Source: https://nightlightblogdotcom.wordpress.com/2016/01/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 03:02:52+00:00

Document:
For the law, having a shadow of the good things come and not the very image of the things, could never with those same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins. Therefore, when He came into the world, He said, “Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but a body You have prepared for Me. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure. Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come – in the volume of the book it is written of Me – to do Your will, O God’.” Previously saying, “Sacrifices and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the law), Then He said, “Behold, I come to do Your will, O God.” He takes away the first that He may establish the second. By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering he has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before, “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,” then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.
In our last post, we noted the absolute contrast between the Old and the New Testaments, which are much more that just the respective collections of books that we know by those names. As we saw, the Old Testament, or Covenant, was a two-fold revelation from God: 1) what was required if one were to come to God on his own merit, and 2) what was required since no one has such merit.
In other words, the Old Testament showed in the Law the absolute and inviolable perfection required by the nature and character of God. The sacrificial system showed that no one ever had, or has, such perfection. It also demonstrated the twin principles of substitution and sacrifice, principles shown from every sacrifice from that given for Adam and Eve down to the last one animal slain before the death of Christ. His was the final sacrifice, and the only one that ever effectively dealt with sin. Perhaps too simply put, “substitution” means that an animal died in the sinner’s place, and “sacrifice” means that the sinner lived in the animal’s place. So with Christ: He died in our place, and we live through Him. Paul put it like this, For He [God] made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him, 2 Corinthians 5:21. You see, the issue isn’t simply about “life” and “death,” but about “sin” and “righteousness”.
1. Preparation of the way to God, vs. 1-18.
Giving of the Law, 10:1-4. As we noted in earlier lessons, the Law was not given in order to provide a way of salvation, but to show that salvation was needed.
1. The Law was “the shadow of good things to come,” v. 1. The Tabernacle and the sacrifices foreshadowed two things.
a. the sacrifices foreshadowed forgiveness.
b. the Tabernacle foreshadowed fellowship with God.
The purpose of redemption isn’t just so that we can go to Heaven, but that we may enjoy it when we get there. Think about it. If a person has no time for church or Scripture or spiritual things, but spends his time submerged in the things of this world, he would have nothing in common with the inhabitants of Heaven. If he lives only to fulfill the desires and goals of the flesh, what will he do when these things are no longer important, or even possible? If he knows only to curse God, how will he praise Him? It isn’t just “streets of gold,” or “mansions” that will occupy us in heaven, but God Himself and the Lord Jesus.
And that’s not just for the future, but for this life, as well. Death won’t be some magic transformation that changes us from what we are here to what we will be there. The work is begun in this life, else there is nothing good in the next life. Apart from the Lord Jesus Christ, there is only a “lake of fire” awaiting the lost, Revelation 20:15. Redemption is the resumption of what was begun – and lost – in the Garden of Eden. The Fall of man no more messed up God’s original purpose for mankind than the rejection of Jesus by the Jews messed up God’s plan for the Kingdom.
2. The Law was powerless to “take away sins,” vs. 2-4. Why then was it given? To drive home the truth about sin. “By the law is the knowledge of sin,” Romans 3:20. “The wages of sin is death,” Romans 6:23. “And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire,” Revelation 20:15, which v. 14 refers to as “the second death.” Sin isn’t just some momentary foible or weakness; it has enormous, and eternal, repercussions. After all, it was a “minor” sin, as we judge such things, that plunged the race into the misery it suffers now. “Hell” may only a swear-word to many folks, but they will find out when it is too late that Hell is an awful and eternal reality.
Generating of “a body,” vs. 5-8.
1. desirability, vs. 5, 6. “Wherefore” – the sacrifices weren’t just for the sake of sacrifices – God had “no pleasure” in them – but to teach salvation by substitution and sacrifice, the two cardinal truths of the Gospel. There is no other way that God saves sinners.
2. declaration, vs. 7, 8. This is a quote from Psalm 40:6-8. “I come” is the prophecy of the One Who would “do your will, O God.” – Who would keep the Law perfectly and satisfy its penalty completely. This was typified but never accomplished by the sacrifices.
Giving of the Sacrifice, vs. 9, 10.
These verses clearly tell us that we are neither justified nor sanctified by the Law, but by the sacrifice of Christ, also v. 14. Verse 9 tells us what Christ meant in Matthew 5:17-20 about “fulfilling” the Law.
