The study by psychologist Nicholas Zill, the founder of Child Trends, and statistician Philip Fletcher found that children in such a situation -- when compared to children not living with both parents and not attending religious services regularly -- are 5.5 times less likely to have repeated a grade and 2.5 less likely to have had their parents contacted by the school because of a conduct or achievement problem.

Additionally, intact families who have regular religious participation (defined as at least weekly or monthly) are less likely to report parental stress and more likely to report a "better parent-child relationship," the analysis, which focused on families with children ages 6-17, says.

The study, co-released by the Family Research Council and more than 30 state family councils as part of FRC's Mapping America project, was based on interviews in 2003 with parents of more than 100,000 children and teens by the National Center for Health Statistics for the National Survey of Children's Health.

The data "hold up after controlling for family income and poverty, low parent education levels, and race and ethnicity."

"An intact two-parent family and regular church attendance are each associated with fewer problem behaviors, more positive social development, and fewer parental concerns about the child's learning and achievement," Zill and Fletcher wrote. "Taken together, the two home-environment factors have an additive relationship with child well-being. That is, children who live in an intact family and attend religious services regularly generally come out best on child development measures, while children who do neither come out worst. Children with one factor in their favor, but not the other, fall in between ...."

The authors said that children in an intact religious family "are more likely to exhibit positive social behavior, including showing respect for teachers and neighbors, getting along with other children, understanding other people's feelings, and trying to resolve conflicts with classmates, family, or friends."

Pat Fagan, the director of FRC's Center for Family and Religion, said the study should impact social policy.

"Social science data continue to demonstrate overwhelmingly that the intact married family that worships weekly is the greatest generator of human goods and social benefits and is the core strength of the United States," he said in a statement. "Policy makers should strongly consider whether their policy proposals give support to such a family structure. Children are not the only beneficiaries but also their parents, families, communities, and all of society."

Michael Foust is an assistant editor of Baptist Press. The entire report can be read online at www.mappingamericaproject.org.

Copyright (c) 2008 Southern Baptist Convention, Baptist Press www.BPNews.net

I found this on the Internet and thought this was something worthwhile to comment on.

Reuters – Are photographs of a mother breast-feeding her child indecent?

The social networking site Facebook has sparked a massive online debate — and protests — and after removing photos that expose too much of a mother's breast.

Facebook spokesman Barry Schnitt said the Web site takes no action over most breast-feeding photos because they follow the site's terms of use but others are removed to ensure the site remains safe and secure for all users, including children.

Of course, this is controversial subject and there are grey areas. What is indecent, some people ask? It’s a beautiful natural thing, breast feeding. I did it myself. What could possibly be the problem?

Indecency is, some insist, in the eye or the mentality of the beholder, so those who object to my definition of decency should just not look. Well, that’s one argument and it might have some validity if we didn’t already have standards of decency codified into law.

Many years ago, my husband was taking a sign language and one of the women in the class had a newborn baby. She was in the habit of lifting her T-shirt, sans bra, to nurse the little one at regular intervals. The teacher, a deaf woman, noted quickly that the men in the class became immediately uncomfortable and distracted. Later, in conversation with my husband, she asked him if he felt like he’d been flashed. My husband grew up (part of his childhood, anyway) in New York City when flashers were a common experience on the streets and in the subways. There were laws against it and the laws became tighter with time. My husband says, while he accepted it was illegal, he never really understood why women got so upset about it until that incident. Here was a woman’s breasts just out there in front of him without his permission.

There are times and places when nudity is perfectly acceptable. Nudity flies my bedroom. I am personally not bothered by nudity in the locker room. But in mixed-gender settings, on public .transportation, in parks, etc., men and women both should keep their clothes on.

I can hear the howls – WHAT ABOUT THE BABIES??!!! How dare I suggest that infants starve for social convention! I breast-fed both my children in public. However, I did it in such a way that no casual observer would know that I was breast-feeding. I used scarves, blankets, and big sweatshirts to create discreet screening and meet the needs of my babies without assaulting the general public with unsolicited nudity. There is no difference between a man dropping his pants to assault a woman with visions of his equipment and a woman flipping up her t-shirt to show her breasts to the world. The altruistic impulse to breast-feed is no excuse. Cover up! You can breast-feed without showing the world your breasts. I know because I’ve done it!

Which makes more sense when you’re hungry – eating a good meal or reading a cookbook? Obviously there is nothing wrong with reading a cookbook (as the daughter of a professional chef, I find it most rewarding to read my father’s recipes), but recipes without actual food aren’t very nourishing.

Some of those in the original audience for the Letter to the Hebrews were doing something very much like that. They preferred to content themselves with the externals of faith---the law, the Aaronic priesthood and animal offerings---while ignoring the fulfillment of these things in the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. They wanted the cookbook rather than the meal!

As our study so far has revealed, the tabernacle in the wilderness, with its regulations and sacrifices, was an accurate divinely drawn picture of the sacrifice of Jesus and the new life which would be available to believers in Christ. It could only describe these realities up to a point. It was both a comparison and a contrast.

I have a photograph of my husband on the bookcase in my office. I like to look at it when he’s working “up north”. It makes me feel a bit closer to him. Yet, it is inadequate. It isn’t really my husband. It is just a representation of him. Looking at it isn’t the same as having a conversation with him or having his arms around me. Though it is an accurate representation of BJ, the photograph is nothing like BJ in reality. Similarly, the law and the tabernacle could never do for believers what the living Christ can do. This is the continuing argument of the writers in chapter 10.

“For the law possesses a shadow of the good things to come but not the reality itself, and is therefore completely unable, by the same sacrifices offered continually, year after year, to perfect those who come to worship.  For otherwise would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers would have been purified once for all and so have ²  no further consciousness of sin? But in those sacrifices ³  there is a reminder of sins year after year. For the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sins. So when he came into the world, he said,  “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me. “Whole burnt offerings and sin-offerings you took no delight in. “Then I said, ‘Here I am:⁵  I have come – it is written of me in the scroll of the book – to do your will, O God.’” 

“When he says above, “Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sin-offerings you did not desire nor did you take delight in them” ⁷  (which are offered according to the law), then he says, “Here I am: I have come to do your will.” ⁸  He does away with ⁹  the first to establish the second. By his will we have been made holy through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”  Hebrews 10:1-10

Jesus entered the world prepared to make the sacrifice for our salvation. It was no impulsive commitment on his part; he made it only after he had observed human misery. Building on a prior point, the authors explained that the annual repetition of sacrifices in the old order indicated their inability to actually remove sins. Had they truly cleansed the conscience, there would have been no need to repeat them; those offering the sacrifices would have seen themselves as cleansed from sin's defilement forever. Thus it is clear these sacrifices could not remove sin (evidenced by resultant guilt) because they were based only on the death of animals.

The annual repetition did remind those offering them that they were still very much sinners in need of an adequate substitute if their sin was ever to be removed. The sacrifices were but a shadow of the good things that are coming---not the realities themselves. A shadow indicates a reality, but has no substance in itself. It is merely a reflection of reality that may or may not also be visible. The offerings witnessed to the person of Christ and His sacrifice, but they were not that reality themselves. They were His shadow indicating he was soon to appear.

The Day of Atonement could never achieve perfection, thus the good things were yet to come. To make sinner perfect before God would require that sin and its effects be totally removed. We’re speaking of the effects not only one the spirit and soul, but also upon the body, which requires regeneration, full sanctification and resurrection. Our resurrection awaits the final coming of Christ, nevertheless, full and continuing access to God, "without the constant necessity of removing the barrier of freshly accumulated sin" (Bruce 1964:227), was available by faith to every believer in Jesus throughout the believer's lifetime (Romans 5:1-2).

Animal deaths were unwilling, even unconscious, sacrifices of a lower and quite different nature and therefore inadequate substitutes for humans made in the image of God. The authors of Hebrews declared that “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin”, but they were not the first to say this. Isaiah had quoted God long before saying, "I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats" (Isaiah 1:11). Despite the limitations associated with the animal sacrificial system, one unchanging message rang through it. Every sacrifice and offering told the same story in blood and smoke to every listening heart. The essential point for a God-approved dealing with sin in one's life was that a life be laid down. Every dying animal meant a life brought to an end. Sin was serious; it forfeited life. Unless the sin could actually be removed, the sinner must die. To save the sinner from such a fate, an equal and willing substitute must be found.

In verses 5-7 the writers quote Psalm 40:6-8, describing, in words directly ascribed to Christ, His complete willingness to sacrifice Himself to remove our sins. His was a self-giving life, not self-loving. Jesus saw Himself described in the Suffering Servant passages of the Old Testament (it is written about me in the scroll), and willingly set Himself to fulfilling that role in His incarnation (Here I am....I have come to do your will O God). Wholehearted obedience is the quality which God desires in sacrifices, a point made many times in the Old Testament (1 Samuel 15:22; Isaiah 1:11-14; and Amos 5:21-22).  God took no delight in the routine performance of ritual sacrifice in the Temple. Undoubtedly, He feels the same way about routine worship services today!

