliness, to deny true thanksgiving to God.

Some of my thoughts were sparked by finding this quote over at Jollyblogger:

The οὐχ ηὐχαρίστησαν, “were not thankful,” is not to be understood as a kind of standard formality (as could the earlier epistolary use; see on 1:8). In contrast here Paul is obviously thinking more in terms of thanksgiving as characteristic of a whole life, as the appropriate response of one whose daily experience is shaped by the recognition that he stands in debt to God, that his very life and experience of living is a gift from God (4 Ezra 8.60); cf. Kuss. In Paul’s perspective this attitude of awe (the fear of the Lord) and thankful dependence is how knowledge of God should express itself. But human behavior is marked by an irrational disjunction between what manknows to be the true state of affairs and a life at odds with that knowledge. This failure to give God his due and to receive life as God’s gift is Paul’s way of expressing the primal sin of humankind.

[Dunn, J. D. G. (2002). Vol. 38A: Word Biblical Commentary : Romans 1-8. Word Biblical Commentary (59). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.]

Today, as if I needed another illustration, I found this article from John Piper. I dare say it is a must read. READ IT. Print it a tuck it away. Take Heed! He responds to atheist Christopher Hitchens and liberal Bishop Spong, their theology (or lack thereof) leaves them with no one and even no need for thanksgiving. It is the height of ungodliness expoused. Here are some juicy quotes:

Hitchens said that those of us who believe in the God of Christianity are “condemned to live in this posture of gratitude, permanent gratitude, to an unalterable dictatorship in whose installation we had no say."

Quoting Spong:

the traditional understanding of the cross of Christ has become inoperative on every level. As I have noted previously, a rescuing deity results in gratitude, never in expanded humanity. Constant gratitude, which the story of the cross seems to encourage, creates only weakness, childishness and dependency.”

Responding:

You say this “constant gratitude” produces “childishness.” Not really. Children do not naturally say thank you. They come into the world believing that the world owes them everything they want. You have to drill “thank you” into the selfish heart of a child. Feeling grateful and saying it often is a mark of remarkable maturity. We have a name for people who don’t feel thankful for what they receive. We call them ingrates. And everyone knows they are acting like selfish children. They are childish. No, Bishop Spong, God wants us to grow up into mature, thoughtful, wise, humble, thankful people. The opposite is childish.

In fact the opposite is downright cranky. C. S. Lewis, before he was a Christian, really disliked the message of the Bible that we should thank and praise God all the time. Then everything changed. What he discovered was not that praising and thanking made people childish, but that it made them large-hearted and healthy. He said, ‘The humblest, and at the same time most balanced and capacious, minds praised most while the cranks, misfits and malcontents praised least.’ That is my experience. When I am ungrateful, I am selfish and immature. When I am overflowing with gratitude I am healthy, other-oriented, servant-minded, Christ-exalting, and joyful.

Concluding:

You both seem to assume that the affection of gratitude is puerile and unsatisfying—something we need to grow out of if we would be deeply joyful and useful people. Presumably you feel that way because, in your experience, being self-sufficient and being thanked is more satisfying than feeling dependent and thankful. I have tasted this pleasure you seem to prefer. It is the pleasure of power—the pleasure of being above others so that they must give you thanks rather than the other way around.

If we really want to glorify God and enjoy Him forever, we will give thanks. What a perverted day we live in where black becomes white and evil becomes good. Thanksgiving to God is "bad" and "weak". We have become Nebuchadnezzars who will not yield to God, but we cry up to heaven: "I am the greatest, I will not bend my knee" We think we have built our life with our power and our might, our houses, fancy cars, stable jobs, economic prosperity, and most of all the force of will and strength of our personalities.

Angels and ministers of grace, defend us. Dear Lord, enable us as your people to humble ourselves.

2 Chronicles 7:14 14 and My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

Happy Thanksgiving

I found this over at Star Trek.com.

Hope everybody has a great Thanksgiving.

The Bodily Ascension

Standard Orthodox theology holds that Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead and ascends bodily into heaven. This has been held from the days of the New Testament, but the church Fathers argued this. This is particularly in cases where they were often arguing against Gnosticism or Greek thought that denied the bodily resurrection and despised the ascension of a body into heaven. This ties into much of what I said in "Heaven in a Worldview." Christ remains incarnate and as incarnate He is in heaven at the right hand of God as our intercessor. The incarnation continues so that Christ can offer mediatation for us.

Athansius, Four Discourses Against the Arians:

And the term in question, ‘highly exalted,’ does not signify that the essence of the Word was exalted, for He was ever and is ‘equal to God,’ but the exaltation is of the manhood. Accordingly this is not said before the Word became flesh; that it might be plain that ‘humbled’ and ‘exalted’ are spoken of His human nature; for where there is humble estate, there too may be exaltation; and if because of His taking flesh ‘humbled’ is written, it is clear that ‘highly exalted’ is also said because of it. For of this was man’s nature in want, because of the humble estate of the flesh and of death. Since then the Word, being the Image of the Father and immortal, took the form of the servant, and as man underwent for us death in His flesh, that thereby He might offer Himself for us through death to the Father; therefore also, as man, He is said because of us and for us to be highly exalted, that as by His death we all died in Christ, so again in the Christ Himself we might be highly exalted, being raised from the dead, and ascending into heaven, ‘whither the forerunner Jesus is for us entered, not into the figures of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.’ But if now for us the Christ is entered into heaven itself, though He was even before and always Lord and Framer of the heavens, for us therefore is that present exaltation written.

Athanasius Incarnation of the Word

3. And besides, the Saviour came to accomplish not His own death, but the death of men; whence He did not lay aside His body by a death of His own—for He was Life and had none—but received that death which came from men, in order perfectly to do away with this when it met Him in His own body. 4. Again, from the following also one might see the reasonableness of the Lord’s body meeting this end. The Lord was especially concerned for the resurrection of the body which He was set to accomplish. For what He was to do was to manifest it as a monument of victory over death, and to assure all of His having effected the blotting out of corruption, and of the incorruption of their bodies from thenceforward; as a gage of which and a proof of the resurrection in store for all, He has preserved His own body incorrupt.

Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrneans

For I know that after His resurrection also He was still possessed of flesh, and I believe that He is so now. When, for instance, He came to those who were with Peter, He said to them, “Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit.” And immediately they touched Him, and believed, being convinced both by His flesh and spirit. For this cause also they despised death, and were found its conquerors. And after his resurrection He did eat and drink with them, as being possessed of flesh, although spiritually He was united to the Father...And thus was He, with the flesh, received up in their sight unto Him that sent Him, being with that same flesh to come again, accompanied by glory and power. For, say the [holy] oracles, “This same Jesus, who is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come, in like manner as ye have seen Him go unto heaven.” But if they say that He will come at the end of the world without a body, how shall those “see Him that pierced Him,” and when they recognise Him, “mourn for themselves?” For incorporeal beings have neither form nor figure, nor the aspectof an animal possessed of shape, because their nature is in itself simple.

Irenaeus responds to the Gnostic notion of noncorporeal ascension and their despising of the body, Against Heresies:

For they do not choose to understand, that if these things are as they say, the Lord Himself, in whom they profess to believe, did not rise again upon the third day; but immediately upon His expiring on the cross, undoubtedly departed on high, leaving His body to the earth. But the case was, that for three days He dwelt in the place where the dead were, as the prophet says concerning Him: “And the Lord remembered His dead saints who slept formerly in the land of sepulture; and He descended to them, to rescue and save them.” And the Lord Himself says, “As Jonas remained three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth.” Then also the apostle says, “But when He ascended, what is it but that He also descended into the lower parts of the earth?” This, too, David says when prophesying of Him, “And thou hast delivered my soul from the nethermost hell;” and on His rising again the third day, He said to Mary, who was the first to see and to worship Him, “Touch Me not, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to the disciples, and say unto them, I ascend unto My Father, and unto your Father.”2. If, then, the Lord observed the law of the dead, that He might become the first-begotten from the dead, and tarried until the third day “in the lower parts of the earth;” then afterwards rising in the flesh, so that He even showed the print of the nails to His disciples, He thus ascended to the Father;—[if all these things occurred, I say], how must these men not be put to confusion, who allege that “the lower parts” refer to this world of ours, but that their inner man, leaving the body here, ascends into the super-celestial place? For as the Lord “went away in the midst of the shadow of death,” where the souls of the dead were, yet afterwards arose in the body, and after the resurrection was taken up [into heaven], it is manifest that the souls of His disciples also, upon whose account the Lord underwent these things, shall go away into the invisible place allotted to them by God, and there remain until the resurrection, awaiting that event; then receiving their bodies, and rising in their entirety, that is bodily, just as the Lord arose, they shall come thus into the presence of God.

In other words, Christ goes bodily into the presence of God and we too will one day be in God's presence bodily.

Tertullian The Resurrection of the Flesh.He is dealing with what Paul means by "flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God". You really should read the whole section and the context but for the ascension:

yet God—the last Adam, yet the primary Word—flesh and blood, yet purer than ours—who “shall descend in like manner as He ascended into heaven”the same both in substance and form, as the angels affirmed, so as even to be recognised by those who pierced Him. Designated, as He is, “the Mediatorbetween God and man,” He keeps in His own self the deposit of the flesh which has been committed to Him by both parties—the pledge and security of its entire perfection. For as “He has given to us the earnest of the Spirit,” so has He received from us the earnest of the flesh, and has carried it with Him into heaven as a pledge of that complete entirety which is one day to be restored to it. Be not disquieted, O flesh and blood, with any care; in Christ you have acquired both heaven and the kingdom of God. Otherwise, if they say that you [i.e. flesh and blood] are not in Christ, let them also say that Christ is not in heaven, since they have denied you heaven. Likewise “neither shall corruption,” says he, “inherit incorruption.” This he says, not that you may take flesh and blood to be corruption, for they are themselves rather the subjects of corruption,—I mean through death, since death does not so much corrupt, as actually consume, our flesh and blood. But inasmuch as he had plainly said that the works of the flesh and blood could not obtain the kingdom of God, with the view of stating this with accumulated stress, he deprived corruption itself—that is, death, which profits so largely by the works of the flesh and blood—from all inheritance of incorruption.

If we deny heaven is a place, what are we saying about the continuing incarnation? If we deny the continuing incarnation what do we say about the resurrection and the ascension?

The Heidelberg Catechism says it this way:

Question 49. Of what advantage to us is Christ's ascension into heaven?

Answer: First, that he is our advocate in the presence of his Father in heaven; secondly, that we have our flesh in heaven as a sure pledge that he, as the head, will also take up to himself, us, his members; thirdly, that he sends us his Spirit as an earnest, by whose power we "seek the things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God, and not things on earth."

Eschatology 101 Charts

Basic First Century Judaism: a. In First Century Judaism the age to come and the point of transition into include the judgment, the resurrection, and the recreation of the heavens and the earth.

b. At this point the Messiah would rule all creation and defeat the Romans.

c. History continues with the eschatos ushered in and the triumph of Israel's God overall enemies.

The 'Already/Not Yet':

Basic New Testament Fulfillment between the first and second comming.

a. Christ now reigns in fulfillment of Psalm 2, 8 and 110.

b. The resurrection of Christ is the ‘first fruits’.

c. The ‘last days’ have begun.

d. We await the final end of things.

Postmillennial:

a. The 1,000 years of Rev. 20 is future of us but before Christ.

b. The millennium is either the spread of the gospel or the world converted to Christianity and under a sort of ‘Christian state’ of peace and prosperity.

c. 1,000 years is either literal or a metaphor.

Amillennnial:

a. The 1,000 years is a description of the present age until Christ returns.

b. Not literal but a metaphor.

c. It describes a ‘spiritual’ reality. The kingdom is a present reality. Christ's reigns over the kingdom and all creation. Christ on the throne of David now.

Historic Premillennial:

a. Believers go through the tribulation.

b. The ‘rapture’ occurs with the return so that the saints are called up with Christ and then immediately descend with Him.

c. Christ ushers in a 1,000 year period where he reigns on earth.

d. Christ is on the throne of David right now.

Dispensational Premillennial:

a. Christ comes down into the clouds and ‘raptures’ all the Christians. They all leave earth and go to heaven.

b. Believing Christians do not experience the tribulation.

c. The rest of humanity is left of earth and God returns to his program with Israel.

d. The saints will return with Christ seven years after their rapture where Christ sets up the kingdom.

f. There is a 1,000 year reign where Christ and the resurrected Christians along with Israel rule.

g. Some hold that Israel an the church are eternal distinct in separate places. New Heaven for Christians and the new earth for Jewish believers.

h. Distinguishes between Christ's present reign in heaven and the kingdom that will come. (Some more classic types make this distinction more radical so that Christ is not on the throne of David). Some completely postpone the kingdom Jesus offered in the Gospels (progressive dispensationalism has corrected this).

Common to all:
a. Christ returns bodily and that has not happened yet.

b. There is a belief in a literal judgment. (symbolized by the 'bomb').

c. There is the belief in a literal bodily resurrection.

d. The eternal state includes the new heavens and the new earth.

e. All affirm the basic early orthodox creeds on the resurrection, judgment and the eternal state.

f. All believe in a literal hell/lake of fire for the unsaved and eternal life for the saved.

Eschatology 101b

Eschatology (Cont'd).

d. What do the Scriptures say about the events associated with Christ’s return?

Before the return of Christ the antichrist, or man of lawlessness will be revealed. In the zest to determine whom the final antichrist might be and consider his role in the Biblical end times we often forget that according to John anyone who denies that Christ came in the flesh is an antichrist (1 John 4:3; 2 John 7). Yet there will be an ultimate antichrist who will lead the world in rebellion against God. Paul calls him the ‘man of lawlessness.’ He will even demand worship and proclaim himself to be God (2 Thes. 2:3-4). Revelation 13 also describes him as the beast. The antichrist will not be revealed until the one who holds it back is taken out of the way (2 Thes. 2:7-8). There is not enough exegetical evidence to indicate who this is, although it might be the Holy Spirit. We do know that coming of the ‘man of lawlessness’ is in accordance with the work of Satan. Ultimately it is the Lord Jesus who will overthrow this man by the splendor of His coming to earth (2 Thes. 2:8).

The second coming of Christ will be a literal physical return of Christ to the earth. Acts 1:10-11 tells us that the same why Christ ascended into the sky He will descend. He ascended in his glorified body; he will also descend in his glorified body. The return of Christ to the earth is described most fully in Revelation 19. It will precede the resurrection of those who are ‘in Christ’. This return of Christ is also described in 1 Cor. 15:51-57 and 1 Thes. 4:16-5:10 but in less detail. However, only God the Father knows the exact time of the second coming of Christ (Matt. 24:36, et al).

The ultimate hope of the believer is the resurrection. Even in the Old Testament the resurrection is the primary hope of the believer (Daniel 12:1-3; Ezekiel 37:1-14; et al). Christ’s own resurrection, that inaugurated the age to come, is the ‘firstfruits’ that guarantees the resurrection of those who are ‘in Christ’ (1 Cor. 15 esp.: v.23.). This resurrection will be to a glorified body (1 Cor. 15:42-49). The resurrection of the dead is the key eschatological event a believer looks for in anticipation that must remain foundational to our understanding of the Word of God concerning the end times, second only to the literal physical return of Christ. Therefore, it seems wise that we should not split up or divide the resurrection without clear explicit exegetical warrant. At this point, I do not believe there is the exegetical warrant for splitting the resurrection up more than is explicitly stated in Rev. 20.^[1] Revelation 20:4-5 indicates that the first resurrection is immediately prior to the millennium. If this is explicitly the first resurrection then I do not believe we have support for splitting up the resurrection of believers.^[2]

1 Corinthians 15 teaches that our resurrection is based on the fact of the resurrection of Christ. 1 Corinthians 15:50-57 is often used to defend the pretribulation rapture of the church. The context is clearly the resurrection. Similarly, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11 (esp. 16-18^[3]) is also used to defend the pretribulation rapture of the saints. This also seems to refer to the resurrection because here also is where we find the ‘trumpet call of God’. This context seems to indicate the coming of the Lord and the resurrection happen together. Since Rev. 20:4-5, places this first resurrection before the millennium I do not believe there is enough exegetical evidence to split the rapture and resurrection of the church with the resurrection of tribulation saints.

Interestingly, in 2 Thessalonians when Paul was writing to them in assurance that the ‘Day of the Lord’ had not yet begun he does not say, “What are you worried about? You know you won’t be here for it and the fact that you are still here should tell you it hasn’t begun.” What he does tell them is that it has not begun because the man of lawlessness has not been revealed (2:3-4). While this argument is an argument from silence, it does hold some weight. If Paul was clearly believed in a pretribulation rapture and the Thessalonians really understood Paul’s teaching before he left they should not have been worrying in the first place and Paul could have simple reassured them that the rapture was pretribulational. Another important point that must be considered from 2 Thes. 1:6-10 is that at the same time the just judgment of God is described right along with God’s provision of relief for the believer. The passage describes one coming of the Lord which provides both relief for the believer and everlasting destruction for the unbeliever:

"God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you."

In light of the context it seems to argue for a single coming of the Lord because this coming is when the Lord will be glorified in his people. Paul is specific that this group of people does include the Thessalonians because they believe. What Paul seems to indicate is that all Christians in the church will be glorified at the return of Christ, this would also include the large number of Jews which Rom. 11:26 seems to speak of.

