Jeff’s approach to this subject interested me, because I was looking for a way to bring the discussion into the 21^st Century and that’s hard to do with an institution that ceased to exist 140 years ago. Jeff sees this as a broader issue than that.

Our country is currently caught up in “change” ethos. It’s not completely new. America has always been about change. It is a vital part of American life. Most of our ancestors came from somewhere else (including 80 percent of my ancestors; even my Indian ancestors did some major migrations). Americans change our cities every few decades, we move often and we change our careers many times in our lifetimes. Upward mobility gives hard-working (and fortunate) folks the chance to change their social and economic status. Hey, some people even change their sex!

Much of politics, even before this current President’s personal rhetoric, is about change. Every 20 years or so the entire country tends to switch from a conservative form of politics to a liberal form of politics. Liberals like to think of themselves as progressives, and therefore tend to be much more inclined to seek change. Conservatives think of themselves as those who “conserve” what is best, rather than moving from one experiment to another. Conservatives do not want change; they prefer stability, though they will embrace change if it is to return to values, policies, and structures which have been set aside by the liberals.

The Civil War was about change. Not just slavery was in view at the time. The Industrial Revolution had started in the Northeast in the 1830s (thereabouts) and the entire country was poised for a change from an agrarian society of small disconnected communities to an industrial society of interconnected communities. This required change. For the most part, Northerners were on board with those changes – building railroads from one state to another that were all the same gauge to make transportation easier and encouraging universal education so that even laborers could read the signs involved in running machinery. For the most part, Southerners had resisted this change. Goods traveling across five Southern states had to be offloaded at each state line and reloaded because railroad gauges weren’t compatible from one state to another. The Southern states knew this, but had refused to change their system.

There is really no evidence that slaves, just because they were slaves, would have made lesser quality laborers in the coming era of change. Slaves in past societies were the engines that drove commerce. The problem seems to be the American South’s refusal to bring their slaves up to the needed standards. They refused to teach them to read, deplored any effort to make them independent-minded and, as evidenced somewhat by the train issue, preferred to keep work crews tied to certain plots of land rather than allowing the mobility necessary for building a new economic landscape. The Northerners were embracing change on an economic and social level while the Southerners were resisting it. The argument focused on slavery, but the issues involved were much greater than slavery alone. Consider slavery the symptom of a larger issue.

This isn’t unusual to the human condition and it was addressed in the Bible. Maybe it was missed, but it was there. Like the institution of slavery itself, it was not as cut and dried as we might like it to be. The Bible sometimes requires that we think about what we say we believe. The issue of change is one of those times. In a culture that encourages change, Christians are called to resist some forms of change, but not all forms.

Clearly, conversion is a radical change in the life of any believer. “Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.” (2 Corinthians 5:17). Consider also Ephesians 2:1-3, 13, 5:8; Colossians 2:13. Salvation is a radical change, from darkness to light, from death to life, from being under condemnation to being justified. What starts at salvation continues through the process of sanctification (Colossians 3:5-10; Ephesians 4:17-24). In this sense, the Christian should never be content with his or her spiritual status, but should always be pressing on to greater maturity (Philippians 3:10-16; 2 Peter 1:2-11).

And yet, Paul spoke of change that should be resisted, change that is social in nature rather than spiritual. Paul called the Corinthians’ attention to their humble state at the time of their calling:

“Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And thus I direct in all the churches. Was any man called already circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.” 1 Corinthians 7:17-19

Paul claimed his words are a universal command, taught by him in every church. Christians are to remain in that condition in which they were called. This most certainly does not mean that a converted bank robber continues in a life of crime, nor that a converted prostitute persists in her trade. Jesus told the adulterous woman, “Go and sin no more” (John 8:11). Paul’s objection was aimed at those who had become status conscious, fixing their attention on an upward change of status.

God has sovereignly assigned each believer with a station in life from which we are to serve Him. Our “place” not a matter of chance, the random result of racial, economic or social bias. Our place in this world has been assigned to us by God! We know that place because it is the station in life we held at the time of our calling to faith, service and salvation.We are called to serve God where we are. When Jesus delivered the demoniac from his bondage, the man pled with Him to accompany Him when He departed. Jesus denied this request, instructing him to, “Go home to your people and report to them what great things the Lord has done for you, and how He had mercy on you” (Mark 5:19).

As a general rule, we have been called at a certain point in time, within a particular culture, and with a particular social station in life. In this setting we are to begin to live out our faith and calling. Throughout his life (as described in the Book of Acts), Paul continued to bear testimony to Christ and to his own conversion, not only to Gentiles, but to Jews, in particular to radical Jews who opposed the gospel, Jews just like Paul himself once was.

God prepared us before our conversion to be, and do, what He has purposed for us after our conversion. All which shaped us as unbelievers was a part of the divine plan for our calling. A friend of mine grew up a runaway on the streets of Los Angeles, but God blessed him by bringing him into a Christian home when he was a teenager. He was wild, difficult and damaged. God used those sharp qualities as the seed bed for an eventual counseling and outreach ministry to runaway teens on the Los Angeles streets. His circumstances haven’t changed much, but his character sure has. God orchestrates defining events and elements in our lives before we are saved, to equip us to minister when we are saved. Knowing this, we ought not attempt to bury all that we were at the time of our conversion, but rather to build on it.

Paul used several examples to illustrate his point. Slavery was one of those illustrations.

“Let each man remain in that condition in which he was called. Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord’s freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ’s slave. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. Brethren, let each man remain with God in that condition in which he was called.” 1 Corinthians 7:20-24

Each believer should, generally, remain in the condition in which he was called. Circumcision, Paul’s other example, had to do with spiritual or religious status. Slavery was about social status.  Both were outward, earthly conditions and, as such, irrelevant to one’s spiritual standing before God. If one was called while a slave, big deal! Why waste time, energy or thought on that when there is ministry to be done? On the other hand, it was possible for some to obtain their freedom, and they should take advantage of this opportunity because freedom from slavery afforded additional opportunities for ministry.

Biblical history abounds with examples of this. Joseph, who due to circumstances beyond his control, became a slave in Egypt, effectively served his masters and His God. So far as recorded, the only time Joseph made any effort toward freedom was when he asked the cupbearer to remember him in his incarceration (Genesis 40:14-15), which did not produce Joseph’s freedom from jail or slavery. Joseph remained a slave of Pharaoh to his death. If he’d been preoccupied with winning his freedom, he would have had little time or energy to minister to others as he did.

If the secular world and falsely spiritual saints view slavery only from an external perspective, Paul gave a completely different perspective. Slavery or freedom have nothing to do with one’s status before God. The Christian slave is, in reality, the Lord’s freedman. The ultimate slavery is our slavery to Satan, sin, and death. Salvation sets us free (Luke 4:18; John 8:31-36; Romans 6:20-23). In Christ, both the freedman and the slave have been freed from sin and death, and thus they are equal. This is precisely Paul’s point in Galatians 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Do not distort Paul’s teaching in this verse. He was not saying that all earthly distinctions have been eliminated in Christ. There are still distinctions between slaves and free men, between male and female, even between Jew and Greek. However, in Christ, all these different categories of men and women are one in their standing before God. All men are one in their sin and condemnation; all who have trusted in Christ are one in their standing before God, clothed in the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Because of Christ’s righteousness, Paul can tell slaves and free men that they are equal in the sight of God, and that changing their status regarding slavery will not change their spiritual standing before God.