The writers of Hebrews took pains to indicate the meaning of the quote they used. They didn’t want their readers to miss this all important point. God authorized the animal sacrifices of the past, but He did not delight in them. The writers stressed that Christ deliberately set Himself to do the will of the Father, though He knew it would lead to pain and separation. The death of Jesus, by fulfilling the will of the Father, completely replaced the provision of animal deaths which had provided some degree of forgiveness before. The only possible conclusion, according to the writers of Hebrews, is that God’s will was fulfilled by the once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus which makes all believers holy. The Greek expression for made holy, indicates action with a lasting effect. We have been made holy by the death of Jesus, and we remain holy even though we struggle with daily weakness and sin. We should keep this in mind as we consider Hebrews 12:14 "without holiness no one will see the Lord." Holiness is obtained by faith, not by self-righteous effort, and it is not lost by momentary failure. "There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus!" (Romans 8:1)

“And every priest stands day after day ¹¹  serving and offering the same sacrifices again and again – sacrifices that can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, he sat down at the right hand of God, where he is now waiting until his enemies are made a footstool for his feet.  For by one offering he has perfected for all time those who are made holy. And the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us, for after saying,   “This is the covenant that I will establish with them after those days, says the Lord. I will put my laws on their hearts and I will inscribe them on their minds,” then he says, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no longer.” Now where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.” Hebrews 10:11-18

The tabernacle of Israel contained no chairs. I know, that had to be pointed out to me too. The priests were not permitted to sit; they performed their ministries while standing. The writers of Hebrews submitted that this symbolically shows their work was unfinished so their repeated sacrifices could not finally remove sins. When Christ had offered Himself as a sacrifice for all time, he sat down at God's right hand (Hebrews 1:3; 8:1; 12:2). Why?

First, He’d finished His work. There was nothing left to do except to await the outworking of the salvation He had accomplished on the cross. This would involve His mediation of the new covenant and intercession for believers. No further sacrifice of any kind was required or needed. Enough had already been done to deal with every form of sin or rebellion. He could remain figuratively seated until His enemies had been totally rendered impotent (made his footstool---an allusion again to Psalm 110:1).

Second, His sacrifice was so efficacious that it guaranteed the fine perfection of all those who were being made holy, involving the regeneration of the spirit, salvation of the soul, and the resurrection of the body of each true believer. It is both an accomplished fact (10:10) and a continuing process (10:14), a phenomenon found frequently in Scripture. We may not understand such a mystery, but we can revel in its reality, as the writers intended us to do. All progress in the spiritual life comes from personally apprehending a fact that is already true. We must see what we already are by God's grace, in order to manifest that fact by godly behavior.

The Aaronic priesthood; the tabernacle with its typology, its cleansing rituals and animal sacrifices; and the dietary limitations of Israel---all found completion in the once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus and His Melchizedek priesthood. The new covenant is in force for all who truly believe. "The old has gone, the new has come!" (2 Corinthians 5:17).

The tabernacle was beautiful, a truly worshipful place, but God was not finished with mankind yet and, thus a new era of perfection was coming their way. As beautiful as the tabernacle had been, it would be replaced by something far more thrilling.

“But now Christ has come as the high priest of the good things to come. He passed through the greater and more perfect tent not made with hands, that is, not of this creation, and he entered once for all into the most holy place not by the blood of goats and calves but by his own blood, and so he himself secured  eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a young cow sprinkled on those who are defiled consecrated them and provided ritual purity,  how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our consciences from dead works to worship the living God.” Hebrews 9:11-14

The readers of the Book of Hebrews must have asked themselves what reality the tabernacle copied.  The writers told them that the reality was greater and more perfect than the copy because it was not man-made and was not part of this creation. Jesus had entered God’s presence because, as His Son, He had that right (Ephesians 3:16-17). The fact that this house is also termed heaven is difficult for us to grasp, since we tend to think of heaven spatially. It is "up there" or "out there" or even in some distant part of outer space. If we would eliminate spatial terms from our thinking, we could come to think of heaven as simply another dimension of existence, as another realm of invisible realities just beyond our senses---the spiritual kingdom in which God, angels and even demons, function.  What the Bible seeks to teach us, and what is difficult for us to apprehend, is that we too can function in this dimension for it is the dimension of our spirits. Thus, Paul could say, "And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus" (Ephesians 2:6). Jesus told us, "God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24), and Paul added, "He who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit" (1 Corinthians 6:17).

All of this strongly suggests that what Moses saw on the mountain was the human person as we are meant to be, the dwelling place of God---the Holy of Holies. John told us in Revelation, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God." It is no accident that Revelation sounds reminiscent of the promises of the new covenant described in Hebrews 8.  God had this in mind from the very beginning

This view of the true tabernacle as the human person is also supported by Paul in his description of what awaits believers at death. "Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands" (2 Corinthians 5:1). Here the phrase "not built by human hands" is the same as that in Hebrews 9:11 translated "not man-made." It is clearly a reference to the resurrection of the body. This would also explain the phrase not a part of this creation in Hebrews.  Our humanity was not created in a glorified state. A glorified body is an additional step which Adam did not know in his earthly existence and which would, therefore, be "not of this creation."

The point our authors make is that if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer offered in the tabernacle of old sufficed to cleanse the sins of those ceremonially unclean and to forgive the rebellions of the past so that the people were temporarily acceptable to God, how much more does the blood of Christ cleanse our consciences from sin's defilement today? They had only animals to offer in sacrifice, and it was necessary to repeat them again and again. Christ offered only one sacrifice, not an animal but Himself, and He did it once for all. This indicated its continuing, unbroken efficacy, which obtained not merely a temporary and outward cleansing, but eternal redemption. As we have seen, it is the conscience which acts as a barrier to God's presence. Like Adam after the Fall, we tend to hide ourselves from God, fearing His judgment. Conscience cannot be rendered inactive by our will, though its voice can be muffled. It is only silenced when we see that God is not unhappy or angry with us. Since Jesus offered Himself unblemished to God in our place, God's justice no longer makes demands upon us. We may, therefore, set aside useless rituals and so feel ourselves free in His presence to serve the Living God.

“And so he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the eternal inheritance he has promised, since he died to set them free from the violations committed under the first covenant. For where there is a will, the death of the one who made it must be proven.  For a will takes effect only at death, since it carries no force while the one who made it is alive. So even the first covenant was inaugurated with blood.  For when Moses had spoken every command to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats with water and scarlet wool and hyssop and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that God has commanded you to keep.” And both the tabernacle and all the utensils of worship he likewise sprinkled with blood. Indeed according to the law almost everything was purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. So it was necessary for the sketches of the things in heaven to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves required better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with hands – the representation of the true sanctuary – but into heaven itself, and he appears now in God’s presence for us. And he did not enter to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the sanctuary year after year with blood that is not his own, for then he would have had to suffer again and again since the foundation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the consummation of the ages to put away sin by his sacrifice. And just as people are appointed to die once, and then to face judgment, so also, after Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many, to those who eagerly await him he will appear a second time, not to bear sin but to bring salvation.” Hebrews 9:15-28 

Christ is seen both as the will-maker Who dies, and the executor Who administers the estate, just as He was both the offering for sin and the high priest Who offered it. The phrase For this reason in verse 15 looks back to verse 14, that we may serve the living God. The promised Messiah administers the new covenant to those who are called in order that they may be equipped to serve the living and true God. That equipping capability of the new covenant is called the promised eternal inheritance. We have already seen that it consists of an inner understanding of the nature of both good and evil; an intimate, Father-child relationship with God; and a total and continuing forgiveness of sins. This is the inheritance which our Mediator offers to us whenever we come to the throne of grace (Hebrews 4:16) to receive it by faith. Just as the heir of a fortune may draw from its resources at any time, so we are expected to draw from this great bequest, as it is now available to us after the death of the testator.

The old covenant was based upon death---the death of animals. Without such a death, even the limited forgiveness provided for in the first covenant could not take effect, for without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. A striking scene is described in Exodus 24:8 when Moses sprinkled the blood upon the people. It was meant to impress on them that sin cannot be set aside, even by a loving God, without a death occurring. His judicial sentence, "the soul who sins is the one who will die" (Ezekiel 18:4), must be carried out. By sprinkling the blood of an animal on the people, Moses was saying that God would accept that substitution as a temporary reprieve until the true Substitute should come. The people must realize that sin is serious, since only death can relieve it. When the new covenant replaced the old, it not only removed sin through the death of Jesus but provided a new understanding and a new intimacy that makes the service of God a delight and an enriching experience.

By contrast, the author stressed again the value of the death of Jesus. The blood of Jesus was an infinitely better sacrifice than the animal deaths that purified the copies of the heavenly things contained in the tabernacle. The imagery here was drawn from the Day of Atonement, but we must not think of Jesus as bearing a basin of His own blood into heaven to present it before the throne of God at His ascension (there are commentators who interpret this so). The rending of the curtain in the temple at the time of the crucifixion is ample evidence to indicate that the blood shed in the death of Jesus was the moment when full atonement for sin was accomplished.

The writers stressed the contrast between the repeated offerings of the high priest in the tabernacle on the Day of Atonement and the one offering of Jesus upon the cross. The infinitely superior nature of Christ's sacrifice, founded on His deity and sinless humanity, made His one offering enough for all time. He need not suffer many times since the creation of the world to do away with sin, but the one sacrifice of Himself was sufficient.