Rev. 3:10 is most often used to support a pretribulation rapture. While it is possible that it does indicate a pretribulation rapture, it could also mean the God will protect his church during the tribulation. The text reads of Rev 3:10 “kagw/ se thrhsw ek th$ wra$ tou= peirasmou= th$ mellou/sh$ erxesqai epi\ th$ oi)koumenh$” (NIV: I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world…). The pretribulationist argues that thrhsw ek denotes physical ‘removal from’. The first problem is that nowhere in Biblical Greek does ek (from) mean ‘outside position’ as if marking physical or spatial position outside of.^[4] The preposition e)k generally marks separation from [out of] not physical or separation [outside of]. John 17:15b combines the Greek words threw (keep or protect) and ek in the only other combination in Scripture besides Rev. 3:10^[5]. Whereas in John 17:15a when Jesus said, “My prayer is not that you take them out of the world” the verb ai[rw is used for ‘removal’ from [out of] the world (e)k tou¾ kovsmou). In John 17:15b the two words (threw and ek) clearly do not mean “removal from” or “keep them outside of”; given that the same author writes Revelation there could be a parallel here. Rev. 3:10 could mean ‘protection from’ marking spiritual protection within but not ‘removal from’ or ‘keep outside of’ the tribulation.^[6] Rev. 3:10 most likely refers to God’s protection upon his people within the tribulation, the ‘hour of trial’. This interpretation seems to consistently reflect the use of threw and ek. It is God who protects and preserves his people so that they do not experience his wrath, although they will experience persecution. We should point out while the pretribulation view puts a lot of weight on this verse, the argument for the pretribulation rapture or the posttribulation rapture does not rise or fall on a single verse.

Paul is clear 1 Thes. 5:9 “For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.” This wrath however, does not have to be referring to the wrath of the tribulation but the final judgment from which we will be saved. Paul seems to use ‘God’s wrath’ and ‘wrath’ primarily in connection with the final judgment and not the tribulation.

At this point I favor the posttribulation rapture. My reasoning is primarily because of the significance of the resurrection above ‘schemes’ and ‘timelines,’ which often may be imposed on the text. This is compounded by the generally recognized fact that the genre of apocalyptic literature is intended by the author to be highly symbolic and provide hope for the future rather than a detailed roadmap.^[7] Two points of elaboration should be made with regard to this.

First, I think we need to be careful before assuming the tribulation is an exact seven-year period and adding a detailed extrapolation of dates within it. The only warrant for this seven-year period comes in the highly debatable passage of Daniel 9:20-27 (esp. 26-27). Elsewhere in Scripture, as we have noted, there will be a period of worsening trials and troubles, culminating in a great tribulation or hour of trial. It is quite possible that the tribulation is referred to as the last week in Daniel but there is too much debate surrounding this passage in my mind at this point. For example, George Eldon Ladd argues that Daniel 9:27 the words “and he shall make a covenant with many for one week” literally translated means “He shall cause the covenant to prevail”. He concludes “The messianic interpretation sees the subject as Christ, [as apposed to the interpretation that the subject is the antichrist] who confirms and fulfills the covenant already in existence so that its terms and conditions are now to be made more effective.”^[8] Rev. 7:14 speaks of the ‘great tribulation’, Revelation never seems to set a specific timetable of seven years to it. Regardless of one’s view of the tribulation, as Christians we should not discount suffering as something we will never undergo (Phil. 1:29). Revelation, consistent with the genre of apocalyptic literature, is written not so that believers can relax because they will not face trials and persecution, but so that the believer will stand strong and firm through persecution, trial and tribulation knowing that no matter what happens the final victorious outcome is assured.

Jesus does speak of the worsening times of tribulation that will immediately precede the coming of the Son of Man (Matt 24, and parallels). It will be a horrific time: “For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now” (Matt 24:21) We should remain clear that if Christians are on earth during the tribulation God’s wrath will not be poured out on them although they will suffer the wrath of the beast and unbelievers, which John makes clear in Revelation.

Second, I do believe there is a certain amount of imminence to the second coming of Christ. The ‘day of the Lord’ does come like a thief in the night, yet it should not surprise believers (1Thes. 5:1,2,4). Imminence does not necessarily demand ‘any moment’. However we must never fall into the trap of trying predicting the return of Christ either exactly or with a degree of certainty. We are to look forward to Christ return with hope knowing that he will establish a 1,000-year earthly reign, we will receive the resurrection and reign with Christ, and at the end of the 1,000 years Satan will be defeated. This hope of return of Christ should play a large part in our daily living in light of any present trials or sufferings. Our ultimate victory remains secure because we are ‘in Christ’ and will be resurrected just as he was

e. What do the Scriptures say about the millennium?

While the reign of Christ began at Christ’s resurrection and exaltation, his kingdom will be brought to earth at his second coming. This reign of a physical kingdom over all the earth lasts 1,000 years while Satan is bound up. Rev. 20:1-5 teaches that this reign is a literal one thousand years. In this age the promises that where inaugurated at the first advent of Christ, such as the Holy Spirit with us, will reach their climax. All the Davidic promises that have not been fulfilled will be fulfilled.

While some debate whether or not John’s mention of ‘coming to life’ the first time refers to a “spiritual” coming to life or if it refers to a bodily resurrection, the latter is more likely for five reasons. First, while other New Testament passages talk about our present reign with Christ (Col 3:1; Eph. 2:6;), even Paul speaks of a future reign if we endure (2 Tim. 2:12). John also earlier gives hope for those who overcome are promised to reign, something clearly future (Rev. 2:26; 3:21). Indeed with many aspects of the kingdom of God there is a tension of an already/not yet that cannot be overlooked. There is no indication in Scripture that we presently exercise judgment over the world. In fact 1 Cor. 6:2,3 speaks of a future judgment being exercised by believers. John is clear that this installment of reigning with Christ is one of judgment (Rev. 2:4). The ezhsan and appointment to judge are related so ezhsan [they came to life] is not a spiritual coming to life but a bodily physical resurrection.

Second, it would be awkward, to say ‘the rest of the dead came to life’ if the first reference of coming to life was ‘spiritual’. In fact, all would then have to yet participate in second ‘coming to life’, what the amillennial view sees as bodily the resurrection. The fact that the 20:5 says, “the rest of the dead” indicates that it is those who did not experience this first resurrection who will come to life after the 1,000 years are over. These dead come to life before the judgment in Rev. 20:12-15.

Third, it is difficult to image that John would use ezhsan twice within two verses and have a double meaning. While we cannot rule out the use of double meaning as a literary device (Cf. John 3:7ff ‘born again’ can mean ‘born from above), it seems unlikely here since John gives little contextual reason for the meaning to change. We cannot make an appeal to symbolism or a spiritual meaning without sufficient exegetical warrant, such as clear contextual indication that the subject has shifted, which the text does not contain.

Fourth, the progression of the passage, which speaks of the dead of the martyrs followed by the statement kai\ ezhsan kai\ ebasileusan meta\ tou= Xristou= xilia eth, would seem to suggest physical realities are in view. Note that in 6:9ff, the souls of the martyrs await God’s justice giving no indication that they are reigning with Christ as Rev 20 describes. It is in Rev. 20 they are raised to physical life they receive and exercise justice. IF John had want to point to the spiritual life and spiritual reign of the believer it would make more sense to place the statement kai\ ezhsan kai\ ebasileusan meta\ tou= Xristou= xilia eth [they came to life and reigned with Christ 1,00 years] (and perhaps the statement auth h( anastasi$ h( prwth [this is the first resurrection]) before drawing attention to the beheaded martyrs who experienced physical death.

Fifth, there are numerous passages that speak of the activity of Satan in this present age (cf. Luke 22:3; Acts 5:3; 2 Cor. 4:3-4; 11:14; Eph. 2:2; 1 Thes. 2:18; 2 Tim. 2:26; and 1 Pet. 5:8). To see the binding of Satan in Rev. 20:1-3 as in anyway a present experience of the world or the church at best minimizes the vividness of the language in Revelation along with certainty and comprehensive nature of Satan’s captivity, and at worst removes all meaning from the idea of a real imprisonment and real binding. Satan’s hold on individuals is defeated by the power of God in the gospel but this is not the type of binding described in Rev. 20:1-3. Rev. 20:3 says Satan cannot deceive the nations, presently Satan does blind people in unbelief (2 Cor. 4:3-4). He is clearly not yet bound, in fact “he prowls around like a roaring lion” (1 Peter 5:8). The comprehensive binding of Satan immediately precedes ezhsan ('they came to life' e.g. the first resurrection) and the 1,000 years, indicating the first resurrection and 1,000-year reign is something we are clearly awaiting as long as Satan remains unbound.^[9]

While arguments can be (and most certainly have been) mounted against a premillennial interpretation, this interpretation seems strongest based on the context. However, we will briefly respond to two common critiques to a premillennial position. First, is the critique that all other references to the resurrection indicate only one physical resurrection where both the righteous and unrighteous appear to be raised at the exact same time. This is not insurmountable, without discussing every Scriptural presentation of the resurrection we can simply point out that in the Old Testament even the first and second advent of Christ is telescoped in such a way that they often appear as one event. Second, it is often objected that if the premillennial position is true Revelation 20 is the only place that speaks of it have a time of 1,000 years. Without trying to flippantly dismiss the objection, it is sufficient to respond here simply by noting the progressive nature of God’s revelation. Only at this point did God seem fit to spell out more specifically the nature and extent our reign with Christ in his kingdom. Giving the organic nature of revelation, the passage expands and grows upon what is previously revealed.

We should point out that even for the premillennialist the ultimate hope is not the 1,000 years but the new heavens and the new earth. We cannot be so focused on the 1,000 years that we neglect the new heavens and the new earth. When discussing the 1,000 years and our eternal life with God in the new heavens and the new earth, we must be sure to stress the quality of our reigning with Christ and fellowship with God and not simply the extent as if only the extent of what happens is what makes it superior. When we think of the extent of our future we should automatically think of the quality and when we think of the quality we should automatically think of the extent.

f. The Judgments

There are two judgments one for the saved and one for the unsaved. The first is the bema seat of Christ. The bema seat is described by Paul in Romans 14:10, 1 Corinthians 3:9-15, and 2 Corinthians 5:10. At this judgment the believers’ eternal destiny is not at stake rather his position in the kingdom of God. He is judged by the deeds he has done. Paul describes it as a fire that tests the quality of each person’s work. The person himself remains saved. It light of this judgment we are to carefully devote ourselves to the Lord’s service using the gifts he has given us.

The next judgment is the Great White Throne judgment. This is described in 20:11-15. This is the judgment for those who are unsaved. No one will have any excuse as they stand before God, only those who are covered by the righteousness of Christ and have his work imputed to their account will not be condemned on this day. Paul in his argument that both Jew and Gentile are under sin goes into some detail in Romans 2. In 2:1-5 the self-righteous and hypocritical Jew demonstrates a recalcitrant heart and thus is not exempt from God’s judgment against sin. In 2:6-11, Paul explains that God’s eschatological judgment will be rendered impartially to Jew and Gentile alike on the basis of their works. He goes on in 2:12-16 showing that God’s eschatological judgment will be rendered impartially to Jew and Gentile alike in accordance with the form of law God has given them. The Jews have not kept the law so the Jews’ presumption of privilege, based on the covenantal advantages of law and circumcision, is invalidated (2:17-29). Yet the one who is a true “Jew” is not one who conforms outwardly to the covenant sign of circumcision, but rather one who is “circumcised” and transformed inwardly by the Spirit (2:28-29). Paul is perfectly comfortable with God’s judgment based on works. The works however are not a relative or sliding scale. All have fall short. Yet it is those who are justified by faith and have the Spirit in their hearts who will stand in the judgment because their sins were paid for (Rom. 5:9 et al in Romans; 2 Thes. 1:8). We also know that God’s judgment will be just (2 Thes. 1:6).

g. The Eternal State.

The eternal state for the non-Christian is everlasting conscious suffering in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:11-15). Paul is quite clear that those who are unbelievers will be exclude from God's presence: 2 Thessalonians 1:9 "They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might." The final state for the believer will be in resurrected bodies dwelling on the New Heaven and the New Earth. God will dwell with them and they will dwell with God for eternity (Rev. 21,22). This resurrected body, for believers, is exactly like the resurrected body that Christ presently possesses. The eternal state is not a ‘soul’ apart from a ‘body’. The eternal state is the glory that God intended humanity to enjoy in the garden had they obeyed.

---

^[1] I say ‘at this point’ because I have not done an in-depth study of Revelation 4-19 and Daniel 7-12 with consideration of their genre, apocalyptic literature, in my interpretation. I am fully convinced that Revelation 20 teaches a real 1,000 year millennial reign but I am unsure about the apocalyptic/prophetic structure of Revelation. I do not wish to demonstrate integrity to the Word of God in my personal life by not making any too many conclusions on the interpretation of Revelation without more complete study.

^[2] Obviously the very first resurrection is the resurrection of Christ. Yet there does not seem to be enough warrant for saying the resurrection of the church and the resurrection of Israel are two separate events. However the second resurrection (in Rev 20:5) seems to refer to the resurrection of the unrighteous.

^[3] 1 Thes. 4:17 says that the believer will be ‘caught up’ and the purpose will be ‘to meet the Lord in the air’ [ei$ apanthsin tou= kuriou ei$ aera]. While the word apanthsi$ is not necessarily a technical term it is often used in secular Greek literature (especially with parousiva) to describe a group of loyal subjects going out to meet coming king and usher him into their city with celebration. While it is not clear whether we can press this meaning onto the text here there is a good chance that may be what Paul has in mind. (Bruce, F.F. 1 & 2 Thessalonians. WBC. [Waco, Tx.: Word, 1982] 102-3. Balz, Horst and Gerhard Schneider. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. (Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 1978) vol. 1 page 115)

^[4] Cf. Feinberg, Paul “The Case for the Pretribulation Rapture Position” in Three Views of the Rapture: Pre- Mid- or Post-Tribulational? (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1996) 63-69. And Douglas Moo’s rebuttal concerning ek pp 90-97. Moo notes that in classical Greek ek can occasionally mean physical or spatial separation from [i.e. the idea: outside of] (p.91).

^[5] Moo also notes Acts 15:29 with a very similar construction with its use of ejk and diathrevw (which means virtually the same thing as threvw) as another example of ‘keeping from’ without denoting ‘removal from’ (Ibid. 94).

^[6] Moo. Ibid. 198.

^[7] For an example of some discussion on apocalyptic as a genre cf. Sandy, D. Brent and Martin G. Abegg, Jr. “Apocalyptic.” Cracking Old Testament Codes: A Guide to Interpreting the Literary Genres of the Old Testament. (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995) 177-196. For example they say: “[A]pocalyptic is generally not a chronological account of the future but a literary shock treatment of bold and graphic images to take our attention away from the problems we currently face and give us hope that God will win a resounding victory over all evil” (188). “If we could solve all the puzzles of apocalyptic, it would defraud the genre of the mystery that is intended to surround it” (189). “Likewise, correct interpretation of apocalyptic seeks to understand the big picture—the meaning of the whole rather than the meaning of parts” (189). Any interpretation of the text needs to respect the genre of the literature, I have not done enough personal work in revelation to wrestle with all the details.

^[8] George Eldon Ladd, The Last Things. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 61.

^[9] For basically the same point cf. Mounce, Robert H. The Book of Revelation. Revised. NICNT. (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans. 1998) 361-2.

Eschatology 101a

Eschatology:

a. Inaugurated Eschatology

Inaugurated eschatology is key to understanding the majority of the New Testament, including the use of the Old Testament, the ministry of Christ, salvation, justification, the New Covenant, the resurrection of Christ, the Holy Spirit^[1], as well as Paul’s Gentile mission. In the Old Testament and intertestamental period the general Jewish eschatology was dualistic represented by two ages. First was ‘this age’ followed by God’s saving climatic activity, including the manifestation of His saving and judging righteousness that would result in ushering in of the ‘age to come’.

Yet what we see in the New Testament that some of the key events of the ‘age to come’ have penetrated into the ‘present age’ inaugurating this ‘age to come’.^[2] The present age will continue to until the parousia. The kingdom of God/heaven is primarily as reign begun at Christ’s resurrection but will be realized on the realm of earth during the millennium when Christ brings the kingdom to earth physically. The tension held to is often referred to as an ‘already’/’not yet’ tension.^[3]

In the gospels we see the inauguration of the ‘age to come’ in the ministry of Christ. There are clearly some ‘not yet’ aspects to the kingdom in the ministry of Christ for example, the Lord’s prayer, the beatitudes, the messianic banquet, and the Last Supper to name a few. However there are some ‘already’ aspects to the kingdom of God in the life of Christ. In Matthew 12:28 Jesus links his activities with driving out the demons with the presence of the kingdom of God in his ministry. He is clear that the kingdom of God has come (e[fqasen). The kingdom of God/heaven refers primarily to a reign rather than a realm, although it will be a realm in the millennium. The presence of John the Baptist before the ministry of Christ as fulfillment of Isaiah 40:1-5 is key to this concept as well.^[4] The miracles of Christ fulfill some key Old Testament passages. These passages are generally in the context of God’s eschatological activity. Jesus' teaching emphasized that the kingdom of heaven had come, it had come through His ministry but there still remained a future element of the kingdom. The future element was the judgment. The kingdom of heaven in Matthew is the same as the kingdom of God, which is used by Mark and Luke. In Matthew 13, Jesus is using parable because the many did not understand or believe His teachings. In Matthew, understanding is synonymous with believing. The parables illustrated the truth of the kingdom of heaven only to those who already understood. Those who believed and understood the truth were the ones in whom the teachings of Jesus produced fruit. They are willing to give up all because of the value of the kingdom of heaven.^[5] Jesus' teaching took what was understood about the kingdom of heaven and explained the new mystery of the kingdom of heaven. This mystery, or secret, was that Christ would first come to save and would later return to judge. Matthew thirteen contains seven parables that illustrate to those who understand truth, helping them see the mystery of the kingdom.^[6] The kingdom was inaugurated in human history by the death of Christ and will be consummated at the end of the age. While there is more evidence in the gospels, lest we spend all our time defending inaugurated eschatology from the gospels we shall move on.