Before God, all the externals are stripped away; there are no class distinctions in Christ. A Christian slave need not be obsessed with gaining his or her freedom. Paul commanded that those who had been emancipated in Christ should not return to enslavement to men. Paul did not speak of becoming a slave in the literal sense here. He wrote about becoming men’s slaves in a different way, explained in Galatians 1:6-10, where heresy was taking root.

Of significant importance is that Jesus taught us that “no man can serve two masters” (Matthew 6:24). Paul essentially taught the same thing. Those concerned with winning men’s approval are those who will seek to improve their worldly status. In seeking man’s approval, they must abandon seeking to please God, for the two are incompatible. By seeking to win man’s approval, the Corinthians are enslaving themselves to the values of an unbelieving world or, sadly, a carnal church.

What if God’s will is for us to change our circumstances? First, we should look upon this as the exception, not the rule. Secondly, rather than spending much fruitless energy agonizing about such changes, we should simply trust God to bring about those changes, or make it obvious that such change (on our part) is His will. With Luke 14:7-11 in mind, the lesson seems to be if God chooses to elevate us, He most certainly can and will accomplish it. We do not need to seek our own advancement. Leave this to God. In the divine economy, “moving up” (in the world’s terms) is not necessarily advancing. The way “up” in God’s economy is very often “down.”

What Paul was teaching us may be summed up in one word found elsewhere in his writings – contentment (2 Corinthians 12:10; Philippians 4:11; Hebrews 13:5).

Contentment is the confidence and quiet peace which enables the Christian to accept our lot in life and to serve God in our circumstances, knowing He is the One Who appointed them—for His glory and for our good.

Some of us try to change things in our lives which God does not want changed. The changes God desires have to do more with our character than our circumstances. We find such changes in the Word of God, not in civil rights legislation or economic stimulus packages. Let us not seek to change what God has arranged, but to put off the sins of the old nature and embrace the deeds of the new.

Some of us are waiting for things to change before we serve God. Paul’s words instruct us to get going now. Are you waiting for a less demanding job, a schedule that is more open, a bigger house or paycheck? Recognize that God has called you where you are and has purposed for you to serve Him there. Let us not wait for our circumstances to change before we are obedient to our calling.

Robert Dabney was a Southerner through-and-through, a Confederate chaplain, a cousin by marriage to Stonewall Jackson. He was also a noted theologian. Not that my white Southern theologian friends want to have anything to do with this conversation, but they were required to read some of Dabney’s theology texts in seminary. This means we should give some respect to Dabney’s Biblical arguments.

And, I do. Not that he convinced me, but I do accept that slavery existed in the Bible. I still doubt it was instituted by God. I see Noah being human in a very human moment. I see God’s permissive will at work in the later regulation of slavery. God knew that the Israelites knew what slavery was – they’d been slaves. It’s a curious thing that I’ve learned in the social work field (I am administrative staff, not a counselor). Those who have been abused by others tend to abuse others themselves. The boy beaten by his father beats his son. Not always, of course, but often enough to establish a pattern. I think God knew this about the human psyche. The Israelites were going to take slaves, either because of debt or because of war, and sometimes they would buy them from neighboring nations. Would they treat them nicely or would they treat them cruelly? Well, Israel didn’t need lessons in how to abuse slaves. They’d learned that lesson well at Egypt’s knee. What they needed was guidance in how to treat slaves as fellow human beings, so that the abused would not become the abusers. Thus, the Levitical guidelines of Chapter 25.

We need to recognize that the historical events of the Old Testament also serve as metaphors for the gospel. Because this is so, we should be asking ourselves if God was trying to teach Christians something through His guidelines concerning slaves.  The Israelites were regulated in their relationship to their slaves – even with foreign slaves. We’ll look, probably as a final post, at adoption into the family of God, but for now, let us focus on Dabney’s arguments.

Page 100 – “We assert that the Bible teaches that the relationship of master and slave is perfectly lawful and right, provided only its duties are lawfully fulfilled … we say the relation is not sin in itself, but may be perfectly righteous and innocent and note merely excusable.”

I agree with that statement. Dabney further asserted that if the Bible taught otherwise, he would hold with the abolitionists, who he claimed freed slaves for expediency sake and greed rather than righteousness. I believe he believed that statement when he wrote it. I just don’t happen to think his mind was clear on the subject. Set, yes, clear, no.

Yes, Noah enslaved his grandson for the sins of his father. Noah perhaps had a hangover or maybe he did it for a reason we don’t fully know now, but regardless, there was that form of slavery in the Bible. Abraham owned slaves; he even armed them in a war against Abimelech. Dabney noted that Abraham didn’t seem afraid of his slaves or their weapons and suggested this was because Abraham didn’t have any “saucy, meddling Yankee Abolitionists in those days to preach insubordination and make ill blood between masters and servants.”  Okay, I don’t think I need to point out that Dabney didn’t like abolitionists, but I might suggest that perhaps Abraham didn’t beat his slaves or sell their children off to distant regions. That the patriarchs held slaves is a given. Whether it was a God-ordained institution or something falling under the permissive will of God can be debated. The patriarchs also practiced polygamy, but it didn’t usually work out real well for them. Moreover, although we don’t often know the particulars of the partriarch-slave relationships, we do know that God eventually took action to free His people from Egyptian slavery. I would note that He did nothing about it for centuries, until after it became cruel.

Dabney denied that Southern slavery was essentially cruel. Abuses were rare, he insisted. In fact, he spent a good deal of paper and ink on asserting that Southern slave owners were only cruel when absolutely necessary and generally treated their slaves like indulged children. Reports to the contrary were, he claimed, lies and slander by outsiders.  I don’t buy it. Samuel Clemmons was himself a Southerner (though he had moved North by the time he wrote about slavery) and he reported abuses. He wasn’t alone. I don’t think these were isolated or rare instances. The quote by CS Lewis that few men are fit to be masters comes to mind. Southern slavery was a situation inviting cruelty and caprice and I think it did.

Dabney asserted that abolitionists wrongly believed that God established a general set of principles for obvious application under the law of love and that this is where we find the abolition of slavery. The general principles exclude slavery even if the particular act was not singled out. Dabney insisted that the Bible teaches by specific example and that slavery, if sinful, would be specifically forbidden if that were the case. I’ve already stated that the Bible doesn’t appear to forbid slavery. However, it does establish general principles of Christian conduct that would preclude slavery of the sort practiced in the South.