As we have already noted, the entrance, by faith, of Jesus into the spirit of a believer gives this person access to the heavenly reality which corresponds to the earthly Holy of Holies. That is where God now dwells (John 14:20, 23), and where our great high priest makes intercession for his own. He has no need to suffer and die again since his perfect sacrifice of himself completely satisfied every demand of divine justice. He can now sustain and support his people without any limitation on himself arising from their sins, since that has been settled forever in the once-for-all sacrifice of the cross. The phrase the end of the ages designates the present age as the last of a series. It marks the end of human history as we know it.

Just as any fallen human being is destined to die once for all time, with judgment awaiting beyond death, so Christ also died once for all time to deal with sin. For the many who trust in Him, it is not judgment that awaits beyond their personal death. This judgment has been forever removed by the sacrifice of Christ. Instead, they may confidently expect that He will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for Him. This would include the resurrection of the body. For Christians, the spirit has been regenerated already and the soul is being saved as Christ-likeness is formed in the believer (2 Corinthians 3:18). What yet awaits is the raising of the body so that the whole person becomes a dwelling place of God forever. This is the only place in the New Testament where the return of Christ is called a second coming. During His first coming, He dealt with the problem of human sin on the cross; at His second coming the full effect of that sacrifice will be manifested in the resurrection (or "transformation"---1 Corinthians 15:51-52) of the bodies of those who wait for Him.

Once more, the writers returned to their thought in Hebrews 2:5-9. They viewed Jesus as God’s ideal human being, ruling over the world to come. The final triumph of Jesus will appear again at the end of chapter 10, as the author concludes his survey of the privileges and possibilities of the new covenant.

For us, the return of Christ raises the question Peter asked in light of such events, "What kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God" (2 Peter 3 12).

In C. S. Lewis' well-known Chronicles of Narnia, he described how several quite ordinary English children, while playing hide-and-seek, enter a quite ordinary English wardrobe. Pressing deeper into the familiar garments, they suddenly find themselves in a strange and mysterious land. Those who think deeply about what Scripture says about that humble structure of skins and panels called the tabernacle have a similar experience. At first, all is factual, measurable and straightforward, yet as we press deeper the walls silently move back and the commonplace begins to glow, and soon we find ourselves before the awesome throne of God in a heavenly temple, surrounded by myriad worshipping angels, and watching the ritual of redemption through wholly transformed eyes.

“Now the first covenant, in fact, had regulations for worship and its earthly sanctuary. For a tent was prepared, the outer one, which contained the lamp stand, the table, and the presentation of the loaves; this is called the holy place. And after the second curtain there was a tent called the holy of holies. It contained the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered entirely with gold. In this ark was the golden urn containing the manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. And above the ark were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Now is not the time to speak of these things in detail.” Hebrews 9:1-5

The typology of the tabernacle has great meaning for believers today since it depicts the eternal truths which Moses saw, associated with the new covenant and its priesthood. If we wish to truly understand the new priesthood and covenant, we must carefully study the tabernacle, both its structure and its rituals. Those from Jewish backgrounds could readily accept what Barnabas and Apollos were writing here, for they sought to build on this knowledge to unfold the great advantages of the new ministry.

The tabernacle had three main parts. The first, accessible to everyone, was the outer court, which was entered through a single gate. It was here that the brazen altar of sacrifice stood. Behind that was the brass basin (or laver) which was used for cleansing of the priests. Only priests were allowed here.  The third section was the skin-covered, rectangular building of the tabernacle proper. That building was divided into two rooms, separated by a curtain. The first room was called the Holy Place and contained the seven-branched lamp stand (the Menorah), the table of showbread and the golden altar of incense. In verse 4, the writers placed the altar of incense within the second room, the Most Holy Place (more literally in Hebrew idiom the "Holy of Holies"), because it was closely associated in worship with the ark of the covenant and its mercy seat. The ark of the covenant actually stood alone behind the second curtain. In this Most Holy Place the ark of the covenant represented the dwelling place of God, visible in the Shekinah, or glowing light, which rested between the cherubim atop the mercy seat. Within the ark were Israel's most treasured possessions: the jar of manna which never spoiled (Exodus 16:32); Aaron's staff which had sprouted and borne fruit when Aaron's priesthood had been challenged by the heads of the other tribes (Numbers 17:8-10); and the actual tables of the law which Moses had brought down from the mountain, written on by the finger of God (Exodus 32:15).

“So with these things prepared like this, the priests enter continually into the outer tent as they perform their duties. But only the high priest enters once a year into the inner tent, and not without blood that he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance. The Holy Spirit is making clear that the way into the holy place had not yet appeared as long as the old tabernacle was standing. This was a symbol for the time then present, when gifts and sacrifices were offered that could not perfect the conscience of the worshiper. They served only for matters of food and drink and various washings; they are external regulations imposed until the new order came.^” Hebrews 9:6-10

There was a special sanctity about the Most Holy Place and the ark of the covenant. No ordinary Israelite could ever enter the Holy Place where the Menorah, table of showbread and altar of incense stood, but the priests went in there daily to perform their ministrations. Even the priests could not enter the Most Holy Place and stand before the ark of the covenant. Only the high priest could do so, and then only once a year on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). He must take with him a basin of blood from the goat which had been sacrificed on that day and sprinkle that blood on the mercy seat for his own sins and the sins of the people (Leviticus 16).

What did all this carefully prepared building, furniture and ritual represent? What was the reality of which all this was only a copy? What did Moses see on the holy mountain which he faithfully reproduced in a symbolic copy, the tabernacle? Here in Hebrews we find a suggested answer, but the writers quickly move on to the more important point, rather than focusing on the tabernacle.

The Levitical offerings had to be repeated continually---even the offering of the high priest on the Day of Atonement when he entered the Holy of Holies once a year. This endless repetition meant that nothing permanent was ever accomplished by the Aaronic priesthood. While the first tabernacle still had any standing, it was merely a pre-taste of what God was bringing to mankind through Jesus. The first tabernacle had to lose its standing before the reality it prefigured could be understood. It was an illustration for the present time (v. 9). The old arrangement pictured the new, but the old proved ineffective, for it could not touch the inner, but only the outer, life. The veil that stood before the Most Holy Place constituted a barrier to the presence of God. All Israelites, who knew of that barrier, must have felt a continuing deep sense of personal uncleanness until the next year's Day of Atonement. Their consciences would know no relief, for they must feel separated from God until the yearly sacrifice could be repeated.

The tabernacle worship, with all the provisions of bread, incense, offerings---even the ornate building itself with its altars---was all a kind of religious play. It was meant to teach the people what was going on in their inner life and what was still needed to truly free them from sin's burden and give them unfettered and continuing access to the Living God. Their bodies could be rendered temporarily clean before God by the various ceremonial washings (v. 10), but their consciences remained defiled. Since they could find no heart-rest in the tabernacle ritual, they were being encouraged to look beyond the outward drama to what was truly important. When Christ died and the veil of the temple was tom from top to bottom God was saying: "The time has come; the way of access is fully open; the need for pictures is over."

This has been the argument of Hebrews all along. To cling to the shadows of the past and not to move on to the clear light of the great reality in Christ is to put our whole eternal destiny at stake; to be in danger of drifting into a total apostasy. Let the tabernacle and its ritual lose its standing in our eyes. Go on to the reality to which the Holy Spirit is pointing---the full forgiveness of sins of the new covenant and the resulting intimacy with God.

Those who today try to earn a sense of being pleasing to God by good behavior need to hear this lesson. Never knowing when they have done enough, they feel troubled and restive without any heart-peace and thus are often driven to extreme measures of self-punishment and despair. They need to cease from their efforts and trust in Christ's completed work.

Where is the offense?

Lately I’ve heard radical atheists saying and writing how offensive the Nativity scene is to them and I have to ask “Why?” This probably speaks to some psychological need of mine to stick my finger in wet paint, but I really wish one of them could adequately explain why they are offended by a collection of dolls and wood that symbolizes hope for billions.  So far, all answers I’ve received have been inadequate.

Most of the folks I encounter (and I do work at lefty loony central, so I have a large crowd to sample) usually just get frustrated with my question and insist that it’s obvious. Some will say it’s because the Christian celebration of Christmas is exclusive, blocking out any other religion. We settled that issue in the mailroom yesterday by asking a Jewish coworker if he was offended by being left out of the Christian celebration of Christmas. He noted that he’s been invited to Christmas celebrations and he invites Christians to Hanukah. What’s exclusive about it, he asked? I would observe that I’ve never met an observant Jew who was offended by the Nativity scene, nor have I met observant Christians (who didn’t need mental health treatment) who were offended by the menorah. I think the exclusionary aspect is a non-starter. Christianity is a religion where God made the supreme sacrifice to offer a wide open door to Heaven. You don’t even have to live a good life, just legitimately believe and confess on your death bed and you can get in. There’s not a lot of exclusion there.