Another key passage is Romans 1:2-4.^[7] Here Paul defines the gospel he was called to proclaim as the message of God’s inscripturated promises in the messianic career and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.^[8] The gospel of God has its background in Isaiah 40:9 and 52:7. Romans 1:3,4 describes that Christ was born from the seed of David in the likeness of flesh. This most certainly has its background in II Sam. 7:12-14. Verse 4 says that he was appointed Son of God in power, this alludes to Psalm 2:7.^[9] Paul is using the flesh/Spirit contrast to contrast the two ages alluding to inauguration of the age to come with the reference to the coronation of the king of Israel in the age to come. Son of God here is His messianic title not his ontological nature.^[10] The resurrection is significant in appointing Christ as king in power.

The resurrection was also significant in the Old Testament. It would mark the beginning of the age to come. In 1 Corinthians 15:23, Jesus is the firstfruits guaranteeing the resurrection of those who are in Christ. With Christ’s resurrection the age to come have been inaugurated. He is reigning (1 Cor. 15:25: basileuvein); this is present tense. This is on the Davidic throne.

Hebrews chapter one is key as well. Several of the Old Testament passages are quoted that mark the coronation of the Davidic King (Ps. 2:7; 45:6,7; 110:1). Christ is clearly the Davidic Messiah. He is reigning on the Davidic throne at the right hand of God. At His return He will bring the kingdom with Him to earth. Elsewhere in Hebrews, Christ has clearly ushered in the New Covenant which was a promise of the ‘age to come.’^[11]

In the New Testament we have Christ fulfilling elements the Abrahamic covenant.^[12] We have him fulfilling elements of the Davidic covenant.^[13] We have Christ fulfilling elements of the New Covenant.^[14] Yet we still have some not yet promises that remain, including the intermediate (mediatorial, physical) kingdom^[15] and the New Heavens and the New Earth.^[16] In Galatians 1:4 and Colossians 1:13 this eschatological scheme appears, we have been rescued from the present age. Yet we still remain and are not to conform to this present age (Romans 12:2; Titus 2:11-12). Paul can definitively declare that is Christ we are a New Creation precisely because of the inauguration of the age to come.^[17] This is only an introductory defense and discussion of inaugurated eschatology. However, it does play a significant role in understanding the New Testament in its original context.^[18]

b. Intermediate State

When a Christian dies he goes consciously into the presence of the Lord because Christ’s righteous standing that has been imputed to him. The key texts that teach that one goes to be with the presence of the Lord are Philippians 1:21-26 and 2 Corinthians 5:1-10. Paul is clear in Philippians that to depart from the body is a far greater thing because to when he departs he will “be with Christ.” He expects to be immediately in communion with Christ. The nature of grammar indicates that departing and being with Christ happens simultaneously. To suggest a period of time that might pass in between (even if the ‘soul’ is not consciously aware of it) seems to violate the grammar. In 2 Corinthians 5:1-10, there is a longing to be present with the Lord. Verses 6-8 seem to indicate that there is an intermediate state that is away from the body but present with the Lord. While Paul does not say that the ‘soul’ will be with the Lord this seems to be the indication. He does not speak of a new body here but absence from the body and a presence with the Lord. Luke 23:43, Jesus indicates the criminal one the cross with him that “Today you will be with me in paradise.” Prior to the resurrection, at death the believer goes directly to the presence of the Lord.

Luke 16:19-31 and Revelation 20:13 seem to indicate that there is intermediate suffering for the unsaved. However, while it can be argued that Luke is a parable it seems that there is truth behind this parable to indicate suffering of the unsaved before the judgment. Revelation 20:13 also indicates that the sea as well gives up its dead. We do know that the suffering of the unbeliever before the judgment is not as terrible as the ultimate punishment when they are thrown into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10-15).

c. Apocalyptic Literature

In determining ones eschatology it is important to take into consideration the genre of the book of Daniel (chapters 7-12) and Revelation.^[19] The style of this genre is often neglected or under estimated by those who wish to be too dogmatic about a specific timeline of events. In the past, dogmatic views over what the books teach have been presented regardless of the apocalyptic style of the books which was designed to give hope but not spell out all every single detail.^[20] D. Brent Sandy and Martin Abegg Jr. give a good definition of apocalyptic literature:

Apocalyptic addresses a serious crisis of faith. If God is truly in control, why has he allowed thingsto get so bad here on this earth? In reply, apocalyptic proclaims that God has not turned his back on the world but will radically and unexpectedly intervene and introduce a universal solution that will solve all problems.^[21]

They go one and suggest eight guidelines to interpreting apocalyptic literature:

1. Study Biblical apocalyptic in light of apocalyptic ways of thinking in the ancient world.

2. Read apocalyptic in view of a context of crisis.

3. Do not look for something in apocalyptic that it does not intend to disclose.^[22]

4. Expect apocalyptic to be full of metaphoric language.

5. Do not attempt to identify the significance of every detail in apocalyptic.^[23]

6. Keep all options open for how apocalyptic predictions will be fulfilled.

7. Seek to understand the main point of apocalyptic text.^[24]

8. Appreciate the full and rich symbolism of apocalyptic.^[25]

---

^[1] See “Pneumatology: The Eschatological Promise and Fulfillment of the Spirit”. I will not repeat this discussion but it does support this inaugurated eschatology.

^[2] For diagrams see Ladd, George E. A Theology of the New Testament. Revised Ed. (Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 1974) 66-7.

^[3] One does not have to read far in New Testament studies to come across this concept. For introductory reading, Ladd, George E. A Theology of the New Testament. Revised Ed. (Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 1974) and The Presence of the Future. (Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 1964). Beasley-Murray, G.R. Jesus and the Kingdom of God. (Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 1986). Stein, Robert. Jesus the Messiah: A Survey of the Life of Christ. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity. 1996. esp. 123-131. For the significance of inaugurated eschatology in Pauline studies see: Gaffin, Richard, Jr. Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Paul’s Soteriology. (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1978). Ridderbos, Herman. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. (Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 1975) 44-90. (There is some debate over how much is inaugurated and how much is not. To hold to such an inaugurated view does not mean one is an amillenialist. Cf. Blaising, Craig and Darrell Bock. Progressive Dispensationalism. [Wheaton, Ill.: BridgePoint, 1993]).

^[4] Isaiah 40-55 is key for understanding this eschatological activity of God in the gospels with Christ as the suffering servant, also it contains two key uses of the word ‘gospel’ that Paul picks up on in the New Testament. This supports the inaugurated eschatology.

^[5] Unfortunately we do not have space for an exegesis of Matt. 13 but any recent commentary (Carson, Davies & Allison, Hagner) will discusses it as well as: Beasley-Murray, G.R. Jesus and the Kingdom of God. (Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 1986).

^[6] The background for the of the sower in this chapter (Isaiah 55:10-11).

^[7] The view articulated here is argued in commentaries by Murray, Cranfield, Fitzmyer, Moo, and Schriener. Also in Ridderbos, Herman Paul: An Outline of His Theology. (Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 1966) and R.B. Gaffin Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Paul’s Soteriology. (rev. ed.; Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1987) 98-114.

^[8] Another important but subtle indicator is 3:20,20 where Paul clearly contrasts the law with a temporal ‘but now’ and the manifestation of dikaiosunh qeou.

^[9] Jorizw is mistranslated by most translations to mean ‘declared’. It more accurately means ‘appointed’ in this context here (EDNT ii.531-2).

^[10] If Paul is quoting from Psalm 2:7 here, we must consider the implications between Psalm 2:8 and his mission of the Gentiles.

^[11] Especially ch. 8. We celebrate the New Covenant every time we take communion.

^[12] Gal. 3:6-9, 16-17,29.

^[13] Acts 2:24-26; 13:26-41 (esp. 32-34); Rom. 1:3-4; 1 Cor. 15:20-28.

^[14] Luke 22:20//1 Cor. 11:25 (Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:14); 2 Cor. 3:1-18; Heb. 8:6-13.

^[15] Rev. 20:1-6; 1 Cor. 15:23-28.

^[16] Rev. 21-22.

^[17] 2 Cor. 5:17, et al. Also again we should highlight the importance of the Spirit again. Justification is the present declaration of a righteous status before God which is a marks among other things the new creation. The fact that justification is available now marks the inauguration of the age to come because in the Old Testament and Jewish intertestamental literature ‘justification’ was often associated with the transition from the ‘present evil age’ into the ‘age to come’. This justification has broken-in because of the death and resurrection of Christ guaranteeing hope for the believers at the final judgment which will eradicate the ‘present evil age’. For a discussion on justification and its eschatological significance see Stuhlmacher, Peter. Revisiting Paul’s Doctrine of Justification: A Challenge to the New Perspective. (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2001).

^[18] Particularly in Galatians. Silva notes, “[W]e cannot possibly grasp Paul’s teaching about the law unless we understand his eschatology” (Exploration in Exegetical Method: Galatians as a Test Case. [Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker, 1996] 169).

^[19] There are several other passages that are considered apocalyptic: Isaiah 24-27, 56-66; Ezekiel 38-39; Joel 2:28-3:31; Zechariah 1-6 and 12-14.

^[20] Since the genre is mysterious to us, interpretation must take into consideration first century Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature.

^[21] Sandy, D. Brent and Martin G. Abegg, Jr. “Apocalyptic.” Cracking Old Testament Codes: A Guide to Interpreting the Literary Genres of the Old Testament. (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995) 186.

^[22] Here they note, “[A]pocalyptic is generally not a chronological account of the future but a literary shock treatment of bold and graphic images to take our attention away from the problems we currently face and give us hope that God will win a resounding victory over all evil” (188).

^[23] “If we could solve all the puzzles of apocalyptic, it would defraud the genre of the mystery that is intended to surround it” (189).

^[24] “Likewise, correct interpretation of apocalyptic seeks to understand the big picture—the meaning of the whole rather than the meaning of parts” (189).

^[25] Sandy, D. Brent and Martin G. Abegg, Jr. “Apocalyptic.” Cracking Old Testament Codes: A Guide to Interpreting the Literary Genres of the Old Testament. (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995) 188-190.

N.T. Wright and Heaven

Here are some quotes, I've been making use of, for my Sunday School lesson beginning an introduction to the end times. This also relates in a follow-up way to what I have been said in my "Heaven in a Worldview" series. The whole work of the Resurection is worth it. It is whopping long, but richly rewarding.

This is from his exegesis of 2 Cor 5:

“Why does Paul speak of the new body as being ‘in the heavens’? Does this mean that he thinks of Christians simply ‘going to heaven’ after their death? No. This is one of the passages which have supplied later tradition with the materials for an unwarranted Platonizing of Christian hope. As with Philippians 3:20-21, and indeed 1 Corinthians 15.47-9, the temptation of the tradition has been to drive a steamroller through what Paul actually says, clearing his careful words out of the way to make room for a different worldview in which the aim of Christian faith is ‘to go to heaven when you die’. The tradition has always found it difficult to incorporate ‘resurrection’, in any Jewish or early Christian sense, into that scenario, which is perhaps why orthodox Christianity has found it hard to respond to the attacks of secular modernity at this point. ‘Heaven’ for Paul, here as elsewhere, is not so much where people go after they die—he remains remarkably silent on that, with the possible exception of Colossians 3.3-4—but the place where the divinely intended future for the world is kept safely in store, against the day when, like new props being brought from the wings and onto stage, it will come to birth in the renewed world, ‘on earth as it is in heaven’. If I assure my guests that there is champagne for them in the fridge I am not suggesting that we all need to get into the fridge if we are to have the party. The future body, the non-corruptible (and hence ‘eternal’) ‘house’, is at present ‘in the heavens’ as opposed to ‘on earth’ (epipeios) (5.1); but it will not stay there. For us to put it on on top of our present ‘house’ (clothes, bodies, houses, temples, and tents; why mix metaphors if four or five will do?) will require that it be brought from heaven (5.2). This is a key passage not only for understanding Paul but for grasping similar language elsewhere in the New Testament.” (The Resurrection of the Son of God, 367-8; emphasis original).

This is from his exegesis of 1 Cor. 15:42-49:

“The point is not, in other words, that the new humanity will exist in a place called ‘heaven’. Rather it will originate there, where Jesus himself currently is in his own risen and life-giving body; and it will transform the life of those who are presently located on earth and earthly in character (ek ges choikos, verse 47). The whole argument runs in the opposite direction not only to Philo but to all kinds of Platonism ancient and modern. The point is not to escape from the earth and find oneself at last in heaven, but to let the present ‘heavenly’ life change the present earthly reality. Heaven and earth, after all, are the twin partners in the creation which, at the heart of the passage Paul has in mind throughout this chapter, the creator has declared to be ‘very good.’ ” (N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God. 355)

A Tribute

Psalm 116:15 15 Precious in the sight of the LORD Is the death of His godly ones.

Yesterday, a dear brother in the Lord died. His name was Jim Hershey and I knew him from my days at my wife's home church in Paradise Pa. Now, Jim is in true Paradise with our Lord and Savior.

Jim was probably one of the most godly men I know. He wasn't a pastor or a Bible prof or anybody famous, but he just had a simple godliness to his life. All the time I had known him, he was plagued by rheumatoid arthritis. He had often walked with a crutch while I was at Paradise. I believe Jim was diagnosed with the disease at about age 19. He was 53 when he died. At the end of his life he was incapacitated like someone who might be 80 or 90. Friends of Jim used to tell of all the sports he'd play a young man. But Jim never ever complained. He never questioned God but would testify to the glory of our Savior. He had a living relationship with Jesus Christ that was evident to all who saw him. Jim had a child-like trust that had been tempered like steal through real trials of life.

I'll never forget going to a minor league baseball game of the Reading Philies. My father-in-law invited me to go with some of his friends and Jim came. Jim did one of the funniest things I have ever seen, particularly if you knew Jim. At church, Jim at times seemed so serious and up until that point I really only knew him as a Sunday school teacher. You have to realize Jim was particularly conservative, not only in his beliefs and his practices. He abstained from alcohol completely. At this baseball game, we were in the line for sausage sandwiches. Knowing full well what he was doing, Jim stepped over into the next line... the Beer Line. He proceeded forward as if nothing was amiss, as if he was going to get a beer. I remember my father-in-law at first wondering if he made a mistake because of the line moving faster. As he stood there is was obvious he knew he was in the Beer line. We were laughing and Jim was so innocent playing it off casually moving with the line just like everybody else, his crutch under his arm. He got right to the front of the line and came back to get a sausage sandwich. We were dying laughing, it was unlike the Jim I had known to be so loose. He was an accountant by trade and liked things so in order. He made us laugh so hard and as I recall he was laughing with us. I hope I never forget the humor of Jim, so straight laced, "getting his beer."

The second thing I remember about Jim is one of the disagreements we had. In Sunday School, we were teaching through the book Experiencing God. I took issue with a number of the things it said about God "speaking". I maintained, and still do, that God only "speaks" in His Word. He may guide us by opening doors and using His providence over all things, but that is not speaking. I also questioned the basic hermeneutics of the book. For Jim his relationship to God was so close and real, He saw God's direction in so many ways and would speak of "God speaking." This lead to some theological differences and discussions between Jim and I. I was probably full of youthful arrogance because I had/was studying and I could make my case forthrightly with the best of them. I loved debated in high school and revelled in theological debate. I probably had a streak of 'Young Angry Calvinist syndrome' that stage where a new Calvinist sees the doctrines so clearly from Scripture and doesn't understand why others are not so passionate about them. I don't remember all that Jim and I talked about. It never got into an argument, but I am sure my zeal got the better of me. As I recall we had some long e-mail exchanges back and forth. Through it all what really shined was Jim's character. He was so gracious and gentle. At times I wished he'd be more aggressive and take a stand on the things I saw as problems. I still to this day see serious problems with the book and its methodology but practically I learned so much from Jim about being gentle. I love theology and I love to stand for the gospel and contend for the faith. Bu Jim had a way of letting his light shine, a way that I need/ed to learn. He had a meekness in Him that made me think more about Jesus. You can win the argument and yet loose the person. Jim had such a down-to-earth tenderness and compassion.