Time and time again, reading through Dabney’s book, he would make assertions that I found unsupportable. Yes, Gentile slavery in Paul’s day had the potential for greater cruelty than Hebrew slavery did. A Christian slave might be asked by his master to do something against his conscience, so freedom was preferred over slavery. Yes, they could blend into society after their freedom was granted, particularly their children could. Slaveholders were clearly admitted into full church membership (it would also seem that so were slaves). Slaves were called to submit to masters, even cruel ones. All this is true. However, Dabney denied (as in that river in Egypt) the possibility that African slaves in the American South were abused or asked to do anything against their consciences. He insisted they were allowed into full fellowship in white churches, but he provided no evidence for that other than his assertion.  While Paul taught that Christian slaves should submit even to cruel masters, it might be noted that Christian slave owners were required to treat their slaves with kindness as human beings, not cattle. The assertion that the Southern slave should have been submissive does not negate the sin of the cruel master.

Dabney noted that Philemon seems to support slavery rather than condemn it. True. You have a Christian slave sent back to his Christian master by Paul and Paul did not command Philemon to free Onesimus. No, but he suggested it. Essentially, what Paul wrote was that Onesimus had become Philemon’s brother in Christ, equal before God with him. Philemon should treat him well and free him if he was so minded, because then Onesimus could be more use to the gospel. It remained Philemon’s choice to do with his property as he saw fit, but Paul clearly thought Philemon should free Onesimus. We don’t know if he did, but we do know from a later letter that Onesimus seems to have been granted considerable freedom by Philemon in the future.

Biblically, the argument for slavery as a general institution exists. However, there remained a great deal of difference between the slavery regulated by God in Hebrew society and the slavery of the American South. Despite Dabney’s assertions, cruelty existed in Southern slavery and that cruelty condemned the practitioners of Southern slavery.  That there were exceptions has been stated, but as a rule, I think the institution of slavery as practiced in the American South was unbiblical in its cruelty and caprice.

Slavery, according to Dabney, is not ownership of the servant’s moral personality, soul, religious destiny or conscience, but merely a property claim to his involuntary labor. At this point, Dabney launched into a full-on denial of every stereotype of Southern slavery. The slave owners promoted education in the slaves. They encouraged fellowship at church. They allowed marriage and only sold spouses away from one another in cases of crimes. Besides, whites taught the blacks about marriage; they didn’t have that in Africa. The blacks weren’t very good parents, so it was up to the slave owners to decide what to do with their children in the child’s interest, of course. And, that dual system of laws for white men and slaves – well, you know, blacks are liars and of low moral character so they needed to be protected by their masters and white men needed to be protected from them (Page 220). Corporal punishment of slaves came from England, so it’s not our fault. And white slave owners never violated the chastity of their female slaves (page 232). I have one word on that – Thomas Jefferson. Dabney contradicted himself on page 237, admitting that there were violations from time to time and then insisted that individual human beings are sinful, but the institution was just fine – God ordained even. The abuses were not an essential part of the system, so don’t blame the system.

Dabney touched on a variety of evolutionary theories in his later arguments. Blacks breed like rabbits and slavery kept that in check, so Malthus would be proud. Blacks have low moral character due to their former pagan status and slavery was aimed at remediating that.  Man’s nature is essentially fallen, ameliorated by God’s divine guidance.

Man’s natural liberty “is only privilege to do whatever he has a moral right to do,” Dabney asserted (page 252). Civil liberty, under an equitable government, is also the privilege to do whatever a particular citizen has a moral right to do. A “perfectly just government would allot to each citizen freedom to do all things which he had a moral right to do, and nothing else.” The Christian theory of human government and liberty has founded man’s rights on “eternal moral distinctions” (page 254). We’re not all equal; we have different abilities, power, knowledge, virtue and natural relations to each other. Hence, “equality requires a varied distribution of social privilege upon different classes of members.” If you spread rights equally to the competent and the incompetent, the incompetent will use their liberty to injure the competent without real benefit to themselves. The Africans were pagans a few generations ago, so they aren’t fit to govern themselves. Emancipation is a disaster in the making. Domestic servitude is but one form of civil government and it is far more equitable than a hereditary monarchy, so everything’s fine. The black man’s “inferior character, ignorance and moral irresponsibility have extinguished his right” to do certain things allowed to the white man (page 260). Slavery is all for the good of society.

Wow! Obviously, I could be accused of cherry-picking, but I’m going to refer anyone so inclined to read Dabney’s book. The link is a few entries back.

I don’t think Dabney was an evil man, but I think he was a product of his time and of the admitted cruelty of Reconstruction. The North dropped the ball there and that was more than unfortunate, but mistakes before and after slavery really have nothing to do with whether or not Southern slavery could be called a Godly institution. As a concept, slavery is not condemned in the Bible. It was merely regulated. As a reality in the American South, it was cruel and capricious. It’s as if the slave owners of the South read the Bible passages permitting slavery without also reading the passages requiring masters to treat their Christian slaves as brothers in the Lord and fellow human beings. Had they done that, I don’t know what I would be saying right now. That they didn’t made all the difference. Although the result of the Civil War was the end slavery as an institution in America, I think a good case can be made that the cruelty of the institution in America was what needed to be addressed, but unfortunately, the practitioners of American slavery were not amenable to regulation of their cruel behavior; thus, the institution needed to be ended.

I read Professor Dabney’s A Defence of Virginia and am now considering my response.

First, let me note that Robert Dabney was a noted professor of theology, a Confederate army chaplain and a relative of Stonewall Jackson. He wrote this book during the very sad era of Reconstruction. Much of his anger toward the North and particularly abolitionists can be attributed to the hardships he and his fellow Southerners had experienced under Reconstruction.  I felt for the man as he listed these hardships particularly on Page 89.

I’ll start by saying that I will not pay a great deal of attention to Dabney’s legal and economic arguments. He made some good points and he made some points that have not been born out. His book was written in the late 1800s. I agree with his assertion that slavery was legal in almost the entirety of the British Empire when the American colonies were established and that slavery was practiced by other countries at the time. I would note that he either ignored or did not have available the historical evidence that slavery had not been practiced in Europe (or most Christianized areas) from the end of the Roman Empire until the European colonial period.  It would seem that the practice, once so prevalent in Europe and the Middle East even in the first centuries of the Christian era just seemed to die off without any required law when Christianity became the dominant religion of the area. That begs the question why which I could offer conjecture for, but which I cannot answer definitively. That question also raised the question of why it reappeared on the landscape after more than 1000 years of absence.