Someone on a Town Hall thread said he was offended by the requirement to kneel down to that infant.  And, I think that is where the answer lies. They are offended by that infant and the suggestion that He is the God of the Universe. From a mental health worker’s perspective, there is something deeply psychological about grown people who are afraid of an infant. I think God knew what He was doing when He came down to our realm. He came in a form that is mighty hard to hate. That some people do hate it shows the dark twisting of their minds.

In reality, it is not the infant they object to so much as the requirement to enter His Heaven by believing that He is God and confessing that. Perhaps that seems demeaning to those who recognize no authority higher than themselves. Why should they have to bow to anyone? Well, when you enter another man’s house, don’t you agree to follow his rules? If you were to walk into my house without an invitation by the back door, you might very well be shot. I daresay even pacifists would call the police. Yet, for some reason, some people object to entering God’s home (Heaven) by the means He has established. Believe and confess, then enter in. Those are pretty easy requirements. If you want to enter God’s home, follow the rules. If you don’t want to follow the rules, you get to remain outside.

Christians are those who have agreed to follow God’s rules so that we may enter into Heaven. Those rules are the subject of quite a few of my postings, but truth be told, we don’t come to Jesus through doctrine. We come to Him through faith. I cannot understand the minds of those who look at a Nativity scene with disgust. It’s a collection of dolls and wood. It has lovely meaning to many people worldwide. The message of the Nativity is that God loved you so much that He came down to our realm as a helpless infant already prepared to die for your sins. Where is the offense in so great a gift?

Why do Christians get so hot and bothered about being excluded from the public square at Christmas? Why can’t we be satisfied with Santa and a few electrified snowflakes? Why do we have to force our beliefs on everyone else by making them walk by that crèche?

First, it should be noted that I’ve never known a menorah display to be denied. It might happen, but I’ve never heard of one. Some court ruled the menorah was a secular symbol, so is equal to Christmas trees and Santa. However, the menorah comes from Judaic worship in the tabernacle and later temple and the Hanukah menorah symbolizes a miracle. Knowing that history it is hard to call it a secular symbol. Thus, for Christians to be denied the Nativity scene while Jews are permitted the menorah is discriminatory. Both are symbols of hope and God’s interaction in the human realm within our respective religions. If one is allowed, so should the other be.

Second, Christians comprise a large percentage of the US population. Although I define Christian in the more narrow, Biblical definition of someone who believes Jesus is God, confesses that publically and submits to the Biblical commands, the looser definition of someone who says they believe in the Christian God can suffice for this discussion. That compromises more than ¾ of the US population. Far more people believe that little baby lying in a manger is an important figure in history than believe that Santa is coming to town tomorrow night. While democracies must always try to avoid the tyranny of the majority, we should also seek to avoid a tyranny of the minority, which is exactly where we’re headed right now.

A small, but vocal percentage of our population does not like religious displays. If they could, many of them would make it illegal for churches to put Nativity scenes on their private property. Certainly, they don’t want to see such displays on public property. Often they object based upon the idea that government is spending money on a display, thereby spending taxpayer money on religion. A little research has shown this is often not so. In my mother-in-law’s town in New England there was a long standing tradition of a local park being absolutely packed with mid-winter displays. All the displays themselves were donated and maintained by local groups and each paid a fee that covered the cost of the lighting. It turned out that the town actually made a little money off those displays, so religion was actually spending its money in support of the government.  I would also note that taxpayer money belongs to the taxpayers. When the vast majority of the taxpayers want something, a vocal minority should not be able to tyrannize their minority opinion on everyone else.

There is room enough in the public square for all ideas, though they should not violate an acceptable standard of decorum. The only reason why anyone would be afraid of a Nativity scene, a menorah and lighted snowflakes all in a one-block area is because they are afraid of ideas. I can understand being afraid of ideas like fascism which leads to violence against certain groups, but when one considers the true meaning of the Nativity scene, what is there to be afraid of?

A conversation I’ve had recently with several of my more liberal coworkers centers around the idea that Christmas is an “exclusionary” holiday and that’s why they don’t like it. They don’t mind if you say “Happy Holidays” or “Seasons Greetings”, but they object to “Christmas” because it’s not “inclusive.”

First, understand the meaning of “holiday.” It’s a compound word from “holy day”. Thus, when we say “Happy Holidays” we are acknowledging all the “holy days” that occur this time of the year. I don’t expect my Jewish coworker to celebrate Christmas and I certainly don’t demand he say “Merry Christmas” to me.  We each have our own religious perspective and I don’t expect that either of us will kneel at the altar of the other’s anytime soon. In a free nation, we shouldn’t have to. Therefore, I refuse to say “Happy Holidays”, because I celebrate Christmas and not any of those other holy days and I will remain true to my beliefs. It doesn’t upset me if someone else says “Happy Holidays”, but don’t expect me to reciprocate in kind and please accept my “Merry Christmas” in the spirit that it was intended, just as I accepted your “Happy Holidays.”

Second, what is so inclusive about excluding one of the holidays from mention? Everywhere I look in the marketplace, I see signs saying “Seasons Greetings” and “Happy Holidays” but very little saying “Merry Christmas”. Why is that? If we want the mid-winter holidays to be inclusive of all people celebrating in December, why do we include Hanukah and Kwanza, but not Christmas? How is that more inclusive? Maybe, since I’m one of the people being left out of the celebration, I’m feeling a bit excluded. Well, it’s just one of those thoughts that sometimes come to me and help me to decide whether to shop at certain stores or not. I mean, if they can’t be bothered to market to me, why should I give them my money?

The Nativity scene is a symbol of hope. Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, stepped down into the human realm to offer salvation to all mankind. That baby in the manger is a symbol of that sacrifice for the entire human race. The only catch for receiving the gift that God has offered is that you must receive it by believing in your heart that Jesus is God and saying that aloud. That part is YOUR choice. God threw wide the door of heaven, but you must decide whether to enter or not.

How is that in any way exclusive?

We come to the apex of the theological study that is Hebrews. The authors told their readers that this was their “main point”.

Jesus had come to replace the old covenant of animal sacrifices and human priestly rituals with the better covenant of continual redemption by the sacrifice of our eternal and pure High Priest.

On the night in which He was betrayed, Jesus took a cup of wine, passed it to His disciples and said: "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Matthew 26:27-28). With those words and that symbolic action, He borrowed the phrase used by Moses when he took the blood of an animal, sprinkled it on the people and said, "This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words" (Exodus 24:8). The contrast was deliberate. Moses used the blood of an animal; Jesus used wine as a symbol of His own blood. Moses spoke of the covenant of the law; Jesus alluded to the new covenant of grace. Moses spoke of God's words which provided for the partial covering of sins so God could remain with His people; Jesus promised the actual remission of sins so God could live within His people forever.

“Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We have such a high priest, one who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the sanctuary and the true tabernacle that the Lord, not man, set up. For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. So this one too had to have something to offer. Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest, since there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. The place where they serve is a sketch and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary, just as Moses was warned by God as he was about to complete the tabernacle. For he says, “See that you make everything according to the design shown to you on the mountain.”  But now Jesus has obtained a superior ministry, since the covenant that he mediates is also better and is enacted on better promises.” Hebrews 8:1-6

A covenant rests upon a priesthood, not the other way around. It is the priesthood that makes the covenant effective. Just as the old covenant of law could never be more effective than the priesthood it represented, so the new covenant of grace can never do more than the High Priest from Whom it flows. The writers thus spotlighted the central figure, Jesus, Who is not only a priest but a king, Who sits on the throne of universal authority. His priesthood is a royal one which gives Him "all authority in heaven and on earth" (Matthew 28:18). Furthermore, it is exercised not in a tabernacle or an earthly temple, but in what might well be called the "control room" of the universe, the heavenly sanctuary, the true tabernacle.

The writers had already established their assertion that Jesus serves in a greater house than Moses served (Hebrews 3:5-6) True is not used in contrast to something false, but means "original," in contrast to that which was a copy. The symbols of God's throne and a true sanctuary are combined to describe the supremacy of the new covenant over the old. Both symbols are located in heaven and identified in some way with Christ's house. These relationships will become clearer as the authors move into the next two chapters.

The offering of gifts and sacrifices is essential to the work of a priest (Hebrews 5:1), but the sacrifice Jesus offered went far beyond anything being offered in the temple on earth. His was not that of a mere animal but of a living person (Hebrews 7:27).

The instruction which God gave to Moses about building the tabernacle in the wilderness was very precise, ye the temporary tabernacle was only a copy of something eternal and central to all things, a heavenly tabernacle which Moses saw. In Revelation 8:3-5 and 11:19, this heavenly sanctuary appeared again, but there it is called a temple. This lends justification to the view of many that the writers of Hebrews saw the temple in Jerusalem as the legitimate successor to the tabernacle in the wilderness. The tabernacle/temple passed away, as intended, but the truth it was meant to teach abides forever. It is called the new covenant. This new provision of God for His people is twice described in verse 6 as superior (kreittosin, "better"), because it is built on better promises. Those promises are listed by Jeremiah as threefold: an inner understanding of truth, an intimate relationship with God and an absolute forgiveness of all sins.

“For if that first covenant had been faultless, no one would have looked for a second one. But showing its fault, God says to them, “Look, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will complete a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.  “It will not be like the covenant that I made with their fathers, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not continue in my covenant and I had no regard for them, says the Lord.