I will never know the extent to which Jim suffered physically through his life, but what was evident was the glory of God being reflected in the life of this dear brother. He was hard pressed in so many things. He had had so many operations he was almost the bionic men, with metal plates, bones and replacement all over. But he just kept doing what God had called Him to do, loving his church and loving his family. Like I said, I never heard him complain. When I look at Jim, I am reminded of how selfish and self-centered I am. I get a little discomfort or a little trial and I think "this isn't fair." Right away I want it to end so 'I don't suffer'. But Jim was a man who lived so deeply in the grace of God and it was evident in the simply things and the humble attitude. He endured physical suffering longer than probably anyone I have personally known yet he was so silent about his struggles, never to my knowledge a complaint.

On several occasions we had played some chess together and my wife and I had been invited to his home. One of the last times I saw him, I believe it was at Pinebrook, he was hoping we'd have another opportunity to play chess. I'll miss Jim. No one would have expected him to outlive my father-in-law, but he did and Jim was a support to my in-laws during this time. I had seen Jim for a while, although my family was giving me updates on his health. I didn't know Jim for very long, I was only at Paradise for about four years while I was in college, but in that short time, his godliness contributed to my own growth in godliness and for that I thank both our Lord Jesus and my departed brother.

God Bless, Jim. Enjoy the wonder of God's paradise.

2 Corinthians 4:15-18 15 For all things are for your sakes, so that the grace which is spreading to more and more people may cause the giving of thanks to abound to the glory of God. 16 Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day. 17 For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison, 18 while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.

Hebrews 9--part 4 (vv.23-28)

This will be my final post trying to give a detailed exegesis in Hebrews 9. This post will specifically relate to the 'once for all' element of the shed blood of Christ. The outline numbering picks up where yesterday left off.

D. If the Old Covenant was effected by a blood sacrifice so also the New Covenant is effected by blood, the blood of a better once-for-all sacrifice.

1. Christ sacrifice purifies the heavenly elements of the heavenly tabernacle.
Hebrews 9:23 Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
Hebrews 9:23 Ἀνάγκη οὖν τὰ μὲν ὑποδείγματα τῶν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς τούτοις καθαρίζεσθαι, αὐτὰ δὲ τὰ ἐπουράνια κρείττοσιν θυσίαις παρὰ ταύτας.

a. Notice we have here the second use of 'Ἀνάγκη' (9:16). This necessity comes because without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

b. This brings into connection Hebrews theology of the earthly tabernacle as a copy of the heavenly archtype and His teaching that Christ's sacrifice is the fulfillment of the OT sacrifices. Remember, Christ enters the better heavenly temple.

c. If the implements of the earthly temple needed to be cleansed with blood of animal sacrifices (τούτοις & ταύτας) so God's people could draw near to God then the better tabernacle must be cleansed by a better sacrifice. What we need is a sacrifice that is better than the blood of goats and bulls since (as we saw above) the blood of goats and bulls had a limited efficacy that applied to only the fleshly—not the heavenly-eschatological.

The plural 'κρείττοσιν θυσίαις' refers to Christ's sacrifice but is in the plural to stand in relationship to παρὰ ταύτας.

Remember Christ went through a greater more perfect tabernacle (9:11-12).

This earthly tabernacle was a copy of the heavenly one (8:5).

Just as the earthly tabernacle was only a shadow of what would come so the earthly animal sacrifice were only a shadow of what was needed.

To enjoy worship in the final eschatological tabernacle we need a sacrifice that is so superior that it actually cleanses us for this worship.

The earthly sacrifices were Ἀνάγκη so even more the heavenly.

d. Conclusion: A better sacrifice was needed [Ἀνάγκη] to cleanse the better heavenly tabernacle or a better tabernacle needs a better sacrifice. Christ is that better sacrifice.

2. Christ did not enter the earthly-copy tabernacle but the heavenly tabernacle to appear in God's presence.

Hebrews 9:24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;
Hebrews 9:24 οὐ γὰρ εἰς χειροποίητα εἰσῆλθεν ἅγια Χριστός, ἀντίτυπα τῶν ἀληθινῶν, ἀλλ ̓ εἰς αὐτὸν τὸν οὐρανόν, νῦν ἐμφανισθῆναι τῷ προσώπῳ τοῦ θεοῦ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν·

a. Christ did not enter the earthly holy place that had been built with the hands of men—like the First tabernacle; this was a copy of the true one. It was a tabernacle of 'this creation' not 'the new creation'.

Hebrews 9:11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; Hebrews 9:12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

Earthly is the 'antitype of the true one' "ἀντίτυπα τῶν ἀληθινῶν". It points to the true reality.

This is related to the 'τὰ ὑποδείγματα' but slightly distinct. The earthly point forward and upward to the true climactic heavenly-eschatological realities. The earthly are the example point to the true original.

The heavenly is not made by human hands: 'οὐ εἰς χειροποίητα'. What is made by human hands is by its very nature inferior.

Lane notes "Such descriptive phrases show that the old covenant with its cultic provisions is being evaluated and is judged to have had its validity only in reference to the eschatological reality associated with Christ's definitive sacrifice and exaltation."[8]

b. Christ in His exaltation[9] and as our high priest enters heaven itself! Heaven is true tabernacle… the original 'dwelling place of God'. It is where God's throne is as He is exalted over all. The earthly tabernacle was only a miniature copy—and the ark of the covenant was only God's footstool. BUT Christ entered into the very presence of God. In light of 9:12, we cannot view Christ's sacrifice as the accomplishment of redemption apart from His resurrection-exaltation-ascension to the throne as our kingly-priest.[10] Redemption that is not applied is not redemption.

'ἀλλ ̓ εἰς αὐτὸν τὸν οὐρανόν' draws emphatic attention to where Christ enters. It would be enough to say He enters heaven—but our author wants to impress upon us both the finality and the superiority of what Christ has done. HE HAS ENTERED HEAVEN!!!

Having entered heaven Christ has 'νῦν ἐμφανισθῆναι τῷ προσώπῳ τοῦ θεοῦ'.

The 'νῦν' is eschatological.

Christ has appeared before God's very face! He as pure, holy and undefiled has appeared before the face of God. We should be reminded that God said to Moses "No one can see my face and live" [Ex. 33:20]—Yet Christ as the perfect one has done this! Thus Christ is superior to Moses.

Christ has revealed, presented Himself or stood before God [ἐμφανισθῆναι]. This may connote eschatological vindication associated with the resurrection/exaltation. Christ has stepped into heaven and before God as the one worthy to do so—and He has done this for us.

c. Most important Christ does this 'ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν'. It does this on our behalf. He goes before God as our very priest because He has been made like us in everyway—yet without sin.[11] This is the some total of Christ's work as sacrifice and his priestly ministry—IT IS FOR US.

d. CHRIST WORK IS FOR HIS PEOPLE.

Christ has secured our eternal redemption and now goes into heaven as our forerunner [6:20- ὅπου πρόδρομος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν εἰσῆλθεν Ἰησοῦς]. He enters God's eternal tabernacle-rest to prepare it for us—as He cleanses the heavenly temple with blood so that the redeemed who are made holy may enter.

Cf. also the use of 'ἀρχηγός' in 2:10 and 12:2 as it is analogous to 'πρόδρομος'.

This of course culminates in the New Creation of the New Heavens and Earth when God's tabernacle is with men as the heavenly-eschatological descends and transforms all of creation.

Above all this work of Christ is FOR HIS PEOPLE.

e. Christ's exaltation is the most practical doctrine ever!

3. Christ's entry into the true Most Holy Place is once-for-all-time.

Hebrews 9:25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own.
Hebrews 9:25 οὐδ ̓ ἵνα πολλάκις προσφέρῃ ἑαυτόν, ὥσπερ ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς εἰσέρχεται εἰς τὰ ἅγια κατ ̓ ἐνιαυτὸν ἐν αἵματι ἀλλοτρίῳ,

a. In the Old Covenant the blood sacrifice at the Day of Atonment was made each year and each year (κατ ̓ ἐνιαυτὸν) the priest went into the Holy of Holies for the people. The high priests did not take their own blood but that of goats and bulls. These events lacked finality. They needed to be repeated. The Christ-event of sacrifice followed by procession/ascension into the temple (in exaltation) was a once for all time event. The purpose of Christ's work was not to offer Himself over and over again as in the Old Covenant (οὐδ ̓ ἵνα πολλάκις προσφέρῃ ἑαυτόν).

'προσφέρῃ'-denotes 'offering' and is a word of cultic language.

'πολλάκις' stands in contrast to 'ἅπαξ'. The repeated is inferior to the climactic once-for-all that occurs at the end of the age.

b. Christ's exaltation was a onetime event. His death was also a onetime event. His sacrifice was so superior to the Old Covenant sacrifices that He only had to offer Himself one time.

c. Christ entered heaven with His own blood once for all because His sacrifice was once for all. The priest and sacrifice confer in the work of a single person in the New Covenant.

4. If Christ had to enter on a regular basis, He would have to die again, and again, and again.

Hebrews 9:26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

Hebrews 9:26 ἐπεὶ ἔδει αὐτὸν πολλάκις παθεῖν ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου· νυνὶ δὲ ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων εἰς ἀθέτησιν [τῆς ] ἁμαρτίας διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ πεφανέρωται.

a. 'παθεῖν' means to suffer death.

b. If Christ had to enter the heavenly tabernacle over and over again. He would have had to suffer and die over and over again. If Christ was going to offer Himself in the presence of God over and over, then he would have to suffer death and shedding of blood over and over. This would deny that Christ's shed blood was better than the blood of goats and bulls. At stake is nothing less than the efficacy of Christ's shed blood: does it really atone for sin?

c. Christ did not have to offer Himself often because of the effectiveness of his death—unlike that of OT sacrifices. The effectiveness is because He offers Himself as the eternal perfect, holy undefiled Son of God incarnate.

'ἐπεὶ ἔδει' assumes the previous for the sake of argument.

Christ's death would not be the culmination point of the Old order if it was not once for all! It would not be at 'συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων' and Christ would not be the 'ἀρχιερεὺς τῶν γενομένων ἀγαθῶν''

Thus, Christ death would have had to go on and on numerous time before the one final event that we see at the Cross. 'ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου'.

Their may be a slight apologetic argument here: How do we know that Christ's death is final and complete?—Not simply because it doesn't happen again but because it has not happened before.

In contrast, the sacrifices happened continually in the before of the present age.

d. The death of Christ was in the plan of God and one time unrepeatable event. It is definitive and decisive!

5. Christ has appeared to put away since once-for-all-time by sacrificing Himself once on the cross.

Hebrews 9:26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
Hebrews 9:26 ἐπεὶ ἔδει αὐτὸν πολλάκις παθεῖν ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου· νυνὶ δὲ ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων εἰς ἀθέτησιν [τῆς ] ἁμαρτίας διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ πεφανέρωται.

a. At the culmination of salvation-history the repeated sacrifices of the old age come to completion. There is both consummation and culmination in the single 'better/superior' sacrifice of Jesus Christ. He has inaugurated the age-to-come of the eschaton by the events of His death and resurrection. Christ comes [πεφανέρωται] once [ἅπαξ] and sacrifices Himself once [ἅπαξ]. He does not suffer and die repeatedly.

b. His work is unrepeatable (ἅπαξ) and is at the center-point or culmination of all of history (ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων cf. Gal. 4:4— τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου). CHRIST's WORK IS SO UNIQUE IS WHAT IS ACTUALLY DOES IN THAT IT CANNOT AND IT WILL NOT BE REPEATED!

The 'νυνὶ' has eschatological force.

The age to come has dawned:

Heb. 1:2- 'ἐπ ̓ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων'

Heb. 9:11- 'Χριστὸς δὲ παραγενόμενος ἀρχιερεὺς τῶν γενομένων ἀγαθῶν'

The culmination point stands in contrast to: 'ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου'. Christ's work either comes at the end of the age with once for all finality or it would have had to be done from the foundation of the world (i.e. post-fall) onward.

It is important that a similar wording occurs in the LXX Dan. 9:27—κατὰ συντέλειαν καιρῶν.

c. The purpose of Christ's death: 'εἰς ἀθέτησιν [τῆς ] ἁμαρτίας'

It is for the removal or annulment of sins. [the word is used in 7:18 to refer to the setting aside of the regulation of the Old Covenant]; This is a legal metaphor.

Interestingly, the word is used in the LXX when God's people repudiate and turn away from God.

In our context it is probably nearly synonymous with 'ἄφεσις' in 9:22.

This purpose is achieved through what He does on the cross: 'διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ'. It is Christ's sacrifice of His own person. The infinite value of the person of Christ gives His sacrifice infinite worth and superiority. The infinite worth and superiority of the sacrifice demands comprehensive effectiveness—meaning it is completely and totally successful in accomplishing what God intended for it do.

Sins no longer have power, grip or efficacy over us because they have been eradicated in Christ. Our sin has been paid for and erased in Christ as He took the penalty for them.

CHRIST's WORK ON THE CROSS TAKES AWAY ALL OF THE SINS FOR ALL OF HIS PEOPLE FOR ALL OF TIME.

CHRIST's WORK IS FINAL! IT ACTUALLY TAKES AWAY SIN! It does not just make salvation possible BUT it actually takes away sin. Christ's blood was shed for us (his people); He goes into heaven for us (his people); He send His Spirit to us (his people—the called) so that this blood is applied and we will receive the eternal inheritance once for us at the Christ. (9:15)

An atonement that does not actually save is ineffective! The purpose of the whole context is to argue that unlike the OT sacrifice's Christ's shed blood is a once time event that actually accomplishes salvation. The OT events only pointed to a future one-time climactic event.

6. Every human being dies once and then faces judgment.

Hebrews 9:27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,
Hebrews 9:27 καὶ καθ ̓ ὅσον ἀπόκειται τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἅπαξ ἀποθανεῖν, μετὰ δὲ τοῦτο κρίσις,

a. Here we see the importance of Christ dying as one who is truly human. He cannot be judged for our sins if he is not truly human. 'τοῖς ἀνθρώποις' refers to human beings. The comparison point is on the one hand what happens to all human being when they die and thus on the other hand what happens to Christ Himself on his death since, as our author has labored to display, Christ was truly one of us.

b. The ordained order is that man dies one time! This is the curse appointed because of sin. God as the judge of men has appointed that they should die! This death by its very nature can only occur one time!

c. After men die they face God's judgment. So too Christ after He dies faces God's judgment! In His death God's wrath was poured out on Christ but after death He is judged. What is the outcome of this judgment? Christ's resurrection.

Do not down play the force of 'οὕτως καὶ' in verse 28. The Christ must be a man and thus undergo the same thing as men. 'ὁ Χριστὸς' in verse 28 is a title.

Christ like men must only die once.

Like men after His death he too faces God's judgment.

This judgment for Christ has a positive outcome. It thus has a positive outcome for God's people whom Christ since Christ offered Himself on their behalf.

7. So too, Christ died one time to bear our judgment (the wrath due us) and He will one day appeal in order to save those who are eager for His return.

Hebrews 9:28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.
Hebrews 9:28 οὕτως καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ προσενεχθεὶς εἰς τὸ πολλῶν ἀνενεγκεῖν ἁμαρτίας, ἐκ δευτέρου χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας ὀφθήσεται τοῖς αὐτὸν ἀπεκδεχομένοις εἰς σωτηρίαν.

a. Christ offered Himself.

'προσενεχθεὶς'—Christ presents Himself! He steps forward and lays Himself out as a sacrifice. This particple is antecendant temporal participle. 'after' or 'having'

This offering was once for all. 'ἅπαξ' as it has been in our context this is a temporal word. In means essential once for all time. As in our context it has eschatological significance—the climax of historia salutis.

This offering was 'εἰς τὸ πολλῶν'

This is a reference to Isaiah 53:11-12.
Isaiah 53:11 As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities. Isaiah 53:12 Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors.
Isaiah 53:11 ἀπὸ τοῦ πόνου τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ, δεῖξαι αὐτῷ φῶς καὶ πλάσαι τῇ συνέσει, δικαιῶσαι δίκαιον εὖ δουλεύοντα πολλοῖς, καὶ τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν αὐτὸς ἀνοίσει. Isaiah 53:12 διὰ τοῦτο αὐτὸς κληρονομήσει πολλοὺς καὶ τῶν ἰσχυρῶν μεριεῖ σκῦλα, ἀνθ̓ ὧν παρεδόθη εἰς θάνατον ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀνόμοις ἐλογίσθη, καὶ αὐτὸς ἁμαρτίας πολλῶν ἀνήνεγκεν [Heb. 9:28-- εἰς τὸ πολλῶν ἀνενεγκεῖν] καὶ διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν παρεδόθη.

The writer of Hebrews clearly sees the eschatological 'Day of Atonement' and the Isaiah 53 suffering servant culminating in the person and work of Christ.

This offering and bearing of sins for 'the many' is complete and final. He does not sacrifice Himself again. HIS SACRIFICE IS TOTALLY EFFECTIVE IN ACCOMPLISHING OUR REDEMPTION—PAYING FOR OUR SINS.

Christ bears the sins of 'the many'. Christ truly and actually bears their sins: 'ἀνενεγκεῖν ἁμαρτίας'. Their sins are judged upon Christ.

'ἀνενεγκεῖν'—Christ takes up the sins of these many. He actually takes it upon Himself. Thus, He dies for the sin. The punishment deserved for the sin is taken by the one who takes up these sins. Thus, Christ is judged for these sins.