The US Constitution recognized slavery as a legal institution in the US at the Founding. It had been widely practiced in the past. It had fallen out of favor in the northern states for a variety of reasons. Dabney tried to assert that it was mostly because blacks aren’t suited to live in northern latitudes. I live in Alaska; I know many blacks who choose to live here and I think Canada also has a sizable population of African descent, so that’s an argument we can ignore as specious and poorly founded. It might be argued that the northern states had utilized indentured servants and found that contracted labor was more reliable than slave labor. A man with hope of freedom was more likely to remain through his contracted time and might become a good neighbor in the future. Some (primarily) Quakers had bought black slaves and treated them as contract servants, granting their freedom after a period of years (the name Freeman used to be very common among black people in certain parts of the country due to this practice). The South had fewer ports than the North, so that the European fresh off the boat wanting to earn his way through labor was more likely to land in Boston or New York than in Charleston. There were all sorts of reasons that black slavery didn’t really take off in the North as compared to the South. Dabney’s assertion that the African slave trade was primarily a Northern commercial enterprise that Southerners were forced to participate in because they needed laborers and no free men were available because of the African slave trade is dubious. In fact, I find this to be denial and buck-passing. It’s like an alcoholic saying his friend made him drink by offering him a beer, and hey, it’s also legal to drink in this country. No, the alcoholic has the ability (prior to drinking) to say “No, I don’t drink.” It doesn’t matter what the law of the land allows or what his friend is doing. He can make a moral choice not to participate in what he knows to be wrong for himself. The “Devil made me do it” argument is, I believe, ridiculous.

The doctrine of the atonement lies at the center of the Christian system. The apostle Paul, himself an advocate of “sound doctrine,” synopsized what Christians believe:

"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; And that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:3, 4).

When discussing Jesus’ death on the Cross on our behalf, we must realize that no single term could represent His entire saving work. I am looking at only a narrow slice of the doctrine of the atonement – that of being slaves of Christ. There is, I think, no word that describes what Jesus accomplished on the Cross more fully than redemption. It is not a singular, complete term, but it the preeminent term in describing Jesus’ work.

Redemption means to buy back something that had been temporarily forfeited. God Himself pays a ransom for the price of human sin which the holiness of God requires. Redemption is reconciles the sinner to the God he has offended with his sin. Typically, the biblical idea of redemption means to redeem a thing that is rightfully one’s own, but for a time is in the possession of another whose price must be legally met. Like every phase of the great doctrine of salvation, redemption is entirely the work of God Himself. When any man is redeemed, God Himself does it.

The teaching of redemption can be found throughout the entire Bible, not just the New Testament. Wherever you have redemption mentioned, it is implied that a ransom has been paid.

The Old Testament doctrine of redemption expresses the thought of setting free by payment of a ransom price. The thing redeemed might be a person or an inheritance. If a man became burdened with debt, mortgaging his entire property, and still could not satisfy the claims of his creditors, he might mortgage himself, his own strength and ability. Actually he would become a kind of slave to his creditor. But, says God,

After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him (Leviticus 25:48).

The concept of kinsman-redeemer is familiar from Ruth, which is a beautiful metaphor of our Lord’s work, for He came from Heaven to earth to be the perfect kinsman-redeemer for us. Typically, the kinsman-redeemer was next of kin to the debt-slave, but that wasn’t always the case, because the kinsman-redeemer had also to be able to pay the price of redemption and be willing to pay it. Whatever the price, it must be paid by the redeemer (Leviticus 25:27). Christ alone could pay the price of the sinner’s redemption (Galatians 3:13) with His own “precious blood” (1 Peter 1:18-19).

In the New Testament, three different Greek words are used to translate redemption, and without an understanding of these words the distinctions which they teach are lost to the reader of the English text:

(1) Agorazo, which means to purchase in the market.

(2) Exagorazo, which means to purchase out of the market.

(3) Lutroo, which means to loosen and set free.

Imagine a slave market and the sinner is a bond-slave to sin (Romans 7:14). Dominated by Satan (Ephesians 2:2), condemned (John 3:18), sentenced to die, for “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23) the sinner (bond-slave to sin) has no way to redeem himself. Thankfully, the Son of God became our Kinsman-Redeemer (Hebrews 2:14), took the place of the sinner-slave, was made a curse for us, and shed His blood as the ransom-price of our redemption (Matthew 20:28). When He made the purchase in the market, He paid for every sinner-slave who was in bondage to sin, so that redemption was provided for all. (1 Corinthians 6:20; 7:23; and 2 Peter 2:1). This is agorazo, the purchasing in the market.

Redemption, however, is more than merely paying the price. After our Kinsman-Redeemer paid for us in the market, then He took us out of the market, so that we shall never again be for sale or exposed to the lot of a slave. This is where the will of human beings come in. Just as a slave in Israel could choose to become a perpetual slave, sinners can choose to accompany Jesus out of the market of sin-slavery. This goes beyond agorazo, the mere payment of the requisite price in the slave market. This is exagorazo, the purchasing out of the market. It is used at least four times in the New Testament, twice with reference to the redemption of Jewish believers from the curse of the broken Law (Galatians 3:13; 4:4-5).

The third Greek word used to translate redemption is Lutroo, and it indicates that the redeemed one is “loosened” or “set free.” This word directs our thinking to actual liberation. It is most often used for the liberation of Israel from Roman rule (Luke 24:21; Luke 1:68; Luke 2:38).

This is redemption in its fullest meaning, for Jesus Christ did not pay the ransom in order that the sinner’s bondage should be merely transferred from one master to another. In this form of redemption, the ransomed go free. Christ will not hold unwilling slaves in bondage.

Redemption does, however, include a sort of new slavery. The believer is redeemed out of the market, unto God (Revelation 5:9).  This can mean the future redemption of the body and its ascension into God’s presence, but it also can refer to the believer’s present separation unto God. In a voluntary sense, we have become bond slaves of Jesus Christ. Paul the apostle referred to himself as “a servant (bondman) of Jesus Christ . . . separated unto the gospel of God” (Romans 1:1). Paul was redeemed from his former manner of life as a slave unto sin, but he was redeemed unto God, voluntarily becoming Jesus Christ’s bondman.

The Old Testament sets this stage very well. The seventh year in Israel’s national life was a year of release for the poor and Hebrew servant (Exodus 21:1-6; Deuteronomy 15:16-17). If a slave served his master for six years God said that “in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing” (Exodus 21:2). Yet he was not forced to go. If the slave loved his master, he could voluntarily remain as a slave. The voluntary relationship was sealed by the master piercing the slave’s ear through with an awl. Similarly, the Christian has been set free by the Redeemer, but we have the choice to yield ourselves to the One Who has redeemed us. Jesus is the perfect example of a voluntary servant as found in Psalm 40.

Christians are slaves of Christ in a voluntary sense. Should we decide to flee His jurisdiction, He does not send fugitive slave bounty hunters after us. It is a voluntary relationship. Of course, if we do decide to leave His circle of protection, we will face the consequences of our actions, but those consequences are meted out by the world, not by God Himself.

To be a Christian is to choose to be a bond-servant of Jesus. We do this out of gratitude for His redemption of our sin-debt and because we love our Master. Yet there are no shackles on us. We remain in this relationship because we want to.

As much as two-thirds of the Roman empire were slaves at any one time, though an increasingly large number were being freed by the first century.