1. He came to clear away the traditions of men and to present the Law as it really was.
2. He came to satisfy all its requirements so that it has no claim on Him as a human being, and, therefore, no claim on those for whom He came as Substitute.
The New Covenant removes the necessity of the First Covenant, v. 9. It accomplishes what the First Covenant required – perfect obedience and righteousness, but could never provide.
[9:1]Then indeed, even the first covenant had ordinances of divine service and the earthly sanctuary. For a tabernacle was prepared: the first part, in which was the lampstand, the table, and the showbread, which is called the sanctuary; and behind the second veil, the part of the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of All, which had the golden censer and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which were the golden pot that had the manna. Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant; and above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot now speak in detail.
Now when these things had been thus prepared, the priests always went into the first part of the tabernacle, performing the services. But into the second part the high priest went alone once a year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the people’s sins committed in ignorance; the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing. It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience– concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.
Chapter 9 continues the thought begun in ch. 3 about the superiority of the priesthood of Christ over the OT priesthood. In 8:3, the writer pointed out that since He was a priest, He must have an offering. But it was a far different offering than any offered by Aaron or his descendants, with a far different result. The discussion begun in 3:1 goes through 10:18 and climaxes with the discussion of these two differences.
1. The figurative character of the First covenant, 9:1-10.
2. The finality of the New Covenant, 9:11-14.
Description of the First Covenant’s “service” and “sanctuary,” vs. 1-7. In vs. 1-5, the writer quickly describes the Mosaic tabernacle, passing over any detailed description of it, v. 5. In vs. 6, 7, the writer briefly describes the “daily” service in contrast to the yearly occurrence of the Day of Atonement. Every day, the priests were in and out of the first compartment of the Tabernacle, doing those things which accompanied the “divine service” of v. 1. However, only one day a year the High Priest, never the other priests, was permitted, even required, to enter the second compartment – the Holy of Holies. It is this one day the writer will compare with the one day the Lord Jesus offered Himself.
When we say “defective,” we’re not somehow implying that God made a mistake in giving the First Covenant, or that there was some “malfunction” in it. The First Covenant worked perfectly in that for which it was designed. Just because we cannot drive a car from here to London (assuming that for you, the reader, “here” isn’t somewhere on that same island!) – neither ourselves or the car being designed for underwater travel! – doesn’t mean that the car will not function perfectly if driven on the highway.
In the same way, the Law worked perfectly in what it was designed to do.
So then, what was it designed to do?
In a nutshell, the Law was never designed to be a way to God. While it is true that a perfectly sinless and sinlessly perfect person could come that way, the fact is that we are neither sinless or perfect, but are sinful and depraved. Because of that, the Law blocks our way to God, forever making it impossible to be accepted by God on the basis of our own works. It therefore shows us that we need to be saved, as typified in the elaborate sacrificial system, which could never take away sin or cleanse the sinner.
Really, the writer isn’t considering the covenants themselves so much as the sacrifices they prescribed. It was the sacrifice which was important. Even under the First Covenant, it was impossible to approach God even typically or symbolically without a blood sacrifice, which had many restrictions and requirements, and it was (and is) impossible to live so as not to need sacrifices.
1. It is eternal, vs. 11-12. Note especially the phrase, “eternal redemption.” This could never be said of the OT sacrifices. The New Covenant is eternal because nothing else remains to be done for redemption: it has been accomplished.
No Aaronic priest would ever have dared to offer his own blood; such would have been an abomination, for no human, except the Lord Jesus, ever met or can meet the requirements God set forth for such an offering in such verses as Leviticus 1:3. Because of this imperfection, the death of the priest would have been wasted because sinful, thus adding to the problem and not solving it. This is why human sacrifice, practiced in some religions, is an abomination; the offering itself is polluted. In connection with this, note Malachi 1:8. If “blind,” “lame,” and “sick” sacrifices offend God, how much more an offering which is in itself “evil,” as a human sacrifice would be?
What volumes this says about the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ! What this says about His nature and character! Cf. 10:4. Only the sinless, perfect, incarnate Son of God was able to offer “His own blood,” to offer the ultimate and only possible sacrifice for sin.