This bearing of sin is final and complete. It actually does pay for their sin. His death exhausts the curse of sin. It pays for sin (Rom. 6:23). If the sins are paid for—those for whom their paid will not suffer! If sin has bore by Christ for many then those same 'the many' will not suffer the punishment because God's judgment of sin is final and exhaustive (ἅπαξ).

The judgment of these sins is finished as they are placed upon Christ. SIN WILL NOT BE JUDGED A SECOND TIME IN THESE PERSONS. Christ has bore our sins. There is no double jeopardy.

This of course is a clear exposition of the 'limited' or effective atonement. But what is at stake is the very effectiveness of the atonement. Christ does not offer Himself only to retreat to heaven and waiting wondering and biting His finger nails wondering: will people believe? Will they take my salvation?Scripture is clear Christ has bore the penalty of sin. Thus, since this bearing is 'ἅπαξ'—the punishment will not be bore again by those Christ died for. When sinful men are judged and sent to hell they are punished for their sins.

Christ work is finished because He has finally paid for sins. The 'ἅπαξ' offering of Christ really and truly makes us holy—sanctifying us.

We have been sanctified once for all by Christ's work.
Hebrews 10:10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Hebrews 10:10 ἐν ᾧ θελήματι ἡγιασμένοι ἐσμὲν διὰ τῆς προσφορᾶς τοῦ σώματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐφάπαξ.

Christ does not offer Himself again but sits in rulership. He awaits until the time of return. He no longer stands or offers Himself in sacrifice because of the finality of His one offering for our sins.

Hebrews 10:11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; Hebrews 10:12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, Hebrews 10:13 waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet.
Hebrews 10:11 Καὶ πᾶς μὲν ἱερεὺς ἕστηκεν καθ ̓ ἡμέραν λειτουργῶν καὶ τὰς αὐτὰς πολλάκις προσφέρων θυσίας [9:28- ὁ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ προσενεχθεὶς], αἵτινες οὐδέποτε δύνανται περιελεῖν ἁμαρτίας, Hebrews 10:12 οὗτος δὲ μίαν ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν προσενέγκας θυσίαν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ, Hebrews 10:13 τὸ λοιπὸν ἐκδεχόμενος ἕως τεθῶσιν οἱ ἐχθροὶ αὐτοῦ ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ.

This one offering finally and truly makes us holy and brings into communion with God. It is complete and final. We need nothing else save the once-for-all shed blood of Christ.
Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.
Hebrews 10:14 μιᾷ γὰρ προσφορᾷ τετελείωκεν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους.

This judgment is so final that Christ is then raised to resurrection life. Christ is infinitely greater than the curse of sin and thus is raised up and vindicated showing that HE has paid them in full.

Christ will not die again.

Romans 6:9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him.

God is satisfied; Isaiah 53:11 'He will see it and be satisfied'.

He delivers his people from death.

Hebrews 2:14 Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, Hebrews 2:15 and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.

b. Christ did not stay dead.

He now has indestructible resurrection life. This resurrection life is appointed to Him by God as vindication.

Hebrews 7:16 who has become such not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life.

Thus, Christ exhausted the curse of death because of the infinite worth of His eternal person. He was undefiled from sin as holy blameless and just. Death, which is the sting of sin [1 Cor. 15:56], could not hold Him.
Acts 2:24 "But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power.

Thus Christ having been laid out as a guilt offering on our behalf is raised to resurrection life. He is may to prosper and He shall live forevermore (Rev. 1:18).

Isaiah 53:10 But the Lord was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand.

c. The finality of this event is clear. It is 'ἅπαξ'. Notice that the aorist participle is antecedent temporal 'προσενεχθεὶς'—after this is accomplished once the only thing that remains is for Jesus Christ to finally deliver those HE has died for.

The main verb of the passage is 'ὀφθήσεται'. The focus is on the second stage of the one event: the eschatological 'DAY OF THE LORD'.

This event is spread out into two stages in the NT: A first and second coming. Only the first coming is the day of atonement fulfilled. He comes then a second time. Those who are faithfully waiting for Him will be delivered at this point.

The language of 'second' presupposes the first coming of the eternal person from heaven. This of course is in the incarnation. It also presupposes the res & ascension.

Christ's second appearance is 'χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας'. Why? Because sin has been finally judged and in this judgment Christ has been vindicated. He receives from God the verdict of approval. HE IS RIGHTEOUS—THE RIGHTEOUS ONE. So then… Christ's people receive this same verdict before God precisely because Christ has totally and finally bore our sins.

'χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας'- simply means that there is no longer any atonement for sin.[12]

Christ was 'ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι' according to 1 Tim 3:16 which refers to the resurrection.

Romans 4:25
Romans 4:25 He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.
Romans 4:25 ὃς παρεδόθη διὰ τὰ παραπτώματα ἡμῶν καὶ ἠγέρθη διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν.

Isaiah 53:11
Isaiah 53:11 As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities.
Isaiah 53:11 ἀπὸ τοῦ πόνου τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ, δεῖξαι αὐτῷ φῶς καὶ πλάσαι τῇ συνέσει, δικαιῶσαι δίκαιον εὖ δουλεύοντα πολλοῖς, καὶ τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν αὐτὸς ἀνοίσει.
Isaiah 53:11 מֵעֲמַל נַפְשׁוֹ יִרְאֶה יִשְׂבָּע בְּדַעְתּוֹ
יַצְדִּיק צַדִּיק עַבְדִּי לָרַבִּים וַעֲוֹנֹתָם הוּא יִסְבֹּל׃

Conclusion: The Righteous one who is finally made to prosper; satisfies the penalty for sins. He bearing of sins does not corrupt Him. He faces God's judgment—is displayed as righteous and thus makes God's people righteous.

The return of Christ adds nothing to His sacrifice. He returns to deliver from this age of exile/wilderness wandering those whom He has redeemed. He brings them into the eternal inheritance that He has secured for them.

d. Christ finally delivers in salvation those who wait for Him 'ἀπεκδεχομένοις εἰς σωτηρίαν'. This salvation was accomplished, achieved and won at the cross of Calvary as sin was atoned for in the shed blood. The final return is a victory. It brings deliverance for those who eagerly by faith are anticipating and waiting for Christ.

This brings to climax the allusion of the day of Atonement. God's people would stand and await the high priest returning from the inner tent of the Most Holy Place.
Leviticus 16:17 "When he goes in to make atonement in the holy place, no one shall be in the tent of meeting until he comes out, that he may make atonement for himself and for his household and for all the assembly of Israel.

Waiting for Christ eagerly brings into view our faith.

Faith is:
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Hebrews 11:2 For by it the men of old gained approval.
Hebrews 11:2 ἐν ταύτῃ γὰρ ἐμαρτυρήθησαν οἱ πρεσβύτεροι.

'or commend'. It is has the idea of justification or vindication—God's verdict of righteousness testified upon them. In 11:4 Abel is 'δι ̓ ἧς ἐμαρτυρήθη εἶναι δίκαιος'. Faith is clearly the instrumental means. Consider Heb 10:37-38 and its use of Hab. 2:3,4.

Thus, through faith in Christ and His work we too like those of old gain approval before God. This approval is ground in the work of Christ that was accomplished. This faith is what looks for Christ in anticipation of the coming salvation with full confidence that our redemption was accomplished at the cross.

The vindication of our faith is when the unseen realities of heaven where Christ reigns and ministers becomes seen as heaven descends in the New Creation and God's tabernacle is finally and once for all with men (Rev. 21-22).

8. Conclusion: WE CANNOT IMPROVE UPON THE ONE TIME HISTORICAL EVENT OF CHRIST's DEATH.

a. It occurs at the climax of all of history, ushering that climax into effect bringing new creation and restoration.

b. This death has a unique one-time significance for His people.

c. If we repudiate the Cross of Christ their remains no sacrifice for sins.

d. Christ does not need to be re-sacrificed in any way shape or form. We cannot add to this atonement nor do we merit it. We cannot apply it to ourselves. It is solely an act of grace as God presents His Son. We need nothing better than the shed blood of Christ to atone for sins. He work redeems me. It alone absolves my guilt & punishment.

e. Christ has died for my sins. There is nothing I am able to do nor need to do to absolve or purge my sin from myself rather I rest upon the work of Christ as my high priest. Christ's shed blood and His work as my priest purifies me once for all. He secures my inheritance.

[8] Lane, Hebrews 9-13, 248.

[9] The death and resurrection of Christ is presupposed as prior to this ascension into heaven as high priest. Thus, as Hebrews has told us—He is our priest on the basis of indestructible life (7:16).

[10] We might also include the sending of the Holy Spirit.

[11] In His exaltation, He remains truly human. In exaltation He is what we will be, in terms of humanity.

[12] Lane, Hebrews 9-13, 233 note pp.

Hebrews 9--part 3 (vv.15-22)

This is another continuation of some exegetical work in Hebrews. This hasn't been much by the way of writing, it is not very persausive or a sustained argument. Rather, this has been an attempt at some nuts and bolts exegesis. The bulk of this work was done when I taught a senior high Sunday School class on Hebrews. In that time I totally fell in love with the book of Hebrews and its beautiful doctrine of our Lord and His work for us.

III. Christ's death secures the eternal redemption of His people from their sins because Christ has appeared once-for-all to bear their sins

A. Christ is the mediator of the New Covenant.

Hebrews 9:15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

Hebrews 9:15 Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο διαθήκης καινῆς μεσίτης ἐστίν, ὅπως θανάτου γενομένου εἰς ἀπολύτρωσιν τῶν ἐπὶ τῇ πρώτῃ διαθήκῃ παραβάσεων τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν λάβωσιν οἱ κεκλημένοι τῆς αἰωνίου κληρονομίας.

1. The author brings to a conclusion what he has just said: "Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο". It is a causal relationship. The New Covenant comes as the time of restoration which cleanse the conscious from dead works "καθαριεῖ τὴν συνείδησιν ἡμῶν ἀπὸ νεκρῶν ἔργων εἰς τὸ λατρεύειν θεῷ ζῶντι"

a. This is clear from chapter ten:

Hebrews 10:17 "And their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more."
Hebrews 10:18 Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.

It is the New Covenant brings finality to the repeated events of the OT. This finality is eschatological meaning that the climactic works transcends and supersedes the previous the earthly/fleshly repeated events that were shadows of what would come. It is the New Covenant that finally brings true forgiveness of sins. This points to the superiority of the New Covenant (8:6).

b. This is dependent upon what follows below in 9:22-28 that Christ's work is once for all.

c. Christ is only our mediator if He has accomplished or redemption. As the one who has accomplished our eternal redemption (αἰωνίαν λύτρωσιν εὑράμενος) is the only suitable and necessary mediator between God and man. Thus, Christ sacrificial death as one truly human qualifies Him to be our mediator. He accomplished death as penal substitution guarantees the success of His mediatorship. He resurrection to indestructible life followed by His subsequent exaltation guarantees His presence and ongoing role as our mediator in heaven on our behalf.

2. Christ's mediatorship of the New Covenant is essential to Hebrews. It is this ministry that Christ carries out now for the people of the New Covenant—the church as Christ is the high priest over the one house of God.

Hebrews 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.

Hebrews 12:24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.

3. 'ὅπως θανάτου γενομένου' the aorist participle could be temporal—'after'. Or it could be logical 'since' or causal 'because'. Neither changes the essential meaning of this text particularly in light of the illustration in 9:16-17.

4. The transgressions (i.e. sin/law-breaking) of the first covenant are forgiven in this death/New Covenant of Christ. 'ὅπως θανάτου γενομένου εἰς ἀπολύτρωσιν τῶν ἐπὶ τῇ πρώτῃ διαθήκῃ παραβάσεων'. Thus, the LORD according the promise of Jeremiah 31 (cf. Heb 8:12 & 10:17) no longer remembers these sins precisely because the blood of Christ has atoned for them.

a. Christ pays for the sins that were committed in violation of the Law-Covenant (Mt. Sinai/Old Covenant). This shows us that the blood of goats and bulls never really paid for these sins but were acts of worship point to the coming true final sacrifice. Why?:

Hebrews 10:4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

b. 'ἐπὶ τῇ πρώτῃ διαθήκῃ'—epi is 'under' or 'one the basis of'. The first covenant brought with it covenant sanctions for those who were bound to this covenant. To violate these was transgression (παραβάσεων). The transgressions (like the transgression of the Adamic-protological) brought with it the curse of death. These of course has its background in ANE covenant treaties.

c. It is Christ's death that exhausts the curse of the Law, the curse that is placed on sin. All who were under the law, were unable to keep the law perfectly and in fact transgressed the Law. Ultimately the Law did not deal with this transgression but rather demanded the death of the transgressor.

Hebrews 10:28 Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.

Failure to keep the Old Covenant brought on under the sentence of death. Thus, you were under the sentence of death.

5. The result of this death of Christ having taken place is that now all the members of God's people receive an eternal inheritance:

τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν λάβωσιν οἱ κεκλημένοι τῆς αἰωνίου κληρονομίας

a. "Because he [Christ] died a representative death…, those whom he represents may receive the blessings mediated through the new covenant."^[1]

b. These promises refer to the promises of inheritance made to Abraham and the patriarchs and thus all subsequent people of faith who are thus 'sons of Abraham' or 'Abraham's seed'. The inheritance of the promised-land/rest is typological of the true 'τῆς αἰωνίου κληρονομίας' which like the tabernacle is eschatological/heavenly.

Hebrews 11:39 And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised,
Hebrews 11:40 because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.

The 'stock' illustration is of a boy growing up in the turn of the 19^th-20^th century. The father promises the boy that when he turns 16 he'll get a horse and buggy—but when the day arrives he receives a new Ford Model T car. He doesn't get what was promised but something better—although the better is in continuity with the promises made. This is the nature of the vertical-horizontal eschatological fulfillment and the two-age construction.

c. Those called refers to effectual calling and is applied to those believers of all ages. Those God has called are those to whom God gives an eternal inheritance. He gives this inheritance to these people because Christ has died for them in fulfillment of the covenant.

Note uses of 'ὅπως' which denotes the purpose of Christ's mediatorial role. This mediatorial role is 'τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν λάβωσιν οἱ κεκλημένοι τῆς αἰωνίου κληρονομίας'. This is the main verbal phrase of the sentence. The main verb is 'λάβωσιν'. The subject is 'οἱ κεκλημένοι'. It is prefaced with the subordinate participial phrase 'θανάτου γενομένου εἰς ἀπολύτρωσιν τῶν ἐπὶ τῇ πρώτῃ διαθήκῃ παραβάσεων'. Christ's mediatorship is not generic but is specific for those of the New Covenant. Its specific results is that God's called people actually do receive their eternal inheritance. His mediatorship does not merely make it possible to receive their inheritance but actually accomplishes in granting it to them. The New Covenant is not generic but made with a people who have been called by God. This covenant effectually takes away sin and grants the eschatological reward.

6. Conclusion: "Christ's death was a covenant sacrifice, which consummated the old order and inaugurated the new order. As the priestly mediator of a new covenant, he is able to administer the eschatological blessings that specify the newness of the diaqhvkhV kainhæV, "new covenant"."^[2]

B. A 'will/covenant' only takes effect when someone dies.

NASB Hebrews 9:16 For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it.

NASB Hebrews 9:17 For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives.^[3]

Hebrews 9:16 ὅπου γὰρ διαθήκη, θάνατον ἀνάγκη φέρεσθαι τοῦ διαθεμένου·
Hebrews 9:17 διαθήκη γὰρ ἐπὶ νεκροῖς βεβαία, ἐπεὶ μήποτε ἰσχύει ὅτε ζῇ ὁ διαθέμενος.

1. There is a debate here over how to translate 'διαθήκη'. To possible solutions are (1) 'will' and (2) 'covenant'.

a. A will would make sense because 'diatheke' is the normal Greek word for will; it would denote something unilaterally effected by one party.

syntheke is the normal word for covenant in secular Greek because it involves two parties. It the LXX the translation for covenant is diatheke because the translators stressed the unilateral aspect of covenants between God and his creature.

Thus, our author could be using a contemporary example that takes advantage of the overlapping nuance of the word diatheke.

This interpretation would simply be: when a will is made a inheritors do not receive the inheritance until the one making the will has died.

This is good explanation of the text and it fits well with our modern usages of wills and the inheritances granted in will.

b. The second option (followed by Lane) is that our author is consistent with the meaning of 'covenant' for diatheke because is the meaning of the word throughout the section—even all of Hebrews.

The strength of this argument is that it is consistent with the meaning of diatheke in the context and it is faithful to the Biblical understanding of covenants.

Biblical covenants were not enforced without a death. The ratifier of the covenant—i.e. the one coming under the sanctions of the covenant would sacrifice an animal as a oath of self-malediction. This meant—what has happened to the animal would happen to me if I break the covenant. (Cf. Gen. 15 and Exodus 24).

The covenant is valid or 'legally enforced' 'under death'. 'διαθήκη γὰρ ἐπὶ νεκροῖς βεβαία'.

Lane suggests that 'ἐπεὶ μήποτε ἰσχύει ὅτε ζῇ ὁ διαθέμενος' "accurately reflects the legal situation that a covenant is never secured until the ratifier has bound himself to his oath by means of a representative death."^[4]

The direction of the argument in vv.18-22 (esp. Exodus 24's covenant ratification in 18-20) stands in favor of this interpretation.

c. A mediating view: While 'will' and the example for everyday life may suffice, it is important to note that our author's ultimate purpose is to explain a how a Biblical covenant works. Thus, an example of a 'will' from everyday life does not exclude the wider use of what is illustrated concerning the nature of Biblical covenants even though biblical covenants are not 'wills'.