“For this is the covenant that I will establish with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds  and I will inscribe them on their hearts. And I will be their God and they will be my people. 

“And there will be no need at all for each one to teach his countryman or each one to teach his brother saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ since they will all know me, from the least to the greatest. “For I will be merciful toward their evil deeds, and their sins I will remember no longer.”

When he speaks of a new covenant, he makes the first obsolete. Now what is growing obsolete and aging is about to disappear.” Hebrews 8:7-13

This quote from Jeremiah 31:31-34 must have had great resonance for the Hebrew writers because they also partially quote it in Hebrews 10:16-17. It calls for a logical understanding of the argument being presented.  If there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another, but two things were found wrong with the covenant of the law. The people did not fulfill its conditions, despite their initial avowal to do so (Exodus 24:3). It was not sufficiently powerful to motivate them to obedience since it was not written on their minds or hearts. Israel's failure is reflected in the phrases God found fault with the people and they did not remain faithful to my covenant. This new covenant is declared to involve a different relationship between God and His people from that under the old covenant, precisely because the old covenant did not keep the people from failure and God had to turn away from them.

I am going to avoid discussion of the application of this new covenant to the house of Israel, simply for space sake. The promises apply to Israel and there is ample evidence for this, but I simply prefer to focus on the Christian applications found here. The terms of the new covenant are exciting. First, I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. Every true Christian knows that when he or she was regenerated, a change occurred in our motivation. We found we wanted to do things we formerly did not want to do; for example, reading the Bible, attending church, praying and meditating. We found our reaction to evil in our own life had changed. What we once enjoyed without qualm, we began to be disturbed about, even to hate, experiencing at least something of the struggle which Paul so eloquently described in Romans 7:15-19. This is the practical experience of the promise of the new covenant, to give a new and inner understanding of both good and evil. The laws of godly behavior are written on Christian hearts.

The second provision is equally remarkable: I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, "Know the Lord, " because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. Every true Christian also knows the inner sense of belonging to God in a new way. God is no longer seen as a stern Judge, but a loving Father. Believers are no longer outside the community of faith as aliens or exiles. We are now members of a family. We discover that whenever we meet other members of the family, we share an uncanny similarity in our understanding of God. This new intimacy with God and His children becomes the bedrock of emotional stability in the Christian experience (1John 2:9-14).

The new covenant's third provision is: I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more. This is, perhaps, the most difficult aspect for us to believe, for it forces us to do two difficult things: recognize that we do wicked things, and believe that God has already made ample provision to set aside that wickedness and continue treating us as His beloved children. Any sin called to our attention by our conscience needs only to be acknowledged to be set aside. Provision for God to do so justly rests on the death of Christ on our behalf, not on our sense of regret or our promise to do better. God is always for us, He is never against us. He does not ignore iniquity in us, but is merciful toward us. When we acknowledge it, there is no reproach---or replay---from him! (Romans 8:31) We can live with a daily sense of cleansing by the precious blood of Jesus. That will do wonders for our sense of guilt or inadequacy.

When the new covenant takes effect, there no longer is any reason to rely upon the old one. This does not mean the law of Moses (the Ten Commandments) is done away with, for Jesus Himself taught that it will last as long as the heavens and the earth (Matthew 5:18). What these words mean is that the law's work is finished when men and women come to Christ. It could not make them perfect, but they have now come to One Who can! Since the Aaronic priesthood under which the law was given has now been replaced by the Melchizedek priesthood of Jesus, there is no longer any need for the law to work its condemning work in a believer's life. "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1). Awareness of sin is now the work of the indwelling Spirit, not to condemn, but to restore us, when we repent, to useful and fruitful service.

A friend sent me this article for me to comment on it, so I did. It’s from the OneNewsNow website.

          Christmas is being compromised in one New York town in the name of inclusivity.

 In the New York village of Armonk, officials have placed a menorah for the Jewish faith and the Islamic star and crescent for the Muslim faith alongside the town's Christmas tree. Bill Donahue of the Catholic League does not believe a Christmas tree correctly represents the Christian faith. Instead, he says the Christian religious symbol of this season should be a nativity scene.

 
Last year, a Muslim resident in Armonk asked officials to display Islamic symbols so Muslims could be included in Christmas celebrations. This year, the town complied.

 
"There's something perverse in the land. This multicultural rage has been implemented basically to neuter Christmas," Donahue notes. "If you can dilute its significance by celebrating everybody else's religious and ethnic and cultural traditions, then you can really water down Christmas -- and that's really what's going on here."

 
According to WorldNetDaily, the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha does not always fall in December, yet it has representation in holiday displays. Donahue believes something is terribly wrong with this picture.

 
"To think that we're taking a country which is grounded in the Judeo-Christian ethos and [now] we're standing religion on its head to accommodate radical secularists whose whole goal is to assault religion, and particularly Christianity, is really troubling," he concludes.

I’m not sure my friend is going to like my take on this, but here goes.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with multi-culture mid-winter celebration displays. I have no problem with displays on or off public property depicting Christian, Jewish, Muslim, solstice or Kwanza symbols. And, no, I have not been kidnapped by aliens. I have believed this for my entire Christian life, though I might not have had an actual thought-out opinion in the first few years.

First, I believe that the Constitution of the United States guarantees all religions unfettered access to the public square so long as none of us expect the government to provide monies for that access and the use of that access is tolerant of the rights of others. We may differ on viewpoint, as the Founding Fathers frequently did, but we must respect the rights of others to hold and express their viewpoints.

Second, I think intelligent faith-oriented people should not be afraid of the faith of others. If what we believe is actually reality, then we have nothing to fear from other mistaken faiths.

A few observations. Christmas trees have nothing to do with the religious observance of Christmas. They fall into the secular realm. They have a place in the public square because they’re beautiful, but not because they are a symbol of Christianity. I know the courts have ruled otherwise, but menorahs are a religious symbol. Go back to the history of the menorah and it is unmistakably a symbol of faith drawn from a story of faith. If menorahs are to be allowed in the public square during the midwinter celebrations, then so should the Nativity scene. Similarly, symbols drawn from other religious perspectives should be allowed.

I, for one, believe that the Olympia atheist sign was presented to deliberately offend people of faith so is not appropriate for the public square. There is no other way for a believer of any theistic system to take the last sentence of that sign other than as a verbal slap designed to offend. For this reason, I think it might be better to keep such textual displays out of the public square unless a counter can be provided.  I don’t think simply phrases like “Merry Christmas” and “Seasons Greetings” should be excluded, because they don’t have enough content to offend anyone unless the hearer is determined to be offended. Similarly, displays of the Nativity scene mean nothing unless you give it meaning. As a Christian, it means a great deal to me; to my atheist neighbor it’s just a “sweet collection of dolls and wood signifying that some people want to believe”.  Yes, Frank knows what it means to me, but that message has no meaning to him except for what he gives it, which is a pretty decoration, much as I view Christmas greens. The Nativity shouldn’t offend anyone who believes in freedom of religion. The atheist sign should offend everyone because of its textual content. Statements like that have their place, but not elbow-to-elbow with a non-judgmental symbol of celebration. We have other avenues for that sort of communication.

I am less supportive of the symbols associated with Eid al-Adha on the years when it doesn’t fall in December. It has its place as a mid-winter celebration, but only to be displayed during its holiday. If it doesn’t fall at Christmas time, it shouldn’t be displayed at Christmas time.

Again, synopsizing my view. A free society of intelligent people should never be afraid of the free exchange of ideas in the public square. When Christians object to the symbols of other religions being displayed alongside Christmas symbols, we are in effect suggesting censorship of other religious viewpoints. Is it any surprise that those holding other religious viewpoints then wish to censor our own. We need to embrace classical tolerance whereby we protect the rights of others to hold their beliefs while recognizing that we are not being forced to accept or condone those beliefs. Multiculturalism in a free society is not a threat to Christianity. Censorship is!

Imagine this scenario. While working as a junior executive in a large, well-known and prosperous firm, your boss calls you to his office one day and commends you highly for the quality of your work and suggests you are being considered for a prestigious new position that will involve a handsome salary increase. There’s one possible hindrance, however. Your Christian convictions are well-known and have been generally respected in your old position, but the new work will require a more liberal attitude toward certain ethical decisions under that position. You will be asked to overlook certain legal requirements and shade the truth somewhat in working out various business deals. The job is yours if you are willing to flex a bit, but it will go to someone else if you refuse. What will you do? Who will help you make a decision that will maintain your integrity in this pressure of temptation?

Transfer this scene from the 21^st century A. D. to the 20th century B.C., the time of Abraham. Abraham had accomplished a remarkable and widely effective feat---with only 318 followers he had successfully repelled an invasion of Palestine by a great coalition of the superpowers of that day. He had released many prominent citizens whom the invaders had captured and was returning home with wagons loaded with the treasures of Sodom which he had recovered. The grateful king of Sodom wished to reward him by making him rich and giving him a position of honor in the lascivious lifestyle of Sodom. What would Abraham say? To whom should he turn for counsel?