In addition, what a rebuke this is to our perverted self-righteousness! If the ultimate human sacrifice does not prevail to take away sin, how worthless is that little piddling effort we call “sacrifice” to avail before God! By this, I am NOT downplaying the suffering and sacrifice of many of God’s people even at this very moment, even to death at the hands of their persecutors. There is much suffering, that we in the comfort of our padded pews and air-conditioned church buildings can’t even begin to imagine, in other parts of this world. Stephen in the Book of Acts might have been the first to suffer death for his faith in Christ, but he wasn’t the last. And that was at the hands of religion, as is much of the persecution of this time. And it’s likely to get worse. No, no, I’m just saying that there is no sacrifice we can make that will pay for sin.
2. It is efficacious, vs. 13, 14. Here the writer contrasts the effect, if you will, of the two covenental sacrifices. True, the OT sacrifice was able to give a certain sense of “rightness” before God. Zechariah and Elizabeth, for example, are called “righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless,” Luke 1:6. Nevertheless, there could never be a sense of more than sins “covered.” There always had to be the next sacrifice, and the work was never finished, even though the flesh might have been (ceremonially) “purified,” v. 13.
The sacrifice of Christ, however, effects an internal cleansing, “purging” the conscience. Under the First Covenant, one could never be sure that all sin had been covered. Indeed, there were some sins for which there was no sacrifice, hence, no “covering.” Under the New Covenant, however, “the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin,” 1 John 1:7.
The “dead works” of v. 14 are works done to obtain salvation. This is why the First Covenant couldn’t give an enduring “rest,” as we noted in another post; salvation can never be achieved through our own efforts, and the “covering” that was afforded by the death of an animal was only “good” for that sin and would not cover the next sin, probably committed on the way home from the first sacrifice.
In connection with this turning from “dead works,” note 1 Thessalonians 1:9, in which Paul describes how the Thessalonians “turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God.” Scripture knows nothing of a redemption that doesn’t result in a radical, Godward shift in living. Though none of us is perfect in this life, there is no such thing as a “carnal Christian” or a “Sunday-only Christian.” These might be accepted among men, but they are not accepted before God.
In v. 13, notice the phrase, “the ashes of a heifer.” Numbers 19 tells us of this sacrifice. In a carefully prescribed ceremony, in the only rite in which a female was specifically called for, a red heifer was sacrificed and her ashes were carefully collected and preserved for use in the “water of separation,” which was a “purification for sin,” Number 19:9. This was the “holy water” later used in various ceremonies. You might read that chapter to see what it says about this sacrifice. It was nothing to be slighted. Please note that it was not the water itself which purified, but the sacrifice of the heifer, as signified by the presence of her ashes.
This is a lesson for us today. There are many, for example, who insist that baptism is essential for salvation. I’ve dealt at length with this in other posts, posts about the thief on the cross and about Cornelius. There’s also a whole series on “infant baptism.” It’s enough here to say that the “water” was of no effect, no value, without the sacrifice. Baptism has its place, as do many other things which men say have to be “added,” as it were, to faith in order to be saved. But these only have value because of the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus. If any of these are “added” to that sacrifice in order for one to be saved, then faith has been corrupted and there is no salvation.
There is only one thing which can take away sin, which can “purify the flesh,” and that is the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ: “the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin,” 1 John 1:7.
Hebrews 6:19-7:28, A Tale of Two Priests.
[6:19]This hope we have as an anchor of the souls, both sure and steadfast, and which enter the Presence beyond the veil, where the forerunner has entered for us, even Jesus, having become High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.
[7:1]For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated “king of righteousness,” and then also king of Salem, meaning “king of peace,” without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.
Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils. And indeed those who are of the sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood, have a commandment to receive tithes from the people according to the law, that is, from their brethren, though they have come from the loins of Abraham; but he whose genealogy is not derived from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. Now beyond all contradiction the lesser is blessed by the better. Here mortal men receive tithes, but there he receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives. Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.
Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar.
For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. And inasmuch as He was not made priest without an oath (for they have become priests without an oath, but He with an oath by Him who said to Him: “The LORD has sworn and will not relent, ‘You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek'”), by so much better Jesus has become surety of a better covenant.