The first view will read the genitive 'τοῦ διαθεμένου' as genitives possessive genitives referring to the ratifiers own life. And the phrase 'ὅτε ζῇ ὁ διαθέμενος' is quite literal referring to the maker's own life.

The second view could read 'τοῦ διαθεμένου' as origin or source: 'from the ratifier'. While the phrase 'ὅτε ζῇ ὁ διαθέμενος' is a metaphor for the sacrifice on behalf of the one ratifying the covenant and submitting to its sanctions. Thus, the covenant is not in force until the ratifier is placed under the sanctions of the covenant.

It is also easier for the second view to explain the plural in: 'διαθήκη γὰρ ἐπὶ νεκροῖς βεβαία' as referring to dead bodies of animals particularly in its relationship to the singular 'διαθήκη'.^[5]

The first view would have a somewhat abstract connection to the phrase 'ὅθεν οὐδὲ ἡ πρώτη' –since what is clearly in view is 'the first covenant'. It may be a force of language to provide an example of a 'will' and then switch back to a Biblical metaphor of first/second-new covenant (clearly, covenant is implied by the reference to the protos). Although it is entirely possible that our author is not bound by linguistic precisions that may be more modern than ancient. He may in good Midrashic fashion embrace both meanings to make a clear point. The example is driven by the Biblical reality and serves to highlight the absolute necessity of death for the ratification/effecting of a diatheke (regardless of the precise nuance of diatheke—as will/testament or covenant.

d. The ratification or the act of making a covenant required a death. The general principle of covenant ratification and death illustrates Christ had to shed His blood as a perfect sacrifice.

C. The first covenant was put into effect through blood.

1. The first covenant had blood.

Hebrews 9:18 Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood.

Hebrews 9:18 ὅθεν οὐδὲ ἡ πρώτη χωρὶς αἵματος ἐγκεκαίνισται·

a. Notice the connection is a conclusion—the general principle of diathekes of v.16-17 is applied to the first covenant.

b. Notice the switch from 'death' to 'blood' in our verse. Shed blood of course implies that death has taken place.

2. Moses sprinkled God's people with blood to effect the covenant.

Hebrews 9:19 For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people,
Hebrews 9:20 saying, "This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you."

Hebrews 9:19 λαληθείσης γὰρ πάσης ἐντολῆς κατὰ τὸν νόμον ὑπὸ Μωϋσέως παντὶ τῷ λαῷ, λαβὼν τὸ αἷμα τῶν μόσχων [καὶ τῶν τράγων] μετὰ ὕδατος καὶ ἐρίου κοκκίνου καὶ ὑσσώπου αὐτό τε τὸ βιβλίον καὶ πάντα τὸν λαὸν ἐράντισεν
Hebrews 9:20 λέγων, Τοῦτο τὸ αἷμα τῆς διαθήκης ἧς ἐνετείλατο πρὸς ὑμᾶς ὁ θεός .

a. This comes from Exodus 24; the specific quote is from Exodus 24:8. Lane points out that Moses clearly serves as priest in this first covenant ratification.^[6] Jesus has already been presented to us as better than Moses (3:2-6).

b. Exodus 24:8

Exodus 24:8 So Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, "Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words."

c. The events are the great ceremony of ratification. As the covenant had been given by the LORD; the people embrace the covenant and its sanctions. The blood of the covenant refers to the blood that is required of the people as the terms of the covenant. It symbolizes the purity needed to come before God and also that violation of the covenant would bring death upon the violate as a transgression to the punishment.

3. The implements of worship in the Old Covenant were also sprinkled with blood.

Hebrews 9:21 And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood.

Hebrews 9:21 καὶ τὴν σκηνὴν δὲ καὶ πάντα τὰ σκεύη τῆς λειτουργίας τῷ αἵματι ὁμοίως ἐράντισεν.

a. The covenant was put into effect through sacrificial blood. Not only did the people have to be cleansed with blood but the implement in the tabernacle had to be cleansed with blood.

b. The reason was because of the people's sinfulness as they would worship God through the instruments in the tabernacle.

c. Thus, the Old Covenant shows us that to approach God and have forgiveness sacrifice must be made and blood is necessary to effect the legal-filial relationship that is established through covenant.

4. The truth that blood is absolutely necessary for forgiveness of sins is shown by the fact that under the Law almost everything was purified by blood.

Hebrews 9:22 And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Hebrews 9:22 καὶ σχεδὸν ἐν αἵματι πάντα καθαρίζεται κατὰ τὸν νόμον καὶ χωρὶς αἱματεκχυσίας οὐ γίνεται ἄφεσις.

a. The OT teaches the blood is absolutely necessary. Everything related to the covenant need to be cleansed with blood which symbolized the purity needed to approach a Holy God.

b. The argument will connect to verse 23 again as an argument from lesser to greater (this is implied). IF the Old COVENANT needed blood shed and the tabernacle needed to be cleansed then also the new covenant needed a sacrifice of blood that was even better.

c. There is no forgiveness without blood shed. Some people today try to argue for some kind of 'non-violent' atonement. The deny that Christ's death is a blood sacrifice. They will say He did but posit other meanings for this death.

d. Hebrews is very clear: CHRIST'S DEATH IS A BLOOD SACRIFICE because only a blood sacrifice on our behalf can cleanse us in forgiveness and bring us into covenant relationship with God.

If Christ did not shed His blood for us we are not forgiven. Our forgiveness depends upon Christ's death and shed blood since covenants are not made without a death! There is no inheritance if Christ did not die.

We cannot remove the scandal of the Cross. Any view of the death of Christ on the cross that is somehow less than a sacrifice denies the need for shed blood and cannot explain why an animals blood in the OT had to be shed. These views further deny that the very nature of crucifixion is violent and full of blood-shed.

e. 'ἄφεσις' means more than just forgiveness. It means the removal of sin. It denotes removal or release. It is the complete removal and separation of sins. This work is used only once in the LXX in Leb. 16:23 to speak of the scapegoat that carries the sins away.^[7]

Leviticus 16:26 καὶ ὁ ἐξαποστέλλων τὸν χίμαρον τὸν διεσταλμένον εἰς ἄφεσιν πλυνεῖ τὰ ἱμάτια καὶ λούσεται τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ ὕδατι καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα εἰσελεύσεται εἰς τὴν παρεμβολήν.

Leviticus 16:26 וְהַמְשַׁלֵּחַ אֶת־הַשָּׂעִיר לַעֲזָאזֵל יְכַבֵּס בְּגָדָיו וְרָחַץ

אֶת־בְּשָׂרוֹ בַּמָּיִם וְאַחֲרֵי־כֵן יָבוֹא אֶל־הַמַּחֲנֶה׃

Leviticus 16:26 "The one who released the goat as the scapegoat shall wash his clothes and bathe his body with water; then afterward he shall come into the camp.

This same word is used in Hebrews 10:18

Hebrews 10:18 ὅπου δὲ ἄφεσις τούτων, οὐκέτι προσφορὰ περὶ ἁμαρτίας.

The Hebrews lzazu denotes the removal of sin. It occurs 4 times in Leviticus 16:8,10 & 26. The word may also mean 'bannish'.

The word is associated with the day of atonement and our author envisions the eschatological day of atonement coming in Christ's work and thus removing and banishing sins.

Part of the argument is that if the OT sacrifices really removed sin, they would not have needed to be repeated.

---

^[1] Lane, Hebrews 9-13, 243.
^[2] Lane, Hebrews 9-13, 242.
^[3] ESV; NIV; NRSV; RSV translate διαθήκη as 'will'. KJV translates it as 'testament'.
^[4] Lane, Hebrews 9-13, 243.
^[5] Lane, Hebrews 9-13, 232, note t.
^[6] Lane, Hebrews 9-13, 244.
^[7] Lane, Hebrews 9-13, 232-3.

Hebrews 9--part 2 (vv.11-14)

Hebrews 9:11-14 is a powerful little section of Scripture. We begin to see the effectiveness of the blood of Christ. Christ has obtained for us an eternal redemption that far exceeds the blood of goats and calves under the Old Covenant administration.

II. Jesus Christ has come as the fulfillment of Old Covenant 'shadows' since He has once-for-all secured eternal redemption for His people. (9:11-14)

A. Jesus Christ is the high priest not of the old age/order but of the new age/order.

Hebrews 9:11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation;
Hebrews 9:11 Χριστὸς δὲ παραγενόμενος ἀρχιερεὺς τῶν γενομένων ἀγαθῶν διὰ τῆς μείζονος καὶ τελειοτέρας σκηνῆς οὐ χειροποιήτου, τοῦτ ̓ ἔστιν οὐ ταύτης τῆς κτίσεως,

1. Christ's high priesthood supersedes the old order. He is the high priest who ushers in the eschatological age to come.

2. The 'good things to come' are the eschatological last days that have dawned. Christ and his work does not belong to the shadows but is the reality—the true fulfillment of the whole OT system. It refers to the order of the New Covenant that can deal with sin once-for-all.

Hebrews 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.

B. Jesus Christ entered the greater heavenly Most Holy Place.

Hebrews 9:11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation;

1. This refers to the heavenly tabernacle. This tabernacle was not made by human hand put was the tabernacle shown to Moses on the mountain. It is 'διὰ τῆς μείζονος καὶ τελειοτέρας σκηνῆς'.

a. Now what the author of Hebrews does in contrast the whole OT σκηνῆς [with it inner and outer tents] with the σκηνῆς of New Covenant. Note the use of the article 'τῆς σκηνῆς'.

b. The New 'σκηνῆς' is 'τῆς μείζονος καὶ τελειοτέρας'. It is both greater and it is more perfect.

2. This tabernacle belongs to the New Creation.

C. He entered by shedding His own blood. Jesus is both the high priest and the sacrifice.

Hebrews 9:12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

Hebrews 9:12 οὐδὲ δι ̓ αἵματος τράγων καὶ μόσχων διὰ δὲ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος εἰσῆλθεν ἐφάπαξ εἰς τὰ ἅγια αἰωνίαν λύτρωσιν εὑράμενος.

1. Verse 11 told us Jesus was the high priest. Now this verse draws attention to His own sacrifice.

2. 'Entering the holy place' is His exaltation. Having made purification for sins, He has sat down at the right hand of God (1:3; 4:14; 8:1 and 10:12). What is in view is Christ's passage into heaven dwelling in God's presence.[1] 9:24 is a parallel:

Hebrews 9:24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;

3. Remember, on the day of atonement (Leviticus 16) the OT high priest could only enter into the Most Holy Place by first sacrificing a calf for himself and then a goat for the sins of the people. This blood was sprinkled on the mercy seat.

4. Since Christ has enter a better tabernacle, He also needed the better/superior sacrifice of His on blood.

Hebrews 9:23 Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

5. Christ's sacrifice is superior because He does not enter the Holy Place by animal blood but rather sheds His own blood. The purpose of shedding this blood was not so that He could enter for he was without blemish:

Hebrews 7:26 For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens;

Rather it is so that others can enter and draw near to God (4:16; 7:19; 10:22). Thus Christ is our champion who has gone into the Holy place before us—cleansing us so that we might enter into the heavenly tabernacle and dwell with God—in the New Creation this heavenly tabernacle is all-expansive over the whole realm.[2]

D. Christ has obtained eternal redemption.

Hebrews 9:12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

Hebrews 9:12 οὐδὲ δι ̓ αἵματος τράγων καὶ μόσχων διὰ δὲ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος εἰσῆλθεν ἐφάπαξ εἰς τὰ ἅγια αἰωνίαν λύτρωσιν εὑράμενος.

1. Redemption means that we are 'bought back'. Christ's death and shed blood is the payment that cleanses us from our sin. It is through this redemption that we have forgiveness of sins. Without His death as a substitution for us there is no forgiveness.

2. Only the death of Christ accomplishes the eternal redemption. Notice the phrase: 'αἰωνίαν λύτρωσιν εὑράμενος' –The aorist participle is important because it functions as temporal antecedent. Christ only enters into heaven, the holy place after He has secured this eternal redemption! (cf. Heb. 1:3). The death of Christ secures this redemption—His work in heaven guarantees His role as high priest. It guarantees our future entrance into heaven and the heavenly inheritance we have. It marks Christ's service on our behalf as it is from heaven that Christ through the Spirit applies the blood of Christ as He becomes [in res & ascen] the life-given Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45). Christ enters heaven 'διὰ δὲ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος' as He has obtained by this shedding of blood the eternal redemption of His people. The point is that there is no need for Christ's sacrifice to continue or be repeated because Christ's sacrifice has obtained eternal redemption.

3. The blood of goats cannot accomplish redemption.

Hebrews 10:4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

4. The accomplishment of redemption is important. Having accomplished this eternal redemption—there no longer needs to be a sacrifice for sins.

Hebrews 10:17 "And their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more."
Hebrews 10:18 Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.

5. OT saints were forgiven by faith and it is by faith they offered sacrifices knowing that a future time would come when God would offer a once-for-all atonement for sins.

a. This is what Paul means when he speaks of God passing over previous sins:

Romans 3:25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;

The point is that God did not judge them with the finality of eschatological judgment as He could have but He put off judging them for His people so that they would finally be judged in Christ's death. [The word "passing over" means in legal context 'postponement of punishment'.[3]]

b. Christ's death also redeems OT saints from the transgression committed under the first covenant—i.e. the Law.

Hebrews 9:15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

c. The OT saints receive the eternal inheritance they we also receive but it is only in conjunction with us—perhaps suggesting that without the eschatological 'day-of-atonement' that perfects us—they also would not be 'perfected' particularly if read in conjunction with 10:14.

Hebrews 11:39 And all these [The OT saints], having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised,
Hebrews 11:40 because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.

Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

d. NT believer are part of the one body of faith—the house of God (Heb. 3:1ff) along with OT believer although we live on the fulfillment side of the eschaton (at least inaugurally) while they lived on the anticipatory side of it. Without us, on the fulfillment side and the realized perfection we experience—the OT saints would not have the eternal hope.

6. Thus it is the sacrifice of Christ and only the sacrifice of Christ that purifies us from our sins. This accomplishes eternal redemption—our final forever eschatological salvation. It is on the basis of this work that we receive our final inheritance and dwell in the New Creation which is the final tabernacle of God—enjoying His presence.

7. The application is simply that we can draw near to God.

a. We as believer in worship now approach God in the very Holy of Holies as we worship in prayer:

Hebrews 10:19 Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus,
Hebrews 10:20 by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh,
Hebrews 10:21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God,
Hebrews 10:22 let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

b. The manner by which we now approach God is through faith.

E. The blood of goats and bulls only purifies the flesh but Christ's blood, being better, purifies our conscience.

Hebrews 9:13 For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh,

Hebrews 9:14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Hebrews 9:13 εἰ γὰρ τὸ αἷμα τράγων καὶ ταύρων καὶ σποδὸς δαμάλεως ῥαντίζουσα τοὺς κεκοινωμένους ἁγιάζει πρὸς τὴν τῆς σαρκὸς καθαρότητα,
Hebrews 9:14 πόσῳ μᾶλλον τὸ αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὃς διὰ πνεύματος αἰωνίου ἑαυτὸν προσήνεγκεν ἄμωμον τῷ θεῷ, καθαριεῖ τὴν συνείδησιν ἡμῶν ἀπὸ νεκρῶν ἔργων εἰς τὸ λατρεύειν θεῷ ζῶντι.

1. There is a contrast going on here in an argument from lesser to greater. The blood of goats and bulls in their offering can only cleanse the flesh (a sub-eschatological category). Hughes suggests that flesh here refers to the external in contrast to the conscience (p. 356). The blood of goats and bulls had a limited, external, ceremonial efficacy…so then how much greater must Christ blood have since it is the greater sacrifice. In the covenant ceremonies this blood would be sprinkled on God's people (cf. Ex. 24). It's sprinkling on the flesh symbolized the purity they needed but ultimately it offered only outward purity—never the purity of the circumcised heart. Remember these where 'fleshly'. (cf. 9:10— δικαιώματα σαρκὸς)

2. The finality of the blood of Christ—which was offered once for all shows us that Christ finally provided the sacrifice that could purify the worship. Thus, His sacrifice is not ongoing. Nor does He continually stand to minister sacrifices but rather He sits in ruling authority.

Hebrews 10:10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. [τοῦ σώματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐφάπαξ]
Hebrews 10:11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins;
Hebrews 10:12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, [Psalm 110:1]
Hebrews 10:13 waiting from that time onward [τὸ λοιπὸν ἐκδεχόμενος ἕως τεθῶσιν] until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. [Psalm 110:1]

3. Christ was the unblemished sacrifice.

Hebrews 7:26 For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens;

Isaiah 53:9 His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man inHis death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth.

Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.