“Now this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, met Abraham as he was returning from defeating the kings and blessed him. To him also Abraham apportioned a tithe of everything. His name first means king of righteousness, then king of Salem, that is, king of peace. Without father, without mother, without genealogy, he has neither beginning of days nor end of life but is like the son of God, and he remains a priest for all time. But see how great he must be, if Abraham the patriarch gave him a tithe of his plunder. And those of the sons of Levi who receive the priestly office have authorization according to the law to collect a tithe from the people, that is, from their fellow countrymen, although they too are descendants of Abraham. But Melchizedek who does not share their ancestry collected a tithe from Abraham and blessed the one who possessed the promise. Now without dispute the inferior is blessed by the superior, and in one case tithes are received by mortal men, while in the other by him who is affirmed to be alive. And it could be said that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid a tithe through Abraham. For he was still in his ancestor Abraham’s loins when Melchizedek met him.”  Hebrews 7:1-10

Before he arrived at Sodom, Abraham was met at Salem (now Jerusalem) by its king and priest, Melchizedek. There he was refreshed physically and morally by the ministry of Melchizedek who greatly strengthened Abraham to resist the subtle appeal of the king of Sodom. In gratitude for this timely help, Abraham gave Melchizedek a tenth of the plunder he had won. When the king of Sodom made his offer, Abraham was fully prepared to decline! This incident forms the historic basis for the commission of God, given centuries later through David in Psalm 110 to the Messiah, "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek."

The authors of Hebrews had been alluding to the Melchizedek priesthood since Hebrews 2:17. So now, they finally come to the crux of the matter. Melchizedek was both a king and a priest, as is Jesus! Melchizedek blessed Abraham, refreshing and strengthening him with bread and wine as Jesus strengthens and refreshes those who come to His throne of grace for help (Hebrews 4:16). Abraham paid a tithe (10 percent) of all his goods to Melchizedek as an acknowledgment of his position as priest of the Most High God as believers are to acknowledge Jesus as the One Who has bought us with a price. We must recognize we are no longer owners of ourselves or all we possess (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)!

Melchizedek was both king of righteousness (the meaning of his name) and king of peace (Salem means peace). Similarly Jesus is the sovereign possessor of both righteousness and peace, and can dispense them to His own as gifts which they may continually have but can never earn! Melchizedek appears in Scripture with no mention of his parents or his children (though he was a normal human being, certainly with parents and probably with children); Genesis does not mention his birth or his death. Similarly, the risen Jesus has neither beginning nor end, nor a human parentage to His resurrected life. Therefore, He can serve as a merciful and faithful high priest forever (Hebrews 7:23-25)! Though some commentators have viewed Melchizedek as a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ, the phrase like the Son of God seems to militate against that. To modern Christians, this passage presents a vivid picture of the help which is available for believers today from our great high priest Who can give us righteousness and peace from within if we "come to the throne of grace to receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need."

This focus on Melchizedek in Hebrews is intended to bring out the inherent superiority of the priesthood of Jesus to that of the Aaronic line, the descendants of Levi, who had ministered in the tabernacle and temple throughout Jewish history until the Hasmonean line was established. Verses 4-10 argue this superiority further. The author argues that Melchizedek is greater than Abraham, the great-grandfather of Levi, because Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek, indicating his own subordinate relationship.

“So if perfection had in fact been possible through the Levitical priesthood – for on that basis the people received the law – what further need would there have been for another priest to arise, said to be in the order of Melchizedek and not in Aaron’s order? For when the priesthood changes, a change in the law must come as well. Yet the one these things are spoken about belongs to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever officiated at the altar. For it is clear that our Lord is descended from Judah, yet Moses said nothing about priests in connection with that tribe. And this is even clearer if another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become a priest not by a legal regulation about physical descent but by the power of an indestructible life. For here is the testimony about him: “You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.”  On the one hand a former command is set aside because it is weak and useless, for the law made nothing perfect. On the other hand a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.” Hebrews 7:11-19

This section asserts unequivocally that the death and resurrection of Jesus has introduced a new and permanent priesthood that brings the Levitical priesthood and the law of Moses to an end. The law was originally given to support the priesthood, not the other way around. The priesthood and the tabernacle with its sacrifices were the means God employed to render the sinful people acceptable to Himself They constituted the shadow of Jesus in the Old Testament. Then the law was given with its sharp demands to awaken the people to their true condition so that they might avail themselves of the sacrifices. Paul explained in Romans 5:20 and Galatians 3:19-23 that the law was a teacher to lead to Christ.

Judaism zealously guarded the priesthood and the law and reacted violently to suggestions that these were inadequate and needed change, thus providing a reason to persecute the Christians, as represented by Stephen and Paul.

If, as some Jews thought, perfection could be achieved by means of the law and priesthood, the authors asked, what need would there be for God to announce a new priesthood as He did through David in Psalm 110? He clearly implied that the Melchizedek priesthood of Jesus was in the mind of God centuries before the Levitical priesthood and the law. These latter could never have produced the perfection of character which God required. The writers’ argument was that if the priesthood of Jesus has now replaced that of Levi, then the law of Moses must also be replaced because it is the natural accompaniment of the Levitical priesthood. Sacrifices and offerings would no longer be useful for covering sins so the law which awakened sin must pass as well.

The law and the priesthood could not accomplish the perfection God required because Levitical priests were ordained only if they could prove their ancestry from Levi, and must be replaced at death by another of the same line. By contrast, Jesus holds the Melchizedek priesthood forever because he possesses an indestructible life. It is not merely endless; by its very nature it cannot be ended! Nor does it require specific ancestral descent. Any man who fit the qualifications could serve and Jesus is the only man Who fulfills all the qualifications.

The glorious result of this is the priesthood and the law is set aside as weak and useless since it cannot cleanse from sin or provide power to obey. A better hope is brought in to replace it which will do what the law and the priesthood could not do---enable us to draw near to God, as the readers is exhorted to do in Hebrew 10:22 since it is now fully possible because of the Melchizedek priesthood of Jesus.

The Levitical priesthood’s purpose was fulfilled. It is, and always has been, weak and useless to go further and actually remove sin. That was perfectly done in the sacrifice of Jesus. The removal of sin is not the only thing sinners need---they also need a continuing supply of refreshment, strength and wisdom to enable them to live in a hostile world. This is now supplied through the Melchizedek priesthood. Through His unique sacrifice Jesus fulfilled the responsibilities of the Aaronic priesthood, and through His endless life He assumes the priesthood in the order of Melchizedek. The "picture" of the Old Testament is fulfilled accurately and the better hope of the new covenant is introduced.

“And since this was not done without a sworn affirmation – for the others have become priests without a sworn affirmation, but Jesus  did so with a sworn affirmation by the one who said to him, “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest forever’” –accordingly Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant. And the others who became priests were numerous, because death prevented them from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently since he lives forever. So he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. For it is indeed fitting for us to have such a high priest: holy, innocent, undefiled, separate from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. He has no need to do every day what those priests do, to offer sacrifices first for their own sins and then for the sins of the people, since he did this in offering himself once for all. For the law appoints as high priests men subject to weakness, but the word of solemn affirmation that came after the law appoints a son made perfect forever.” Hebrews 7:20-28

Most of us today are familiar with a product warranty – essentially the manufacturer’s promise that the item sold will fulfill the buyer’s expectations. Similarly, the authors of Hebrews see God’s oath as the guarantee that the better hope available from the new Melchizedek will be delivered as promised. There was no such oath given when the Levitical priesthood was established. God declared through Jesus that He will meet our needs for cleansing, courage, wisdom and personal support in danger or sorrow, and this support is continuously and fully available. Furthermore, God will never change His mind about this promise – He offers no other alternative! The old covenant with Israel is dissolved and no secular or pagan solution to the problem of sin and spiritual immaturity is acceptable.

In the closing words of the chapter, the authors summarized the qualities which make Jesus, our Melchizedek, the perfect fulfillment of the needs of sinful humans living in a confused and God-ignoring age.

Jesus was and remains holy, morally flawless, perfectly balanced, without impurity or lack.  He is blameless, as outwardly perfect as He is inwardly holy.  In His dealings with others, He remains pure, without stain, untouched by the defilement around Him. He is set apart from sinners, but not in any isolative sense. Jesus kept company with the disreputable as well as the respected in His lifetime; there is no reason to suppose He would do otherwise now. Jesus came to call all sinners, not just the self-righteous, to repentance. The separation comes in that He is eternally the Son of God, while we are the sons of God only through redemption. We can never be like Him in the fullest sense. 

Jesus’ final qualification is that He is exhalted above the heavens (Hebrews 1:3). No higher authority can be found in the entire universe. He is "far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come" (Ephesians 1:21).

His sinlessness means He does not need to sacrifice for His own sins, but nevertheless He offered Himself as a sacrifice, which He did once for all. The Levitical system of animal sacrifices ended to be replaced by a single sacrifice of continuing and eternal merit, establishing Jesus as our High Priest and God's provision for help in our daily life, incomparable in greatness, inexhaustible in resource, infinite in patience, infallible in wisdom and interested in all that concerns us. The writers of Hebrews longed to impart information about the Melchizedek priesthood of Jesus to their readers and mourned their dullness and slowness to learn (Hebrews 5:11-12).