This was very different from the South, where slaves were kept in perpetual slavery, not allowed to conduct their own business, legally marry or purchase their out freedom. The exceptions were for generosity and dignity while the rule seems to have been cruelty and subjugation.

So, as we come to the New Testament, we have to ask why Paul didn’t speak out against slavery in the Roman world. Legally, it was allowed to be cruel. So why wasn’t he more abolitionist in his statements?

First, the New Testament writers would have been aware of the Spartacus rebellion and the disastrous results stemming from it. They were far more interested in internal reformation that societal reformation. All change comes from the inside out, in Christianity. Thus, Paul spoke to the character of the slave and slave owner, rather than to the whole of society. Christianity was never meant to be a violent overthrowing religion. It was and is an internal change with far-reaching consequences to the world around it. Christianity would overturn much of the social order of the ancient world, but Christians themselves would not be agents of violence.

We should recognize that Paul did not speak to non-Christians, therefore, his commands were not directed at pagan slaveowners. They didn’t put themselves under God’s law and they were not part of His kingdom. Paul could not command them. Slaves themselves were powerless to bring about their own freedom except through rebellion or running away, actions that hardly comported with the gospel.

There are, however, passages where Paul wrote on the issue of slavery and they do plant the notion of freedom as in line with the gospel. The entire letter to Philemon addressed Onesimus’ freedom. Paul never commanded the churches he wrote to and he did not do so here. He urged Philemon to make the right decision from his heart. Rather than focus on a mere social agenda, Paul addressed Philemon’s relation with God and his fellow Christian. Onesimus had become a brother in Christ. Would Philemon go on treating him like property or treat him as a brother and could a brother in good conscience continue to hold his brother’s bill of sale?

In Ephesians 6:5-9 Paul reminded masters of their responsibility to treat their slaves with respect, noting that they too have a Master in heaven.

In Colossians 3:22-25, Paul instructed Christians slaves to perform their duties well. I think it would be a gross misinterpretation to think that Paul wouldn’t have given the same advice to Christian slaves in the American South 150 years ago. It is a Christian duty to flower where you are planted and that includes in the midst of slavery. Insurrection is not a Christian value.

However, I think his advice to Christian slaveowners in the American South would be much more like his advice to Philemon. Christian slaves were the spiritual brothers of Christian slaveowners. In this, they were very much like the Hebrew slaves of ancient Israel. They had already been purchased by God and were slaves to Him; therefore, it was incompatible for them to be slaves of their Christian brothers.

Paul did not seek to end the institution of slavery. That would have caused social upheaval. What he sought was to train people toward a closer and better understanding of God. If there is no difference between slave and free in the grace of Christ, then a Christian owning his spiritual brothers and sisters is somewhat putting himself between that brother and God. Would Onesimus be more profitable for the Lord as a slave or as a free man. This was the challenge Paul brought before Philemon. We don’t know exactly if Paul’s words resulted in Onesimus’ freedom, but we do know that he is mentioned elsewhere in Scripture as running errands for the apostle, suggesting that Philemon didn’t punish him harshly for his past crime.

Again, slavery was not outlawed in the Bible, but it was meant to be a controlled and humane institution. Christians could even own slave and be slaves. However, Christians belong first to God and that would present problems with a Christian owning Christian slaves. How can you feel that you are equal before God when one of you holds the other’s bill of sale. As we see in the history of the American South, most human beings are incapable of such a balanced view.

“‘As for your male and female slaves who may belong to you – you may buy male and female slaves from the nations all around you.Also you may buy slaves from the children of the foreigners who reside with you, and from their families that are with you, whom they have fathered in your land, they may become your property. You may give them as inheritance to your children after you to possess as property. You may enslave them perpetually. However, as for your brothers the Israelites, no man may rule over his brother harshly.” Leviticus 25:44-46

Because I like to clear up potential misconceptions before they take root, I went looking for some help with the Hebrew text.  The folks we’re discussing in verses 44-46 were slaves. In verse 44, the pertinent Hebrew word is dbe `ebed, meaning “bond servants or slave”. In verse 45, the pertinent Hebrew word is hzxa 'achuzzah, meaning “property or possession.” In verse 46, the pertinent Hebrew words is Mle `olam, meaning “perpetually or forever.” Whatever your current political leanings or socio-economic beliefs, there is no denying that the Levitical law allowed the Hebrews to keep foreign slaves as property forever.

There are people who get really exercised about this. I had some fun checking out atheist websites on this subject. Summarizing their basic arguments, the idea is that the Bible and Christianity are evil because the Bible allowed slavery, which we all KNOW is evil. 

"Everybody is equal in God's eyes" is the premise that we in modern America take utterly for granted, extending the concept not only to spiritual matters but also those of church governance. The authors of the Bible knew nothing of such modern egalitarian notions. Morality in the Bible is set forth as a personal matter, not a political matter. While we all stand equally guilty before God for our own sins, the equality ends at the cross. Those who take up the cleansing mantle of salvation leave their sins there and walk into the light. Those who don’t, well, a sadder fate awaits them. We are all equal as sinners, but repentance makes some sinners acceptable to God. As for the political and social order, the Bible does not direct us to anything beyond the hierarchical principles of order found in the ancient world of kings and patriarchs, promising only that in due time a righteous Kingdom will come. An honest reading of the Bible is impossible for those who would read into it the politicized egalitarian morality of modern America. Even the most cherished ideal of modern civil philosophy — that "all men are created equal," and "endowed with certain inalienable rights," — must be left behind by the student who would fully enter into the world of the Bible.

Yes, I know that many liberal scholars argue that the New Testament contains evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was a social revolutionary who founded a short-lived “egalitarian” community based upon a “discipleship of equals” that they assert was abandoned by His followers, who rewrote the New Testament to suppress such egalitarian notions. There’s no evidence for this other than in their own revisionist minds. The concept that all persons are equal in economic, social, legal, and political arenas is a modern, Enlightenment philosophy which grew from Biblical concepts, but turned in a way quite different from that understood by the Biblical writers. The ancient world understood a concept of equity or proportional equality, but would not have recognized or embraced the equality celebrated by the American and French revolutions. Searching for instances of American egalitarianism in the ancient world found in either the Old or New Testament is pointless. Theirs were very different cultures from our own. We should not expect to find modern needles in ancient haystacks.

Slavery existed in Israel after the Exodus, and it was chattel slavery of foreign slaves. There is a question, however, of whether it was parallel to the slavery practiced in the American South.

I don’t think it was.