4. 'Eternal Spirit' most likely refers to the Holy Spirit who is active in the ministry of Christ in preparing Christ to sacrifice Himself. The 'Spirit' is an eschatological reality as He manifests Himself. Thus, Jesus' earthly anointing with the Spirit is proleptic of the eschaton and even believer's reception of the Spirit. Thus, Christ's offering 'διὰ πνεύματος αἰωνίου' guarantees that His sacrifice is a part of the eschatological order. As Bruce notes, "It is in the power of the Divine Spirit, accordingly, that the Servant accomplishes every phase of his ministry, including the crowning phase in which he accepts death for the transgression of his people, filling the twofold role of priest and victim, as Christ does in this epistle."[4] See Isaiah 42:1 in the context of say 42:6 and 53.

5. Remember the blood of animals did not cleanse the conscience:

Hebrews 9:9 which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience,

a. Thus, these works become 'ἀπὸ νεκρῶν ἔργων' when considered in the light of the true sacrifice that comes into the world.

b. These sacrifice are in the final perspective dead works simply because they do not have saving efficacy. They do not make alive or enable us to approach the living God. In light of Christ's coming, they are no longer acts of worship before the living God.

c. Even in the OT they were to be participated in as acts of faith that God would once day—once-for-all cleanse the people of Israel.

6. It is, as the author now reveals, only the blood of Christ which cleanses the inward man—the conscience of the person. Christ is the one who is holy and we are the ones who are made holy by Him.

ESV: Hebrews 2:11 For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one origin. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers,

7. We are now apply to worship/serve the living God. This is the purpose of Christ's death 'εἰς τὸ λατρεύειν θεῷ ζῶντι'.

a. Living God is a common OT description of God but we should note that ultimately it is with indestructible life that God's people will ultimately serve the living God. Thus, God's people to serve a living God—ultimately cannot neither be under the sentence of death nor be controlled by the power of death having it operative in them.

b. This true service stands in fulfillment of the priestly worship in the protological temple Garden of Adam[5] and the typological service of the temple in the Old Covenant with its earthly regulations of worship.

Hebrews 9:1 Εἶχε μὲν οὖν [καὶ] ἡ πρώτη δικαιώματα λατρείας τό τε ἅγιον κοσμικόν.

Hebrews 9:9 ἥτις παραβολὴ εἰς τὸν καιρὸν τὸν ἐνεστηκότα, καθ ̓ ἣν δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίαι προσφέρονται μὴ δυνάμεναι κατὰ συνείδησιν τελειῶσαι τὸν λατρεύοντα,

c. While the Old Covenant had earthly regulations of worship—it points to the New Covenant reality which enables God's people to serve God once and for all.

d. The worshipper now worships (or will finally in the Not Yet) worship with a perfected conscience. While there is still the presence of sin, our conscience is perfected from the condemnation of sin, and as Hebrews consistently exhorts us—we do draw near to God! This is an act of worship.

FOOTNOTES
[1] George Guthrie NIVApplication, Hebrews, 310; Hughes, Hebrews, 283-290.

[2] Cf. Beale, The Temple and the Church's Mission.

[3] Cf. Moo, Romans, 238.

[4] Bruce, Hebrews, 217.

[5] Note the priest language of service in Genesis 2; Cf. Beale, The Church and the Temple's Mission.

Pastor Spock

Here is what some of the teens in my wonderful youth group do with their spare time:

Look what kind of mischief people can get into... Thanks Amber.

"Preach Long and Prosper"

Hebrews 9--part 1 (vv. 1-10)

We will begin here some relevant exegesis of Hebrews 9, particularly verses 1-10. I believe what is so fascinating about this passage of Scripture is that we find that the temple itself was set up with an eschatological structure. The basic structure is "this age" and "the age to come". The outer tabernacle (the Holy Place) is symbolic of 'this age' where the ministery was onging just like in the Old Covenant. The inner tabernacle (the Most Holy Place) was symbolic of the eschatological which is 'once for all'.

Hebrews 9—"Christ the Better Sacrifice"

The repeated earthly events of the Old Covenant sacrifices have been surpassed and fulfilled by the New Covenant once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus Christ by which He enters into heaven and the true tabernacle for us.

The more excellent ministry of Christ is a once-for-all ministry that ushers in the end of the age. Christ does not enter the earthly 'shadow' tabernacle but the heavenly tabernacle that is 'not of this creation'. Christ goes into the presence of God once for all because He has sacrificed Himself once for all.

Key Verses:

Hebrews 9:24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;
Hebrews 9:25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own.
Hebrews 9:26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

I. The Old Covenant served 'the present age' in order to teach us about the final redemption that would come in Jesus Christ.

A. The first covenant's place of worship was earthly. (9:1)

Hebrews 9:1 Now even the first covenant had regulations of divine worship and the earthly sanctuary.

1. The first covenant had regulations for worship. There was a prescribed manner of worship that was right and true worship. If these regulations and practices were not followed it was the equivalent of idol worship.

2. The place where God dwelt on earth was an earthly sanctuary that was built for Him. It was a holy place where God could dwell with His people yet God's people were shielded from God. If they had His holiness in an unmitigated way they would have been irradicated.

a. God's presence was to be with His people and they would worship Him.

Exodus 25:8 "Let them construct a sanctuary for Me, that I may dwell among them.
Exodus 25:9 "According to all that I am going to show you, as the pattern of the tabernacle and the pattern of all its furniture, just so you shall construct it.

b. Yet God's presence was ultimately not contained in this earthly sanctuary.

Isaiah 66:1 Thus says the Lord, "Heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool. Where then is a house you could build for Me? And where is a place that I may rest?
Isaiah 66:2 "For My hand made all these things, Thus all these things came into being," declares the Lord. "But to this one I will look, To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.

Acts 7:48 "However, the Most High does not dwell in houses made by human hands; as the prophet says:
Acts 7:49 'Heaven is My throne, And earth is the footstool of My feet; What kind of house will you build for Me?' says the Lord, 'Or what place is there for My repose?
Acts 7:50 'Was it not My hand which made all these things?'

3. Earthly sanctuary does not mean that it is bad—as a Gnostic reading might argue. Rather this temple was non-eschatological. It was part of the this age and thus only foreshadowed the reality of the coming age.

4. This is also true of the first regulations of worship. They were sub-eschatological designed to be fulfilled in the eschatological at the end of the age.

5. As Bruce notes the author's points is "the sanctuary of the old covenant, in its very furnishings and sacrificial arrangements, proclaimed its own temporary character…"^[1]

B. The worship of the Old Covenant is described. (9:2-5)

1. The outer tent of the tabernacle was the Holy place.

Hebrews 9:2 For there was a tabernacle prepared, the outer one, in which were the lampstand and the table and the sacred bread; this is called the holy place.

a. Here our author speaks of the outer tent. This is known as the Holy place as our author reminds us. The implements in this tent were:

The lampstand: the lampstand had seven lights on it. This lampstand was placed on the south side of the outer ten

Exodus 26:35 "You shall set the table outside the veil, and the lampstand opposite the table on the side of the tabernacle toward the south; and you shall put the table on the north side.

Exodus 25:31 "Then you shall make a lampstand of pure gold. The lampstand and its base and its shaft are to be made of hammered work; its cups, its bulbs and its flowers shall be of one piece with it.
Exodus 25:32 "Six branches shall go out from its sides; three branches of the lampstand from its one side and three branches of the lampstand from its other side.
Exodus 25:33 "Three cups shall be shaped like almond blossoms in the one branch, a bulb and a flower, and three cups shaped like almond blossoms in the other branch, a bulb and a flower—so for six branches going out from the lampstand;
Exodus 25:34 and in the lampstand four cups shaped like almond blossoms, its bulbs and its flowers.
Exodus 25:35 "A bulb shall be under the first pair of branches coming out of it, and a bulb under the second pair of branches coming out of it, and a bulb under the third pair of branches coming out of it, for the six branches coming out of the lampstand.
Exodus 25:36 "Their bulbs and their branches shall be of one piece with it; all of it shall be one piece of hammered work of pure gold.
Exodus 25:37 "Then you shall make its lamps seven in number; and they shall mount its lamps so as to shed light on the space in front of it.
Exodus 25:38 "Its snuffers and their trays shall be of pure gold.
Exodus 25:39 "It shall be made from a talent of pure gold, with all these utensils.
Exodus 25:40 "See that you make them after the pattern for them, which was shown to you on the mountain

The lampstand represents the tree of life and the seven light probably represented the seven major luminaries in the sky.^[2]

The table… there was a table in the Holy Place.

Exodus 25:23 "You shall make a table of acacia wood, two cubits long and one cubit wide and one and a half cubits high.
Exodus 25:24 "You shall overlay it with pure gold and make a gold border around it.
Exodus 25:25 "You shall make for it a rim of a handbreadth around it; and you shall make a gold border for the rim around it.
Exodus 25:26 "You shall make four gold rings for it and put rings on the four corners which are on its four feet.
Exodus 25:27 "The rings shall be close to the rim as holders for the poles to carry the table.
Exodus 25:28 "You shall make the poles of acacia wood and overlay them with gold, so that with them the table may be carried.
Exodus 25:29 "You shall make its dishes and its pans and its jars and its bowls with which to pour drink offerings; you shall make them of pure gold.
Exodus 25:30 "You shall set the bread of the Presence on the table before Me at all times.

The sacred bread was placed on the sacred table in the Holy Place. As Bruce notes "the table and the showbread" is "a hendiadys for 'the table of the showbread'".^[3]

b. The details of the outer tent are brought to our attention with out explanation of the details. It is most likely that to point to the implements in the Holy Place is to remind the reader of the regulations of worship that were associated with the earthly holy place.

c. We could probe the details of the temple/tabernacle, their cosmic significance, their ANE historical context and their eschatological fulfillment but this is neither the time or the place to enter a detailed debate of such magnitude if for no other reason than the one the author himself gives us:

Hebrews 9:5 and above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat; but of these things we cannot now speak in detail.

2. The second, inner, tent was the Most Holy Place.

Hebrews 9:3 Behind the second veil there was a tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies,

The implements in this tent were:

a. The altar of incense

Hebrews 9:4 having a golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron's rod which budded, and the tables of the covenant;

According to Exodus 30:6 this 'altar of incense' was place in the Holy Place not the Most Holy Place:

Exodus 30:6 "You shall put this altar in front of the veil that is near the ark of the testimony, in front of the mercy seat that is over the ark of the testimony, where I will meet with you.

Scholars note that both the Hebrew and the Greek translation is somewhat ambiguous.

It is suggested that in 1 Kings 6:20,22 the altar of incense is placed inside the Holy of Holies:

1 Kings 6:20 The inner sanctuary was twenty cubits in length, twenty cubits in width, and twenty cubits in height, and he overlaid it with pure gold. He also overlaid the altar with cedar.

1 Kings 6:22 He overlaid the whole house with gold, until all the house was finished. Also the whole altar which was by the inner sanctuary he overlaid with gold. ^[4]

However, the theological significance of the altar of incense is important. The incense was burned before the High Priest could enter the Most Holy Place. The smoke shielded the priest from seeing the glory of God.

Thus, Hebrews is probably making a theological association rather than a spatial association. The purpose of the Altar of incense was for the Most Holy Place.

b. The ark of the covenant, which was covered with gold.

Hebrews 9:4 having a golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron's rod which budded, and the tables of the covenant;

The ark of the covenant was God's footstool.

1 Chronicles 28:2 Then King David rose to his feet and said, "Listen to me, my brethren and my people; I had intended to build a permanent home for the ark of the covenant of the Lord and for the footstool of our God. So I had made preparations to build it.

Above the ark of the covenant would be God's very presence as the reigning king.

The ark of the covenant was obviously not an idol.

c. There were important items inside the ark of the covenant.

Hebrews 9:4 having a golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron's rod which budded, and the tables of the covenant;

The golden jar that had manna in it. This would have been from Israel's wandering in the desert.

Exodus 16:33 Moses said to Aaron, "Take a jar and put an omerful of manna in it, and place it before the Lord to be kept throughout your generations."
Exodus 16:34 As the Lord commanded Moses, so Aaron placed it before the Testimony, to be kept.

The 'testimony' is a reference to the Ten Commandments on the two tablets. Thus, when these tablets were put in the ark of the covenant so also the jar of manna.

Aaron's rod which had budded to show he was the true high priest.

Numbers 17:5 "It will come about that the rod of the man whom I choose will sprout. Thus I will lessen from upon Myself the grumblings of the sons of Israel, who are grumbling against you."

Numbers 17:8 Now on the next day Moses went into the tent of the testimony; and behold, the rod of Aaron for the house of Levi had sprouted and put forth buds and produced blossoms, and it bore ripe almonds.

Numbers 17:10 But the Lord said to Moses, "Put back the rod of Aaron before the testimony to be kept as a sign against the rebels, that you may put an end to their grumblings against Me, so that they will not die."

The stone tablets which had the 10 commandments on them.

d. Above the ark of the covenant were cherubim made of gold.

Hebrews 9:5 and above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat; but of these things we cannot now speak in detail.

Exodus 25:17 "You shall make a mercy seat of pure gold, two and a half cubits long and one and a half cubits wide.
Exodus 25:18 "You shall make two cherubim of gold, make them of hammered work at the two ends of the mercy seat.
Exodus 25:19 "Make one cherub at one end and one cherub at the other end; you shall make the cherubim of one piece with the mercy seat at its two ends.
Exodus 25:20 "The cherubim shall have their wings spread upward, covering the mercy seat with their wings and facing one another; the faces of the cherubim are to be turned toward the mercy seat.
Exodus 25:21 "You shall put the mercy seat on top of the ark, and in the ark you shall put the testimony which I will give to you.
Exodus 25:22 "There I will meet with you; and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the testimony, I will speak to you about all that I will give you in commandment for the sons of Israel.

Exodus 37:6 He made a mercy seat of pure gold, two and a half cubits long and one and a half cubits wide.
Exodus 37:7 He made two cherubim of gold; he made them of hammered work at the two ends of the mercy seat;
Exodus 37:8 one cherub at the one end and one cherub at the other end; he made the cherubim of one piece with the mercy seat at the two ends.
Exodus 37:9 The cherubim had their wings spread upward, covering the mercy seat with their wings, with their faces toward each other; the faces of the cherubim were toward the mercy seat.

3. Our author is just telling us what is in the Most Holy Place; he is not saying anything detailed about these things and what they teach us.

Hebrews 9:5 and above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat; but of these things we cannot now speak in detail.

C. Regular worship took place in the temple within the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place but this worship was ultimately a temporary provision pointing to the time when God's people could truly draw near to God in the Holy of Holies. (9:6-10)

1.The priests could go into the Holy Place regularly to perform his duties.

Hebrews 9:6 Now when these things have been so prepared, the priests are continually entering the outer tabernacle performing the divine worship,

a. Once the tabernacle was prepared, the priest would enter into the outer ten on a regular basis to perform their duties of worship.

b. These duties included keeping the lamps burning and the incense burning.

Exodus 27:21 "In the tent of meeting, outside the veil which is before the testimony, Aaron and his sons shall keep it in order from evening to morning before the Lord; it shall be a perpetual statute throughout their generations for the sons of Israel.

Exodus 30:7 "Aaron shall burn fragrant incense on it; he shall burn it every morning when he trims the lamps.
Exodus 30:8 "When Aaron trims the lamps at twilight, he shall burn incense. There shall be perpetual incense before the Lord throughout your generations.

2. Only the high priest could go into the Most Holy Place. He could do this only once a year and a blood sacrifice needed to be performed.

Hebrews 9:7 but into the second, only the high priest enters once a year, not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance.

a. This 'once a year' was on the day of atonement. It was not done on a daily basis like the other activities of the tabernacle. On the day of atonement the high priest would enter through the first 'tent' to the second 'tent'.

b. The Day of Atonement:

Exodus 30:10 "Aaron shall make atonement on its horns once a year; he shall make atonement on it with the blood of the sin offering of atonement once a year throughout your generations. It is most holy to the Lord."

Cf. All of Leviticus 16.

Leviticus 16:34 "Now you shall have this as a permanent statute, to make atonement for the sons of Israel for all their sins once every year." And just as the Lord had commanded Moses, so he did.

c. Blood needed to be shed. He would kill a bull for himself and his sins and then a goat for the sins of the people.

d. This was for sins committed in ignorance. This is consistent with the Old Testament and its teaching.

3. The Holy Spirit teaches us that all of God's people did not have access to God's presence.

Hebrews 9:8 The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing,

Hebrews 9:8 τοῦτο δηλοῦντος τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου, μήπω πεφανερῶσθαι τὴν τῶν ἁγίων ὁδὸν ἔτι τῆς πρώτης σκηνῆς ἐχούσης στάσιν,

a. The Holy Spirit is teaching that throughout the Old Covenant there was no direct access to God.

b. The Outer Tabernacle of the Holy Place separated the worshipper in the courtyard from the Most Holy Place.

c. The priests did not even go before God on the mercy seat except once a year.

d. The phrase 'ἔτι τῆς πρώτης σκηνῆς ἐχούσης στάσιν' denotes that the while the first tent (i.e. the Holy Place) still had cultic status it was a legitimate expression of worship. 'ἔτι' has a temporal force. 'τῆς πρώτης σκηνῆς' refers to the outer tent of the Holy place (see below as this can be tracked through the context).'ἐχούσης στάσιν'—the idea is 'while it still has status' or while it is still established.