Also there were many priests, because they were prevented by death from continuing. But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood. Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
Just to remind ourselves of the purpose of Hebrews, the writer sought to explain, exhort and encourage. His believing Jewish audience had indeed professed Christ, but for whatever reason were being tempted to return to the beloved and familiar OT ritual and sacrifices. He writes to them not to do that, not to risk their eternal souls with such a grievous mistake and sin, 10:32-39. He explained to them that the person and work of the Lord Jesus were the fulfillment of all those sacrifices and ceremonies, which were only a shadow of what was coming, 10:1. He encouraged them that, though they were suffering persecution and would suffer more, 10:32, 33; 11:12-14, they weren’t following some pipe dream, mere doctrines of men, or “cunningly-devised fables,” as Peter put it, 2 Peter 1:16. They were following the One who was the Creator of the universe, the One who will ultimately complete and consummate that for which the universe was created.
Again, a key word is “better.” The immediate context, from 3:1, deals with the priesthood of Christ. It is “better” than the Levitical priesthood of Moses and Aaron for several reasons the writer lists through 10:18.
The priesthood of Christ was briefly introduced in 2:17, Christ and Moses were compared and contrasted, and then in the section ending in 6:20, the writer applied the preeminence of Christ to the lives of his readers, before again returning to the priesthood of Christ.
1. The type of the priesthood of Melchizedek,7:1-10.
2. The temporary nature of the Aaronic priesthood, 7:11-28.
1. Type of the priesthood of Melchizedek, 7:1-10.
The Historical Incident, vs. 1-3. Genesis 14:18-20 is the only place Melchizedek actually appears, and nothing is known of him except what is mentioned there and in Hebrews 7:13. There are those who believe, from Hebrews 7:3, that Melchizedek was, or is, actually Christ (remains a priest continually). However, there are some difficulties with that view and for the following reasons, we believe that Melchizedek was an ordinary man, highly blessed though he may have been.
1. Both Genesis and Hebrews call him “king of Salem.” While it is true that “Salem” is a form of “shalom,” (“peace”), and Jesus is “the Prince of Peace,” we believe this is simply a reference to Jerusalem.
2. Note vs. 3, which says that Melchizedek was made like the Son of God (emphasis added). It doesn’t say that he was the Son of God. In Christ, there arises another priest, after the likeness of Melchizedek, v. 15 (emphasis added). Melchizedek was merely a type, a foreshadowing, of the coming Son of God.
3. What about v. 3, which describes Melchizedek as being without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end or life? Doesn’t this prove Melchizedek to have been Christ? I don’t think it does. After all, as a man, Christ had a father (though virgin-born, Joseph was His “legal” father), and mother, a genealogy (two of them, in fact: both Joseph’s and Mary’s), birth and death. He had all those things which Melchizedek is said not to have had.
4. Note again in v. 3, “made like”. For the purpose of Scripture in treating Melchizedek as a type of Christ, none of these things is mentioned. 7:6 implies that he did, in fact, have a genealogy, distinct from that of Aaron.
The Practical Application, vs. 4-10. So, we might say, what is the purpose of these references to Melchizedek? Simply this, as a “priest of the Most High God” (was Aaron ever called this?), Melchizedek was not dependent on Aaron or his priesthood for his own priesthood. Neither was he dependent on the Mosaic Law. He lived more than 400 years before Moses and Aaron.
Remember what the author taught in the last part of ch. 6. He spoke of our two-fold “hope” of inheriting God’s promise: the oath of God Himself with regard to that promise, and the priestly ministry of Christ, which rises out of that promise. As Melchizedek was independent of the Mosaic Covenant and the Aaronic priesthood, likewise the promise of God and the priesthood of Christ are independent of them.
The writer develops that thought in vs. 4-10. Usually used in connection with trying to enforce tithing on Christians, this portion actually has nothing to do with either the practice or the applicability of tithing. It simply points out that the Levitical priesthood (so named after “Levi,” a son of Aaron) descended from Abraham, and so could be said to be “in him” in Genesis 14. Under the Law, the Levitical priesthood received tithes; this was their means of livelihood as well as the upkeep of the Tabernacle. “In Abraham” they paid tithes, hence, the writer argues, Melchizedek was superior to the Levitical priesthood. Typically shown, therefore, Christ is superior to Aaron.
As seen by it’s “imperfection,” vs. 11-15.
1. as regards it’s “effectiveness,” vs. 11, 18-19. The very fact that the Law was unable to produce “perfection” demonstrates the need for something that could produce it, cf. Romans 8:3, 4. The word translated “perfection” doesn’t refer to “sinlessness,” but “completion”. The Law and the priesthood could not “complete” redemption, therefore the Law only served until the introduction of its replacement, cf. Galatians 3:19.