Yet – are any of us more alert than they?  Do we actually avail ourselves in this modem world of the provision for the help which this chapter describes? It is a good question that each of us should ask ourselves and answer as best we can!

We certainly heard a lot of promises this year, didn’t we? What else would we expect from an election year? Of course, promises from political candidates are usually nothing more than empty words. In these days of U-Tube, candidates are often caught giving different and conflicting promises to difference groups of potential voters, so sometimes political promises are outright lies.

Fortunately, God keeps His promises, for He swears His promises are unchanging.

“But in your case, dear friends, even though we speak like this, we are convinced of better things relating to salvation. For God is not unjust so as to forget your work and the love you have demonstrated for his name, in having served and continuing to serve the saints. But we passionately want each of you to demonstrate the same eagerness for the fulfillment of your hope until the end, so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and perseverance inherit the promises. Now when God made his promise to Abraham, since he could swear by no one greater, he swore by himself, saying, “Surely I will bless you greatly and multiply your descendants abundantly.” And so by persevering, Abraham inherited the promise. For people swear by something greater than themselves, and the oath serves as a confirmation to end all dispute. In the same way God wanted to demonstrate more clearly to the heirs of the promise that his purpose was unchangeable, and so he intervened with an oath, so that we who have found refuge in him may find strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us through two unchangeable things, since it is impossible for God to lie. We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, sure and steadfast, which reaches inside behind the curtain, where Jesus our forerunner entered on our behalf, since he became a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.” Hebrews 6:9-20

The readers of the letter to the Hebrews had grown accustomed to teaching that never progressed beyond an elementary level, thus teaching about Melchizedek was going to be a challenge for them. The writers of Hebrews were clear that they were leaving behind the kindergarten lessons to press on to teach those things which lead to Christian maturity.

The previous section was a difficult one, but I hope I laid the groundwork for understanding “those who fall away” as those who came close to faith and even enjoyed some of the benefits of association with the gospel and Christian community, but who never truly came to faith. These are the folks who, in the end, actively reject and oppose the gospel. The Richard Dawkinses, more or less.  I also believe that sometimes such people continue to linger in the church as false teachers, attempting to drag others away from the true gospel while pretending to be good church people.

The purpose of the author was to undergird the Hebrew Christians’ assurance and confidence in their confession of faith in Christ. Some wrongly conclude that the author was telling the reader that the believer’s endurance is totally their own doing. This would be turning from grace to works, the very thing the authors strongly opposed. To understand the first part of Chapter 6, you must look at the second half, which is what we’re doing now.

The authors desired for the readers to continue to manifest the same eagerness and diligence they have demonstrated in the pursuit of their salvation In this, they would be imitators of those, like Abraham and others who will be named in chapter 11. These ancient worthies had demonstrated faith and patient endurance and would inherit the promises. Hope is not only the basis for perseverance; it is also the result of perseverance (Romans 5:1-8). Christians rejoice in the hope of seeing God’s glory (Romans 8:18-25), and we do so in the midst of trials and tribulations. How can this be? Paul told us that God uses suffering to enhance our hope and our endurance. When we endure suffering by faith, we experience God’s sustaining strength. We discover that suffering actually strengthens our faith because God is faithful to sustain us. Successful suffering gives us greater confidence in God, thus it producing hope by assuring us that, with God’s enablement, we will endure to the end and experience the full revelation of God’s glory in the future.

The authors used Old Testament imagery to portray the safety and security Christ alone offers as the Great High Priest. I choose not to spend a great deal of effort trying to interpret this use into modern terms. There have been a great many books written on the subject and many are of great value, but my practical turn of mind wants to take only that which is useful to my Christian walk today. It is Jesus to Whom Christians can flee for safety. He is our altar, our city of refuge, and our anchor in a stormy sea. I would note that the authors had originally used imagery invoking a drifting ship as a metaphor to a drifting Christian life, so the use of the anchor imagery now is well-suited. A certain hope in God’s covenant promises made to Abraham and his descendants, guaranteed by God’s oath, is the anchor for our souls. Unchangeable and immovable, it does not allow us drift if we cling to Christ. Such are the unchangeable promises found in the Old and New Testaments. Thus, we dare not neglect God’s final Word, revealed in the person of His Son. These promises are the basis of our hope and of our endurance and a prominent theme in the Book of Hebrews.

God’s promises are the basis for Christian faith. Those things we hope for yet do not yet see are things God has promised. They are spoken of in God’s word, which the authors of Hebrews emphasized greatly.

God’s promises are the basis of our hope and the assurance which encourages us to persevere in times of adversity.

Promises are given when their fulfillment will come after a period of delay We must wait and not expect or demand that God give us freedom from texts or trials or provide us with prosperity while we wait. A promise implies a delay; otherwise a promise wouldn’t be necessary (2Peter 3:13).

God’s covenant promises are fulfilled in Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:15-22; Romans 15:8).  These are the basis of our hope and endurance, so to reject Christ is to reject faith, hope and endurance – a most serious and deadly sin.

Our confidence and assurance are anchored in the promises of God and His faithfulness to fulfill them, not in our performance. It’s not all about us! It’s all about Jesus! He has accomplished the cleansing of our sins, once for all. He is the Great High Priest to Whom we must draw near for help in time of need. The authors of Hebrews did not seek to get us to work harder, but to draw near to the Savior and cling to Him, looking to Him for help in our weakness.

God’s promises are the incentive for cleansing ourselves from sin and unrighteousness (2Corinthians 7:1; 2Peter 1:4). Sometimes people wonder why Christians are willing to give up this world’s lifestyle. It is because our relationship with God makes us desire to be clean.

The promises of God and the hope they produce are an opportunity for us to proclaim the gospel (1John 2:25; 1Peter 3:15).  In the last few weeks, we have seen our country enter into a period of financial crisis. It would seem that our economy is in meltdown. For those who have falsely sought security in the very things that are not being removed or reduced, this is a stressful time. Yet, we can count on God’s promises because His promises are sure, for He is a God Who always keeps His promises.

If you have never trusted in Jesus Christ, I urge you to do so today. Fulfilling His Old Testament promise to Abraham, God sent Jesus to take on humanity (without surrendering any of His deity) and to serve as our Great High Priest by suffering the punishment for our sins. He now sits at the Father’s right hand in heaven to mediate on our behalf and to help us in our time of need. There is no other solution for our sin, and its eternal punishment (hell). There is no other anchor for the soul than Jesus Christ. Trust in Him.

Life presents a thousand examples of the need to act on knowledge before any benefit is received. While it is helpful to know a phone number, if you want to talk to the person there, you must dial the number. Knowing where Greece is on the map means little for getting to know Greece; for that, you must travel there.  This is the message of the writers of Hebrews. If you want to know Jesus, you must receive Him by faith and obey His teachings.

I’ve said before that chapter divisions in our modern Bible sometimes seem arbitrary and even problematic. Chapter 6 is a continuation of Chapter 5. The break is there to make it easier to navigate a large book, but it tends to divide up a subject that is meant to be understood in context. The chapter division here is unfortunate because it tends to minimize the opening “therefore” of Chapter 6.  The authors were not proposing to teach their readers once more the elementary truths of God’s word. Their dullness of mind tempted them to do so, but they knew that the readers already knew the teaching – they just needed to make a personal commitment to it. This can only be achieved by pursuing maturity through acts of faith. Thus, the writers urged the Hebrews to leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on from words to application. Elementary teaching was not meant as a reference to regeneration, but as introductory information that could lead to regeneration.

“Therefore we must progress beyond the elementary instructions about Christ and move on to maturity, not laying this foundation again: repentance from dead works and faith in God, teaching about baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And this is what we intend to do, if God permits. for it is impossible in the case of those who have once been enlightened, tasted the heavenly gift, become partakers of the Holy Spirit, tasted the good word of God and the miracles of the coming age, and then have committed apostasy, to renew them again to repentance, since they are crucifying the Son of God for themselves all over again and holding him up to contempt. For the ground that has soaked up the rain that frequently falls on it and yields useful vegetation for those who tend it receives a blessing from God. But if it produces thorns and thistles, it is useless and about to be cursed; its fate is to be burned. But in your case, dear friends, even though we speak like this, we are convinced of better things relating to salvation. For God is not unjust so as to forget your work and the love you have demonstrated for his name, in having served and continuing to serve the saints. But we passionately want each of you to demonstrate the same eagerness for the fulfillment of your hope until the end, so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and perseverance inherit the promises.”  Hebrews 6:1-12

Christians seeking maturity must found their growth on repentance from acts that lead to death and turn to faith in God.  Beginning steps on this journey would include instruction in baptism, laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. These transitional truths led from Jewish beliefs and practices to a full sharing in Christ. Today as then, they represent the first steps of obedience and knowledge in the Christian life. It is necessary to go from the knowledge of these initial truths to experiences which draw upon the priestly ministry of Jesus – from a head knowledge to a heart response.