Note the uses in 10:9

Hebrews 10:9 τότε εἴρηκεν, Ἰδοὺ ἥκω τοῦ ποιῆσαι τὸ θέλημά σου . ἀναιρεῖ τὸ πρῶτον ἵνα τὸ δεύτερον στήσῃ,

Hebrews 10:9 then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will." He takes away the first in order to establish the second.

The legitimacy of the first tent shows entrance into the second tent has not been granted.

As Lane notes, "A temporal significance is drawn from the spatial metaphor of the front compartment and is expressed by the temporal participle ἔτι 'while'."^[5]

The temporal metaphor is evident also with the phrase μήπω πεφανερῶσθαι τὴν τῶν ἁγίων (v.8).

e. This stands in contrast to the appeal that we now approach God's throne in confidence.

Hebrews 4:16 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.

f. The first tent becomes paradigmatic for the first covenant.

Thus, "there can be access only after the front compartment has been set aside. The 'front compartment' represents the sanctuary as the sphere of cultic activity, which constituted a barrier to the presence of God."^[6]

"It is further to be noted that, whereas hitherto our author has used the 'first tent' of the of the outer comparment of the sanctuary of the 'first covenant,' comprising the holy place and the holy of holies together."^[7]

4. This outer tabernacle is a parable of the present age—i.e. the Old Covenant age.

Hebrews 9:9 which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience,

ESV: Hebrews 9:9 (which is symbolic for the present age). According to this arrangement, gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper,

Hebrews 9:9 ἥτις παραβολὴ εἰς τὸν καιρὸν τὸν ἐνεστηκότα, καθ ̓ ἣν δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίαι προσφέρονται μὴ δυνάμεναι κατὰ συνείδησιν τελειῶσαι τὸν λατρεύοντα,

a. There is a bit of debate about what exactly 'ἥτις' refers to. Is it (1) referring to the whole temple edifice of inner and outer holy places or is it (2) referring to the outer tabernacle which 'shielded' entrance into the Most Holy Place.

b. The immediate antecedent is preferable: "τῆς πρώτης σκηνῆς"; the feminine 'ἥτις' agrees with this more immediate reference.

c. 'εἰς τὸν καιρὸν τὸν ἐνεστηκότα' refers to the old aeon—the sub-eschatological present age.

Galatians 1:4 τοῦ δόντος ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, ὅπως ἐξέληται ἡμᾶς ἐκ τοῦ αἰῶνος τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος πονηροῦ κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν,

d. What our author does then is turns the first tent i.e. the Holy Place and the second tent i.e. the Most Holy Place into a symbol for the eschatological dualism of the present age and the age to come.

This is clear when we take the context back to 8:7

Hebrews 8:7 Εἰ γὰρ ἡ πρώτη ἐκείνη ἦν ἄμεμπτος, οὐκ ἂν δευτέρας ἐζητεῖτο τόπος.

This first covenant is made obsolete by the New/Second covenant

Hebrews 8:13 ἐν τῷ λέγειν Καινὴν πεπαλαίωκεν τὴν πρώτην· τὸ δὲ παλαιούμενον καὶ γηράσκον ἐγγὺς ἀφανισμοῦ.

Christ takes away the first covenant in order to establish the second.

Hebrews 10:9 τότε εἴρηκεν, Ἰδοὺ ἥκω τοῦ ποιῆσαι τὸ θέλημά σου . ἀναιρεῖ τὸ πρῶτον ἵνα τὸ δεύτερον στήσῃ,

Hebrews 10:9 then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will." He takes away the first in order to establish the second.

Thus, in our immediate context the author continues his distinction of first and second:

Hebrews 9:1-10 (NA27)

¹ Εἶχε μὲν οὖν [καὶ] ἡ πρώτη δικαιώματα λατρείας τό τε ἅγιον κοσμικόν. ² σκηνὴ γὰρ κατεσκευάσθη ἡ πρώτη ἐν ᾗ ἥ τε λυχνία καὶ ἡ τράπεζα καὶ ἡ πρόθεσις τῶν ἄρτων, ἥτις λέγεται Ἅγια· ³ μετὰ δὲ τὸ δεύτερον καταπέτασμα σκηνὴ ἡ λεγομένη Ἅγια Ἁγίων, ⁴ χρυσοῦν ἔχουσα θυμιατήριον καὶ τὴν κιβωτὸν τῆς διαθήκης περικεκαλυμμένην πάντοθεν χρυσίῳ, ἐν ᾗ στάμνος χρυσῆ ἔχουσα τὸ μάννα καὶ ἡ ῥάβδος Ἀαρὼν ἡ βλαστήσασα καὶ αἱ πλάκες τῆς διαθήκης, ⁵ ὑπεράνω δὲ αὐτῆς Χερουβὶν δόξης κατασκιάζοντα τὸ ἱλαστήριον· περὶ ὧν οὐκ ἔστιν νῦν λέγειν κατὰ μέρος. ⁶ Τούτων δὲ οὕτως κατεσκευασμένων εἰς μὲν τὴν πρώτην σκηνὴν διὰ παντὸς εἰσίασιν οἱ ἱερεῖς τὰς λατρείας ἐπιτελοῦντες, ⁷ εἰς δὲ τὴν δευτέραν ἅπαξ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ μόνος ὁ ἀρχιερεύς, οὐ χωρὶς αἵματος ὃ προσφέρει ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τῶν τοῦ λαοῦ ἀγνοημάτων, ⁸ τοῦτο δηλοῦντος τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου, μήπω πεφανερῶσθαι τὴν τῶν ἁγίων ὁδὸν ἔτι τῆς πρώτης σκηνῆς ἐχούσης στάσιν, ⁹ ἥτις παραβολὴ εἰς τὸν καιρὸν τὸν ἐνεστηκότα, καθ ̓ ἣν δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίαι προσφέρονται μὴ δυνάμεναι κατὰ συνείδησιν τελειῶσαι τὸν λατρεύοντα, ¹⁰ μόνον ἐπὶ βρώμασιν καὶ πόμασιν καὶ διαφόροις βαπτισμοῖς, δικαιώματα σαρκὸς μέχρι καιροῦ διορθώσεως ἐπικείμενα.

First, the green highlights the complementary description of the Old Covenant forms of worship with all its washings, etc.—they are fleshly/earthly which refers to the subeschatological.

Second, the purple marks the contrast of the this age and age to come in our passage.The 'μέχρι' is temporal. 'διορθώσεως' is a hapax legoumena. It refers to the restoration of creation and the establishment of the New Covenant. It is the eschatological. This restoration has now occurred. We see this because the Old Covenant sacrifices are no longer valid.

Third, 'ἅπαξ' foreshadows the important use of the word in 9:26-28 (It is the second appearance of the word in the book)

Hebrews 9:26 ἐπεὶ ἔδει αὐτὸν πολλάκις παθεῖν ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου· νυνὶ δὲ ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων εἰς ἀθέτησιν [τῆς ] ἁμαρτίας διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ πεφανέρωται.
Hebrews 9:27 καὶ καθ ̓ ὅσον ἀπόκειται τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἅπαξ ἀποθανεῖν, μετὰ δὲ τοῦτο κρίσις,
Hebrews 9:28 οὕτως καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ προσενεχθεὶς εἰς τὸ πολλῶν ἀνενεγκεῖν ἁμαρτίας, ἐκ δευτέρου χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας ὀφθήσεται τοῖς αὐτὸν ἀπεκδεχομένοις εἰς σωτηρίαν.

Of course, the genitive phrase 'ἅπαξ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ' qualifies the use of hapax.

Fourth, there may be a play on the word 'τῆς πρώτης σκηνῆς' It could refer to the whole first tabernacle complex with its Holy and Holy of Holies. Or it could refer to the outer tent that is standing. There is not 'first' tent in the eschatological temple/tabernacle precisely because the way has been cleared.

Fifth, according to verse 11:

Hebrews 9:11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation;

Hebrews 9:11 Χριστὸς δὲ παραγενόμενος ἀρχιερεὺς τῶν γενομένων ἀγαθῶν διὰ τῆς μείζονος καὶ τελειοτέρας σκηνῆς οὐ χειροποιήτου, τοῦτ ̓ ἔστιν οὐ ταύτης τῆς κτίσεως

Christ is 'ἀρχιερεὺς τῶν γενομένων^[8] ἀγαθῶν διὰ τῆς μείζονος'—His priesthood usher in the age to come.

Christ is the High priest who enters the age to come—the second tent.

But this second tent is not the earthly second tent but the reality which it points too: 'διὰ τῆς μείζονος καὶ τελειοτέρας σκηνῆς οὐ χειροποιήτου, τοῦτ ̓ ἔστιν οὐ ταύτης τῆς κτίσεως'. Christ both enters into the reality which the inner Most Holy Place pointed to and He usher in that reality. These things are not of this creation but of the New Creation—the heavenly/eschatological. Christ enters the Most Holy place (v.12) but it is a better Most Holy Place and it is entered by a better sacrifice. His step beyond this age to the age to come by his once for all time [hapax] sacrifice is analogous to the step the high priest would make once a year from the Holy Place to the Most Holy Place.

Sub-Conclusion for v.11-- The close association of high priest with good things to come supports what we have said that the inner tabernacle is the symbol of the age to come heavenly realities.

Conclusion v.9: The first tent in the OT tabernacle is the age present age of earthly/flesh with its ongoing regulations for worship. The nature of these regulations barred one from direct access to God. The Inner Holy of Holies was the type of the age to come where access would be given to the very presence of God. It was the ideal of the eschatological.

The important point is that while the writer of Hebrews speaks of the Old Covenant/tabernacle as a shadow and thus not the eschatological; he now breaks down that shadow and says the outer shadow-tent point to the sub-eschatological and non-access to God and the inner tent points to the second/new covenant of the eschatological where full access to God is given for all of God's people in a manner that is once for all.

This is why there is no eschatological 'age to come' symbolism for the Holy Place in Hebrews—the eschatological symbolism of the Holy Place is precisely that subeschatological which passes away.

If the lights of the Menorah symbolize the heavenly lights—then there is not sun, moon or stars in the culmination of the eschatological.

Although the tree of life is present according to Revelation.^[9]

So too the show bread may be the ultimate fulfillment of the marriage feast of the Lamb—a covenant meal.

Yet these are experienced with in an unmitigated fashion in the presence of God's glory without intervening shadowy incense to protect us.

Hebrew's eschatological structure is quite complex at this point. Not only does the author see an eschatological structure relationship between the Old/Earthly and the New/Heavenly/Eschaton, he sees within that Old Earthly the very symbol of this structure itself.

If we flesh this analogy out—the regularly priestly ongoing worship of the Holy Place in the OT becomes the ongoing worship by numerous high priests through the present age.

Christ the high priest once for all sacrifice at the end of the age fulfills and transcends the 'ἅπαξ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ' with a sacrifice that it 'ἅπαξ' at 'ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων' (v.26).

The regular worship is culminated in the once for all event—OT this was the day of atonement; which is eschatologically fulfilled in the heavenlies by Christ.

Lane concurs with what we have said:

"The 'front compartment' (hJ prwvth skhnhv) becomes a spatial metaphor for the time when the 'first covenant' (hJ prwvth diaqhvkh) was in force. As an illustration of the old age, which is now in process of dissolution (8:13), it symbolizes the total first covenant order with its daily and annual cultic ritual (9:6,7). Once the first has been invalidated, the second becomes operative (see 10:9). In the figurative language of the writer, the front compartment of the tabernacle was symbolic of the present age (to;n kairo;n to;n ejnesthkovta), which through the intrusion of the kairo;V diorqwvsewV, 'the time of correction' (v 10), has been superseded."^[10]

5. The sacrifices and gifts offered in the outer tent (the Holy Place) did not perfect the conscience—showing that they were temporary.

Hebrews 9:9 which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience,

Hebrews 9:9 ἥτις παραβολὴ εἰς τὸν καιρὸν τὸν ἐνεστηκότα, καθ ̓ ἣν δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίαι προσφέρονται μὴ δυνάμεναι κατὰ συνείδησιν τελειῶσαι τὸν λατρεύοντα,

a. The gifts and sacrifices of the Old Covenant do not have the same effect as the sacrifice of the New Covenant. The Old Covenant gifts do not perfect the worshipper's conscience. There is a deficiency in the Old Covenant in terms of what it can do—it does not deal with sin in a fashion that is once for all.

Perfecting the conscience from sin—means that the OT system does not deal finally and radically with sin.

Perfection did not come through the Levitical priesthood nor the sacrifices they offered.

Hebrews 7:11 Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron?
Hebrews 7:12 For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.
Hebrews 7:13 For the one concerning whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar.
Hebrews 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests.
Hebrews 7:15 And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek,
Hebrews 7:16 who has become such not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life.
Hebrews 7:17 For it is attested of Him, "You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek."
Hebrews 7:18 For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness
Hebrews 7:19 (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.

The fact that the Old Covenant with is sacrifices is ongoing shows us that these sacrifices do not bring perfection.

Hebrews 10:1 For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near.
Hebrews 10:2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins?
Hebrews 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year.

The blood of goats and bulls do not take away sins.

Hebrews 10:4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

It is in the New Covenant with the High Priest Jesus Christ that we are able to draw near to God as those who have been perfected by the shed blood of Jesus Christ. Hebrews 9:24-28 will argue that the work of Christ is once for all and only the work of Christ can cleanse us from our sins.

b. "Gifts and sacrifices" have already been mentioned by our author:

Hebrews 8:3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices; so it is necessary that this high priest also have something to offer.

c. This will be contrasted with the effect of the sacrifice of Christ:

Hebrews 9:14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

6. The regulations of this worship were only temporary until the coming of Christ.

Hebrews 9:10 since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation.

Hebrews 9:10 μόνον ἐπὶ βρώμασιν καὶ πόμασιν καὶ διαφόροις βαπτισμοῖς, δικαιώματα σαρκὸς μέχρι καιροῦ διορθώσεως ἐπικείμενα.

a. 'food and drink' probably refers to the OT food laws, particularly in Lev. 11. These of course are revealed to Peter has been declared clean in the book of Acts.

b. Notice the temporal 'μέχρι'—the author envisions that the time of restoration has now already come—this is clear simply for the face that this various 'δικαιώματα σαρκὸς' have passed away.

'δικαιώματα σαρκὸς' refers to the Old Covenant methods of worship—particularly in the temple. They have no remaining value. This is equivalent to: 'ἡ πρώτη δικαιώματα λατρείας τό τε ἅγιον κοσμικόν'. To argue for a end-time millennial physical temple restoration thus is would be a serious case of eschatological retrogression.^[11]

It should be clear that the time of restoration has come. This may be analogous to what Peter asks Jesus

Acts 1:6 So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?"

Acts 1:6 Οἱ μὲν οὖν συνελθόντες ἠρώτων αὐτὸν λέγοντες, Κύριε, εἰ ἐν τῷ χρόνῳ τούτῳ ἀποκαθιστάνεις τὴν βασιλείαν τῷ Ἰσραήλ;

διορθώσεως is a hapax legoumena. Bruce suggests says that we might render this 'the new order' (p. 211 n.66). Hebrews cleary sees this time has having arrived. It is the eschatological last days that have dawned.

The phrase 'καιροῦ διορθώσεως' stands in contrast to 'τὸν καιρὸν τὸν ἐνεστηκότα'. The time has arrived precisely because the regulations of the Old Covenant are no longer legitimate given the dawning of the heavenly/eschatological.

It is the reconstruction/reformation that is new creation not old creation. This becomes clear with the phrase 'τοῦτ ̓ ἔστιν οὐ ταύτης τῆς κτίσεως' (v.11). Eschatological/heavenly categories are nothing less that 'new creational' realities. These have dawned in Christ who is "ἀρχιερεὺς τῶν γενομένων ἀγαθῶν"—the high priest who ushers in these realities.

7. Conclusion vv. 6-10: The Old Covenant was temporary until the time when a sacrifice would be offered that actually purified the conscience of the worshipper.

D. 9:1-10 Conclusion: The Old Order must give way to the New Order. This reality can be seen in hindsight looking back at this Old Order and considering (1) what it pointed to with its two tents; and (2) what its gifts and sacrifices were unable to do.

---

^[1] Bruce, Hebrews, 198.

^[2] Beale, Temple and the Church Mission, 56 & 71.

^[3] Bruce, Hebrews, 198-9. cf. also Hughes, Hebrews, 308.

^[4] See also 2 Apoc. Bar. 6:7. Cf. Lane, Hebrews 9-13 for a list of contemporary sources including Philo and Josephus that knew the altar of incense was outside the Most Holy Place.

^[5] Lane, Hebrews 9-13, 223.

^[6] Lane, Hebrews 9-13, 223. It is important to note that Lane points out one would not see this from a reading of the original OT text alone but is clearly the product of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

^[7] Bruce, Hebrews, 208. Although Bruce holds that the parable applies to the whole structure not the 'first tent'. Bruce notes: "N.H. Young ("The Gospel according to Hebrews 9," NTS 27 [1980-81], pp. 198-210, especially pp. 200-202) argues that "the first tent" is to be understood here in Heb. 9:8, as in vv. 2 and 6, of "the old covenant order now in process of dissolution." (Hebrews, 208, n. 58).

^[8] Note the textual variant of mellovntwn; either is eschatological.

^[9] In Revelation, the lampstand also symbolizes the seven churches. So all the incense is the prayers of the saints that go up.