The majority of non-Hebrew slaves were war-captives, often Canaanites who had survived the general extermination of their race under Joshua or were conquered from the surrounding nations (Numbers 31:26). Many slaves were also purchased from foreign slave-dealers (Leviticus 25:44,45). Others may have been resident foreigners who were reduced to this state by either poverty or crime. The children of slaves remained slaves, being the class described as "born in the house," (Genesis 14:14; 17:12; Ecclesiastes 2:7) and hence the number was likely to increase as time went on. The average value of a slave appears to have been thirty shekels. (Exodus 21:32) and slaves might be manumitted (freed) (Exodus 21:26,27; Leviticus 19:20). The slave was described as the "possession" of his master, ,meaning he/she could be disposed to the master’s heirs like any other article of personal property (Leviticus 25:45,46). However, provision was made for the protection of his person. (Exodus 21:20; Leviticus 24:17,22). A minor personal injury, such as the loss of an eye or a tooth, was to be recompensed by giving the servant his liberty (Exodus 21:26,27). The position of the slave in regard to religious privileges was favorable. He was to be circumcised (Genesis 17:12) and hence was entitled to partake of the Passover sacrifice (Exodus 12:44) as well as the other religious festivals (Exodus 12:12,18; 16:11,14). The whole tendency of the Bible legislation was to mitigate slavery, making it little than more than hired service.

Contemporary observers of American slavery were hardly unbiased opinions and reports vary, but slavery in the American South was far harsher than the Old Testament ideal. Of course, there were exception to the norm, but slaves on many plantations were treated with violence, indignation and humiliation as a matter of course. There was often no consideration for family ties – a slave might see his wife sold in one direction and his children in another with no hope of ever seeing them again. Whereas a Hebrew slaveholder was supposed to free a slave he injured even mildly, American slaveholders often maimed their slaves in order to keep them from running away. Non-Hebrew slaves were encouraged to become Hebrews and would thus, at least theoretically, fall under the provisions of the Year of Jubilee and other regulations of Hebrew slaves. American slaves were kept in perpetual servitude, unable to vote, unable to free themselves from slavery and without basic dignity.

As I said, there were no doubt exceptions. A friend of mine noted that her slaveholding ancestor went into partnership with one of his former slaves after the Civil War and the two families remained in business together until the Depression caused them to close their doors. Clearly, there must have existed some mutual respect even during the years of slavery, indicating that their prior relationship was not one of abuse and humiliation. However, as an institution, American slavery in the South cannot be compared to that practiced in the Old Testament because most American slaveholders do not appear to have followed the slavery codes of Israel. Had they done so, they might have been able to stand against the abolitionists.

Back in ancient times, things were a bit different. In an agrarian society, it was understood that farmers might have bad years and incur debt. It was further understood that neighbor should help neighbor. Because the Israelites had been slaves in Egypt, this wasn't an unfamiliar concept to them. However, God wanted them to be different from the nations around them, so He set up rules and regulations concerning debt, land ownership and slavery that were very different from the methods used by neighboring nations.

At the end of this debate, I’ll address the issue of short-term debt in ancient Israel (it seems appropriate to our own times), but for now, let us turn our attention to poverty that is greater than the temporary "cash flow" problem discussed in the earlier passage. We're considering real financial disaster as might happen during several years of disastrous crops resulting in the debtor being forced to sell himself to either a fellow-Israelite or a stranger.

"If your brother becomes impoverished with regard to you so that he sells himself to you, you must not subject him to slave service. He must be with you as a hired worker, as a resident foreigner; he must serve with you until the year of jubilee, but then he may go free, he and his children with him, and may return to his family and to the property of his ancestors. Since they are my servants whom I brought out from the land of Egypt, they must not be sold in a slave sale. You must not rule over him harshly, but you must fear your God." Leviticus 25:39-43

We must first remember that God gave the instructions in Leviticus to a people who were just coming out of slavery in Egypt. Slavery was not unfamiliar to them. It had been cruel and barbaric in Egypt. It was not for some light reason that God gave instructions to the Israelites on how they should deal with an Israelite brother who became their slave due to dire poverty. God had an interest in raising Israel up as different from their neighbors, but also, there was the very real possibility that Israelite slave-owners would conduct themselves in the same way that Egyptian slave-owners had treated the Israelites. This, I assert, would have been an abomination to God.

We should note that it would seem that the exemplar had no relatives who were willing to redeem him, since redemption by a family member is not mentioned. After all, if his family would have come to his rescue, his slavery would not have been necessary.

God’s instruction to the Israelite who acquired such a "slave" was that his brother should not be treated as a slave. Whoa! Now that had to be a majorly difficult concept for people familiar with the Israelite treatment in Egypt. Yes, you have acquired a slave. The assumption is that a slave would be treated more severely than a hired employee. The Israelites of Moses’ day did not need instruction on how to mistreat a slave; they had ample experience from their own harsh treatment at the hand of Pharaoh and the Egyptians (Exodus 1:8-14).

The Hebrew "slave" was to be treated with the dignity and respect of a "hired man," who could leave his employment if he were not treated with dignity and fairness. Other Biblical texts (Deuteronomy 24:15) make it clear that this included being paid at the end of each day. That kindness was to be genuine, full-measured, and continual is evidenced by the fact that provisions were made for the slave to continue as such for his lifetime (Exodus 21:5-6; Deuteronomy 15:16-17).

When the year of Jubilee arrived (Exodus 21:2-4), the slave was to be released, so that he could return to the property of his forefathers (Leviticus 25:41). The Israelites, including those so financially distressed as to become the slave of his fellow citizen, became God’s servants (slaves) at the Exodus, and no slave can have two masters. Revering God required obedience to this command (Leviticus 25:43). No slave could be held through the Year of Jubilee and those acquiring such a debt slave were not to consider how close the Year of Jubilee was when acquiring the slave. They were to incur the debt and then release the slave upon the Year of Jubilee, regardless of whether the debt had been discharged.

This did not prohibit chattel slavery (owning slaves as property) altogether, as we will see in the study of Leviticus 25:44-46. An Israelite could not be made a chattel slave since he already was God’s slave, but non-Israelites were not God’s slaves, so they could become the possession of the Israelites.

We’ll look at that next.

Mr. Dabney based one of his defenses of Southern slavery on Canaan’s curse of slavery from Genesis 9:18-29, so it does seem fitting to look at it. Those who want to follow the link to Mr. Dabney’s book will find the pertinent passage on page 103.

As I am a Biblicist, I prefer to look at the actual Biblical passage and then offer comment. Mr. Dabney’s observations are interesting, but not Scripture, of course.

“The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. (Now Ham was the father of Canaan.)  These were the sons of Noah, and from them the whole earth was populated.  Noah, a man of the soil,  began to plant a vineyard.  When he drank some of the wine, he got drunk and uncovered himself inside his tent. Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father’s nakedness and told his two brothers who were outside. Shem and Japheth took the garment and placed it on their shoulders. Then they walked in backwards and covered up their father’s nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so they did not see their father’s nakedness.

“When Noah awoke from his drunken stupor he learned what his youngest son had done to him. So he said, “Cursed be Canaan!  The lowest of slaves he will be to his brothers.”

“He also said, “Worthy of praise is the Lord, the God of Shem!  May Canaan be the slave of Shem!  May God enlarge Japheth’s territory and numbers! May he live in the tents of Shem and may Canaan be his slave!”