This rudimentary foundation is the same one Jesus and the apostles preached, "repent and believe." Repentance is a permanent change of mind which results in right behavior (Matthew 3:8). The change the Jews needed was to cease trusting in useless rituals. They were to abandon attempts to obtain righteousness by seeking to obey the precepts of a lifeless moral code and turn instead to a positive action of faith in God. Paul commended the Thessalonian Christians for turning from idols to serve the living and true God.  Repentance and faith form the essential foundation upon which one may enter the Christian life.

Still, certain instruction in important doctrines was carried over from Old Testament teachings, primarily baptisms and laying on of hands, and resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. The first set touches upon the beginning of the Christian life; the second set speaks of its final events. Together they bracket Christian doctrine, involving both impartation of life and accountability of experience.

Baptism is an initiatory rite, as the writers of Hebrews indicate; it must not be regarded as fulfilling all that a Christian is expected to know or do. By itself, baptism is an empty ritual. It is only when done as an act of obedience in a beginning journey of faith that it has any efficacy at all.

The laying on of hands was widely practiced in the early church, for the imparting of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17), healing (Acts 28:8), and ordaining or commissioning (Acts 13:3). Though borrowed from Judaism, its Christian usage would need to be explained to the new convert. It is an act of identification, tying the individual to either the activity of God or that of the body of Christ. This, too, represents a beginning and not an end.

The doctrine of resurrection is central to Christianity though not to Judaism. Although taught in the Old Testament (Isaiah 26:19; Daniel 12:2), its central position in the New Testament demanded further instruction and repeated exposure to the testimony of apostles and other eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus. As His resurrection is an essential element of the Melchizedek priesthood, it would be especially important that Christian converts be fully informed on this matter. The Pharisaic view of a resurrection at the end of time was nothing more than a mere introduction to this great theme.

The theme of judgment to come is also clearly taught in the Old Testament (Isaiah 33:22; Genesis 18:25). The figure of the Son of Man, who approaches the Ancient of Days to receive authority to judge (Daniel 7:9-14), would most certainly be identified as Jesus to any scribe from a Jewish background. The authors later referred to such judgment in 9:27, but the full development of this theme awaits the recognition of Jesus as the One Who speaks from heaven (12:25) before the terrible shaking of the heavens and the earth.

The foundation and accompanying instruction could, if appropriated by faith, bring a Jew to new life in Christ. This would not be difficult to accept since it was based upon truth already taught in the Law and the Prophets. Yet some among these Hebrews knew these truths intellectually with little indication in their behavior that they had combined them with personal faith (4:2). The combination of the word about Christ with individual faith should have produced a Spirit-born vitality and enthusiasm which would make it delightfully easy to instruct them in the wonders of the Melchizedek priesthood. As this vitality was not truly evident, the writers warned them that something was seriously lacking. It is dangerous, even impossible, to stay forever on the foundation. If they were not willing or able to move on to more mature understanding, they were in grave peril of irretrievably losing what they already had! Growth in truth is something all Christians must do.

This solemn warning marks one of the great theological battlefields of Scripture. Here the clashing proponents of Calvinism and Arminianism have wheeled and charged, unleashing thunderous volleys of acrimony against one another, generating much heat and little profit. The Calvinists, mindful of the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints (eternal security), seize upon the words It is impossible . . . if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance. Truly regenerate Christians, they say, cannot fall away into irremediable apostasy, so therefore, they cannot be truly regenerate Christians, no matter how strongly the descriptive phrases of verses 4-5 seem to imply they are.

On the other hand, the Arminians focus on the descriptive phrases, feeling that it is impossible to portray true Christians more powerfully and accurately than was done here; therefore, since they are said to fall away, the Arminians claim, it is clear that regeneration can be lost after it has been obtained. A third group of interpreters insist that the question of eternal salvation is not in question here at all, since it is only a matter of urging new Christians on to further understanding of their fellowship with Christ.

When I was a journalist, I learned that the true story of a car accident is found on all four corners of the intersection. There is truth in different viewpoints. This is true in many clashes over Scripture. The original readers of Hebrews were not a homogenous group who could be classified in one category or another. Rather, they were a mixed assembly, among whom were many genuine believers needing a degree of prodding to go on in their experience of truth. There were also some who professed faith in Christ but who gave no evidence in their behavior or attitudes that they were truly regenerate. This is the case in many churches today and has been so in every generation of believers from the 1^st century on. No matter what careful expedients are employed to make sure that all church members are born again, it is almost certain that there is no congregation which is not just such a mixed assembly as the writers of Hebrews addressed. The ratio of true believers to apparent believers may vary widely; as we cannot distinguish these by observation (or even careful testing), we must view these warnings as applying to all of us.

The length to which religious experience can go and still fall short of regeneration is described by five phrases in verses 4-5. There are those who have once been enlightened. Some of the early church Fathers linked this enlightenment with baptism, but that only identifies the effect with the cause. It plainly means an intellectual understanding of God's redemptive actions. The light of the gospel can be received without leading to baptism, but those who were baptized normally did so because they understood the truth about Jesus and His atonement and wished to avail themselves of its privileges. Though knowledge is prerequisite to faith, it does not always indicate that saving faith is present.

There are those who have tasted the heavenly gift. The gift can be the Holy Spirit (Hebrews 2:4) or Jesus Himself (Hebrews 4:10; 2 Corinthians 9:15), since both come from heaven. Context indicates the “gift” here is Jesus. Some commentators see this "tasting" as referring to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, which identifies its elements as the representation of the body and blood of Jesus. Those who do have saving faith would surely observe this sacrament, however, it is quite possible to participate in baptism and the Lord's Supper without actual faith. Sadly, one can have much knowledge of Jesus and even have "tasted" of His blessings, without personal commitment to Him (John 2:23-25).

Are those who have shared in the Holy Spirit conclusively true Christians? Paul admonished "If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ", marking the presence of the Spirit as the seal of a regenerated life. There are other ministries of the Spirit that precede those of indwelling. One can become a sharer in or partaker of the Spirit by responding for a time to His drawing power intended to lead one ultimately to Christ. The translation "shared" implies something done in company with others, and may well be linked with the "laying on of hands" referred to in Hebrews 6:2. This would envision a group response to the gospel, as we see in many evangelistic rallies today, but it does not mean that all who respond exercise saving faith. Enlightenment and tasting are also ministries of the Spirit; they join the others as true of those who have traveled for a ways on their journey to faith, but who have not necessarily arrived.

It is by the "living and enduring word of God" that men and women are born again (1Peter 1:23), it is necessary to hear it first, and then "taste" its goodness. The readers of this epistle had done this, but there is no indication in this phrase that they had all responded with personal faith. Some very likely had, but others had stopped short of the goal, arousing concern from the writers.

“The powers of the coming age” might reference signs, wonders and miracles that frequently accompanied the preaching of the gospel, as predicted in Isaiah 35:56, which Jesus indicated He was the fulfillment of in Luke 7:22. The "taste" which many of these readers had had in the time of Jesus and the apostles was unconvincing evidence even to their own eyes. Like the Israelites who murmured in the wilderness, despite the miracles of supply they witnessed, the Hebrew Christians also failed to share in the faith of those who obeyed the word they heard. Certainly we can consider Simon Magnus (Acts 8:9-24) and Judas as examples of those who had seen and heard much, but still resisted personal conversation and at last turned away from eternal life to a sad and eternal death.

Repentance is the gateway to eternal life, as many Scriptures make clear. After being brought by the Spirit-given blessings to the very edge of repentance, those who fall back into unbelief cannot be brought to that same place again. What more can be added to that which is insufficient in its fullness? Their state is now hopeless. God has pledged Himself to pardon all who truly repent, but Scripture and experience alike show it is possible for human beings to arrive at a state of heart and life where they can no longer repent.  They deliberately fall away, unwilling to separate themselves from those who actually condemned Jesus to be crucified. Their hearts are hardened in stony determination to have things their own rebellious way.

Metaphorically, the rain that falls from heaven corresponds to the enlightening blessings. If the seed of the word of God is truly present in the soil (the hearts of humans), the rain causes fruitful crops to grow, fulfilling the blessing intended by God. Where the word of truth, though heard, has been rejected, the rain can only quicken that which is already in the soil (thorns and thistles), and continued rain will only make matters worse, not better. Such fruitless land will merit the ultimate cursing of God and be finally given over to burning.

Consistently throughout Scripture those who are genuinely Christ's do not fall away into apostasy. Paul reminded the Philippians that the God Who began a good work in them would complete it on the day of Christ. What our authors feared was that there might be among their readers many who claimed to be Christians, perhaps even witnessed for Him and participated in the church, yet had refused to repent. Turning back from the light they had perceived, they proved to be enemies of Christ and not a part of the people of God at all!

Having issued this warning, the pastor's heart of the writer expressed reassurance and encouragement. Though some among them deserved the writers’ sobering caution, nevertheless they did not see them all in this dangerous state. It is clear the writers sincerely believed that the larger part of their readers were truly saved and only needed exhortation to diligence and patience. Their works of love and support to other believers strongly testified to their genuine faith, for as James declared, a faith that does not result in works is dead! (James 2:26).

The only reliable sign of regeneration is a faith that does not fail and continues to the end of life. It may at times falter and grow dim as it faces various trials and pressures, but it cannot be wholly abandoned, for Jesus has promised, "I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand" (John 10:28).