2. as regards its “exclusiveness,” vs. 12-15. There were strict instructions regarding who could be a priest, even in the Aaronic line. A priest had to be a Levite, but our Lord was of the tribe of Judah, v. 14. The change from Aaron to Christ also intimates a change of the Law, vs. 12-14. In this way the temporary nature both of the Mosaic Law and of the Aaronic priesthood was shown.
As seen by its inferiority, vs. 16-28.
1. in contrast to the commencement of Christ’s priesthood, vs. 16-22. In all the Law, there is no promise to any particular priest of a lasting priesthood. Indeed, in the very beginning, God made provision for the passing of the priesthood from father to son, Exodus 29:29. No oath was ever given to any priest.
2. in contrast to the continuity of Christ’s priesthood, vs. 23-25. This goes along with the previous thought. Only the Lord Jesus has a guarantee of personal perpetuity.
3. in contrast to the completeness of Christ’s priesthood, vs. 26-27. Christ was able to do what no Levitical priest could ever do, v. 25. Though this thought will be developed by the writer further on, here he just points out the unique nature of Christ’s one sacrifice in contrast to the monotonous frequency of OT sacrifices.
4. in contrast to the character of Christ’s priesthood, v. 28. Cf. 5:2, 3. There is no such thing as “infirmity” in the Lord Jesus. Cf. 7:26.
But, beloved, we are confident of better things concerning you, yes, things that accompany salvation, though we speak in this manner. For God is not unjust to forget your work and labor of love which you have shown toward His name, in that you have ministered to the saints, and do minister And we desire that each one of you show the same diligence to the full assurance of hope until the end, that you do not become sluggish, but imitate those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.
For when God made a promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no greater, he swore by himself, saying, “Surely blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply you.” And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. For men indeed swear by the greater, and an oath for confirmation is for them an end of all dispute. Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath, that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us.
So, how does he know they’re “saved,” to use our phrase? Does he look to their “profession of faith,” or their baptism, or their church membership, or any of a number of other things we tend to look at?
These might have their place, but of these Hebrew believers our writer mentions their “work and labor of love,” v. 10.
By this, was he suggesting that these Jewish believers were saved by works? Of course not.
We’ve dealt with this in other posts, but need to bring it in here as well. There is quite a discussion in evangelical circles about the place of “faith” and “works.” Some insist that we’re saved by “faith alone,” and works have no place at all in our being saved. As long as we “believe,” that’s all that’s necessary. Others insist that we must have works along with faith in order to be saved. We must be baptized or keep the Sabbath or any number of others things besides or along with faith in order to be saved.
In his writings, Paul put it like this: For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love, Galatians 5:6.
“Faith” isn’t just some passive intellectual agreement with certain facts or teachings. It’s not about memorizing the Catechism. Nor is it some kind of experience by which we’re elevated to some mystical “higher plane of existence.” As we’ll see from Hebrews 11, faith is an active, obedient response to the Word of God. So it was with these believers in Hebrews 6.
While it’s true that they “ministered to the saints,” it was really toward God that they were showing love. This is the “motivation” of love, if you will. Not to gain divine favor, but because we’ve already received it. We’ve received it in such abundance that we can’t even begin to understand it.
Though the whole post won’t be finished for a few days, as I write this paragraph, yesterday was Christmas. Leaving out the celebrations of the world with Santa, red-nosed reindeer, decorations, parties, family get-togethers and what not, how much time do we really spend thinking about “Christmas”? We might have a “nativity set” on the mantel or out in the front yard. But it’s likely to share space with Santa or fancy lights or decorations, maybe a snow man or two. Things which Christmas is really about in our time.
There used to be a TV show in which those who entered a certain place were promised a “world of endless wonder.” That’s what Christmas is supposed to have – endless wonder that that little Babe was in reality the Creator and Sustainer of the universe. That Mary and Joseph were as dependent on Him as He was on them. That this little ignored, unknown Infant was in reality the Savior of the human race. That without Him, there is no hope and no future worth thinking about. Without Him, there’s not even a “present” worth bothering about. Not “present” as in “gift,” which is mostly what Christmas is about any more, but as in “the present” – “now,” “today.” And that He one day will return to this planet in glory and honor. All that, and infinitely more, is involved in what happened on that day so long ago. This is what Christmas is really about.