“After the flood Noah lived 350 years. The entire lifetime of Noah was 950 years, and then he died.”  Genesis 9:18-29

The Genesis text is a little skimpy on detail and that has lead to significant speculation about what exactly transpired in Noah’s tent. We don’t know and I’m not going to speculate because that opens other topics that are not in view right now.  What we do know can be simply stated. Noah got drunk and comported himself in an embarrassing fashion. It would seem that Ham didn’t seek to aid his father by covering up his nakedness, but instead informed his brothers who took pains to cover their father without adding to his embarrassment. That is what we know and that is what I’m willing to discuss at this time.  My focus right now is on Noah’s curse of Canaan, who was Ham’s son.

Noah was so irritated with Ham’s behavior that he pronounced that Canaan, Ham’s youngest son, would be the lowest servant to his brothers. The Hebrew word used is xa ‘ach, meaning "brother; brother of the same parents" and can mean a half-brother or relative or kinsman of the same tribe. Thus, those (like Mr. Dabney) who would apply this curse as Canaan’s relationship to all of mankind would seem to be straining the Hebrew meaning here.  I believe it refers specifically to Canaan’s earthly relatives, the other sons of Ham. For whatever happened between Noah and Ham in Noah’s tent, Canaan would be subservient to his brothers and to his father’s brothers, Shem and Japheth.

Viewed this way (and I did check the Hebrew with someone who knows it better than I do) it is impossible to see any application of this passage to the subjugation of black Africans or their descendents. It was Canaan who was cursed in this passage, not Ham. Canaan was not the father of black people, but the forebear of the Canaanites who lived in Palestine and would be a later threat to Israel.

Please note that in verse 26, Noah didn’t bless Shem, but Shem’s God. The godly line would be preserved through Shem; thus, the Biblical genealogies trace his seed to Jesus. The blessing of that line didn’t come from Shem, but through Shem. It flowed out of his relationship with Yahweh, the God of Israel. The servitude of Canaan was one evidence of this blessing (Deuteronomy 28:7-9).

There is clear correspondence between the activities of Ham, Shem, and Japheth and the curses and blessings which followed them. Shem and Japheth honored God when they acted together to preserve the honor of their father. Ham dishonored both his father and his God by apparently relishing the humiliation of Noah. Ham was cursed and Shem and Japheth were blessed in cooperative unity.

This leaves us with a problematic question. Why did God curse Canaan for the sin of Ham and why curse the Canaanites, a nation, for the sin of one man? This is going to open up New Testament discussions, I'm sure, but my focus right now is this passage in Genesis.

I’m not entirely convinced that God cursed Canaan. I recognize that Noah did and, as God’s prophet, he certainly might have been speaking prophetically, but I can’t shake the reality that Noah was suffering from a hangover and vexed at his son. He might simply have been pronouncing a human judgment. Certainly as the ruler of their tribe, he had the right to place Canaan under the rule of others as a slave if that was what he chose to do. I have no problem with humans in the Bible acting like humans. They can teach us a lot even by negative example. Scholars don’t completely agree with this, however.

Most scholars feel that the words of Noah convey a curse, a blessing and a prophesy. The sins of the fathers are visited on the sons to the third and fourth generation (Exodus 20:5). If this principle were to be applied here, all the sons of Ham should have been cursed. Thus, some scholars believe that Noah foresaw, by prophetic revelation, the moral flaws evidenced by Ham that would be more fully manifested in Canaan and his offspring. Knowing this, the curse of God fell upon the Canaanites because of the sinfulness Noah foresaw. In retrospect, the Canaanites would be cursed because of their sin, not Ham’s. Some scholars think this explains why Canaan is cursed and not Ham or the rest of his sons.

The following table of nations listed in what we call Chapter 10 deals with the offspring of the Ark.  Japheth was dealt with first because he was least important to the theme being developed. Ham was next discussed because of the important part the Canaanites played in the history of Israel. Shem was mentioned last because he was the principle person of the chapter, the one through whom the “seed of the woman” would come. The godly line would be preserved through Shem. The table of the nations evidences selectivity in that only those nations who will play a key role in the national development of Israel in the land of Canaan are mentioned.

From Japheth came the Indo-Europeans, the best known of which would be the Greeks. Even Hellenistic history noted this relationship. This means most of us, being Europeans, are from the line of Japheth.

Ham was the forefather of those who made up the great empires, including Babylon, Assyria, Nineveh, and Egypt. According to my Biblical archeology book, Put was probably the father of black Africans while Canaan was the father of the nations known generally as the Canaanites (Genesis 10:15-18; Deuteronomy 20:17). Shem’s descendants probably stretched into Asia Minor, Sumeria and the Persian Gulf and ultimately to northern India.  Shem was the forefather of Abram.

Mr. Dabney’s argument on page 103 suggested that African blacks, as the descendents of Canaan, were cursed with perpetual servitude because this was simply God’s remedial discipline for a race of people of low moral character. Thus, Mr. Dabney believed chattel slavery based on racism was justified in the American South. He admitted the case was weak, but found it supportable.

I don’t think we can find a justification for racism directed at African blacks in this text.  Canaan was not the progenitor of that race; his brother Put was. Canaan’s specific curse, if you wish to judge the hung-over and embarrassed Noah as speaking prophesy, was that he would be a servant to all others in his tribe. I don't think that can be applied to the entire human race. The curse would clearly have consequences in Canaan, when the Israelites were settling there. For our own day and time, however, Canaan was the progenitor of the Iraqis and Egyptians, not African blacks. I will maintain that God was under no obligation at that moment to empower Noah’s curses and that this may very likely have been an example of a man acting in a very human way. Whether God-ordained or not, the consequences of the curse were far-reaching, but not all the way to the 19^th Century American South.

Before starting this dialogue, I want to make a few things clear. I am a child of the north and the great-great-granddaughter of an abolitionist Methodist preacher. None of my ancestors have ever lived in the South or been slave-holders, and there is evidence that the abolitionist may have operated a way-station on the Underground Railroad. I was raised in Alaska, where segregation was of necessity never practiced. This is a small-population state and a frontier town. Growing up, there were large populations of African-American and Asian children in the schools due to local military bases, as well as the Alaskan Native population. We Alaskan children grew up not knowing there was any great difference or animosity between the races; our neighborhoods were not even segregated by wealth, let alone racial discrimination. In fact, my first introduction to racism came from a black child (a new neighbor brought to Alaska by the military) during the Watts riots in the 1960s. What she thought of me was certainly an unpleasant revelation and one I still think was highly inaccurate. She judged me by the color of my skin rather than the content of my character. I try never to do the same with others.

I say this because when thinking about slavery of any era Americans tend to picture the recent slavery of the black race in our own country. In doing so, we mix the whole subject of slavery with the issue of racism. In ancient times, slavery was not associated with any particular race. We must remember that by seeming to condone slavery the Bible does not approve racism.