Now, this “hope” doesn’t mean “hope so,” as in, say, buying a lottery ticket and “hoping” to win the jackpot. It’s a confident certainty about something. The writer will have more to say about this a little later.
He also wanted them to remember those in faith who had gone before, “those who through faith and patience inherit the promises,” v. 12. The purpose and promise of God concern so much more than the few minutes we walk on this earth.
Saying that, the writer focuses his attention on Abraham, the first one to receive the promises upon which Israel rested, vs. 13-18, promises themselves which “accompany salvation”. After he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise, v. 15. He “patiently endured.” Was he “perfect”? By no means! Did he do things which, in hindsight, would have been better left not done? Absolutely. We’ll have a lot more to say about Abraham, Lord willing, when we get to chapter 11. And we had a bit to say about him in our studies on Genesis, (for example https://nightlightblogdotcom.wordpress.com/2013/11/17/abraham-believed-god-genesis-15-romans-4/). Abraham waited years for the conception and birth of Isaac. For all his shortcomings, though, he never turned his back on or denied the God Who promised that son.
The thing I find almost unbelievable is in vs. 17 and 18: Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath, that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God, to lie, we might have strong consolation….
We live in a time where “God” has been brought down to our level, or even below it. We’re taught that we can mess up His will, or that “He’s done all He can do,” and now it’s up to us, or that He has to wait for us to “do our part” before He can do His part. In short, He’s been reduced to little more than a humble supplicant at the throne of the human will; He can’t do anything to or with us unless we are “willing.” I have a hard time even writing that of the God of the universe, but that’s an all-too-common view of Him.
However, Scripture says that God humbles Himself to behold the things that are in the heavens and in the earth! May I say that He humbles Himself even further in the things He’s willing to do to convince our stubborn, rebellious selves that He can be trusted.
There used to be a saying that I haven’t seen for a while: “God said it. I believe it. That settles it.” The only trouble is that it’s not true. The emphasis is all wrong. God said it and that settles it, whether anyone believes it or not! A pagan king in the Old Testament had a higher concept of God than many “Bible-believing” Christians have today. In Daniel 4:34, 35, Nebuchadnezzar said, “His dominion is an everlasting dominion, and His kingdom is from generation to generation. All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; He does according to His will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth. None can stay His hand or say to Him, ‘What have you done?'” Because of this, there are those who say that Nebuchadnezzar was saved, but there’s never any evidence that he called the God of the Bible “his” God. Indeed, in recounting all the experiences which led to the declaration of vs. 34, 35, he referred to Daniel as “Belteshazzar, according to the name of my god,” even though, in the same sentence, he admitted that “the Spirit of the Holy God” was in Daniel, Daniel 4:8 (emphasis added).
The writer says that “we” have hope. But this hope doesn’t include a promised land. Israel entered that land under Joshua, thus beginning a series of gains and losses until she lost it under the Romans until 1948, when she was again granted title to the land – not without continuing controversy and battle. If I read Zechariah 14 correctly, she’ll lose it again – this time seemingly for good. Until the Lord sets foot on the Mount of Olives.
No, no. The writer says that our hope lies in heaven, a strong consolation, v. 18, a hope both steadfast and sure, v. 19. And that hope is in a Person, even Jesus, who has become High Priest forever…, v. 20. It’s interesting that the writer has referred to the Lord as Prophet and now as Priest, but he never refers to Him as King. That’s because He still has work to do as Priest. Not only did the OT priest make the sacrifice of an animal, but, once a year, the High Priest had to bring the blood of a sacrifice into the Holy of Holies and sprinkle it on the mercy seat.
Now we don’t have an earthly tabernacle and mercy seat. And our High Priest doesn’t function with the pomp and ceremony of an earthly liturgy. Nor do we need an intermediary to approach the throne for us other than the Lord Jesus. Not only has the blood of the sacrifice been sprinkled on the mercy seat, but the very One whose blood it was sits there as well – interceding for those for whom that blood was shed. He is our hope, not us.
I don’t really know how to bring all this to a close. Shouldn’t the fact that “God said it” be enough for us? Without His having to take oath about it? I understand that unbelievers and skeptics won’t believe it. They’re just doing what comes naturally. But believers – that should be a different story.
God said it – that settles it.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.