The Biblical treatment of slavery consternates modern people because we often now tend to confuse morality with political and cultural values. Modern Americans tend to politicize everything, including the Christian gospel. The politicization of moral philosophy or ethics seems to be almost a sub-department of political science now, contributing to the elaborate system of political correctness in public life. "Racism," "sexism," "homophobia," and etc., are considered the really serious sins under this new morality. The egalitarian ideology of our time is considered to be of such overriding importance that any slight affront to it is considered sinful, while the principles of ordinary old-fashioned morality are downplayed and even denied.  More than a mere fad, this political correctness is the logical and inevitable result of the politicization of morality, the elaboration of an entirely new morality based upon political ideas of right and wrong.

Thus, in looking at slavery in the Bible, we need to keep these cultural lenses in view, so that they do not distort our vision of Biblical truth. I personally believe that slavery as practiced in Europe, the Caribbean and the American South from colonial times to the Civil War was an abhorrent system to God and contrary to the Bible and general Christian principles. It is from this stance that I will argue – from the Bible. Yet in this discussion, we must recognize that there were people in that time who argued for slavery based upon the Bible and their interpretation of passages that actually do exist there. It’s a mine-field topic. Let’s see where it takes us.

Now may the God of peace who by the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead the great shepherd of the sheep, our Lord Jesus Christ, equip you with every good thing to do his will, working in us what is pleasing before him through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever. Amen.

“Now I urge you, brothers and sisters, bear with my message of exhortation, for in fact I have written to you briefly. You should know that our brother Timothy has been released. If he comes soon, he will be with me when I see you. Greetings to all your leaders and all the saints. Those from Italy send you greetings. Grace be with you all.” Hebrews 13:20-25

The second starts with one of the most powerfully worded blessings found in the Scripture. The words sum up the passionate concern of the writers for the readers' spiritual growth and stress the major factors that make such growth possible: the God of peace, the blood of the eternal covenant, the resurrection of Jesus, His Shepherd care for His sheep, the indwelling life of God Himself, the equipping of the Spirit, the aim to please God, and the eternal glory and lordship of Jesus. It is all there in one glorious outpouring of good wishes and confident certainty.

These are the themes of Hebrews brilliantly restated, forming an appropriate conclusion to the letter. The God of peace surely refers to the peace given to all who are justified by faith (Romans 5:1); the blood of the eternal covenantrecalls all the writers had written in chapters 8-10 about the opening of a new and living way to God; brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, though the only direct reference to the resurrection in the epistle, implies the new beginning and the new power which is now shared with all who believe; that great Shepherd of the sheep pictures the high priestly ministry of Jesus under a different figure; equip you with everything goodspeaks of the spiritual gifts imparted by the Spirit, mentioned in 2:4; working in us what is pleasing to himlooks back to 13:15-16, the worship and service of God's people; and through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever concludes with the pre-eminent theme of the entire letter: the superiority of Jesus to anything and everything else that people worship or honor.

We possess such marvelous resources! Where is our excuse for failing to become the man or woman God intends us to be? J. I. Packer wrote: "My task is not to dizzy myself by introspecting or speculating to find (if I can) what lies at the outer reaches of consciousness, nor to pursue endless, exquisite stimulation in the hope of new exotic ecstasies. It is, rather, to know and keep my place in God's cosmic hierarchy and in that place to spend my strength in serving God and men".

As with all personal letters, Hebrews then turns to the mundane news of friends far and wide. Timothy had been released, presumably from prison, and may be able to join one or both of the writers on this proposed visit to their locality. Nothing further is known of Timothy's imprisonment, though it suggests that Paul's warning to him in 2 Timothy 4:15 to be on his guard against Alexander the metalworker was not without substance. It may well be that Alexander obtained Timothy's incarceration; if so, it would probably have been at Ephesus. Timothy would have had many friends throughout the province of Asia (which many scholars believe was the site of the recipients of this letter). The greetings extended from those from Italy do not mean that Hebrews was written from Italy, for then the writer would have said "those in (or of) Italy." The phrase designates a group of Italians now living wherever the writers were when they wrote.

The writer asked the readers to greet their leaders for him, indicating that the letter was not addressed to the leaders themselves but to the church at large, including possibly some home churches (all God's people). This is the third mention of leaders within this chapter, showing the author's respect for their position and value. The closing Grace be with you all is another indication of his close association with Paul, for this is identical with the ending of the letter to Titus (3:15), and the conferring of grace is Paul's habitual way of closing his letters (2 Thessalonians 3:17).

This letter was written at a time when the winds of change were blowing strongly throughout the Roman Empire, and most strongly within Judaism. At such times humans tend to cling to familiar patterns and resist change simply because it is unfamiliar and therefore threatening. Our real need is for recognition of the things which cannot change and receptivity toward the things which must be changed. Every fresh movement of the Spirit of God tends to become stereotyped in the next generation. What we have heard and been taught becomes an entrenched tradition encroaching on the allegiance owed only to the living and active word of God.

The epistle to the Hebrews magnificently links the things which cannot be shaken with the fresh sweep of the Spirit in carrying forward the purposes of God as history moves toward its predicted consummation. It is a document greatly needed as the world lurches toward judgment, as a new creation, based on the new covenant, gradually emerges from the crashing chaos of human events. We should be grateful for its wise and careful teaching and obedient to its passionate concern for a constantly maturing faith.

The normal expressions of the new Christian life are open to all true believers and, consistently exhibited, are designed to impress non-Christians with the advantages of faith. In this second section of Chapter 13, the writers focused more on the marks of the faith at work within the life of the church, such as respect for and compliance with Godly leaders, whose faith must be emulated since it was fixed on Jesus Who is unchangeable and always available. Almost every Christian has some mentor who has shaped his or her faith by Godly example; their memory is a continual encouragement to draw strength from the unchanging Lord. The memorial marker to John Wesley in Westminster Abbey bears the inscription: "God buries his workmen, but he carries on his work." Memories of godly lives help best when they turn us to the One Who never needs to be replaced and Who is permanently available to His people.

 “Remember your leaders, who spoke God’s message to you; reflect on the outcome of their lives and imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever! Do not be carried away by all sorts of strange teachings.  For it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not ritual meals, ⁸  which have never benefited those who participated in them. We have an altar that those who serve in the tabernacle have no right to eat from. For the bodies of those animals whose blood the high priest brings into the sanctuary as an offering for sin are burned outside the camp. Therefore, to sanctify the people by his own blood, Jesus also suffered outside the camp. We must go out to him, then, outside the camp, bearing the abuse he experienced. For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come. Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips, acknowledging his name. And do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for God is pleased with such sacrifices.

“Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls and will give an account for their work. Let them do this with joy and not with complaints, for this would be no advantage for you. Pray for us, for we are sure that we have a clear conscience and desire to conduct ourselves rightly in every respect. I especially ask you to pray that I may be restored to you very soon.” Hebrews 13:7-19

There is, and was, a tendency of Christians to seek approval or status from God by eating, or refraining from eating, certain special foods (for example, the once-held Catholic practice of eating fish on Friday). Many appeals are made today for vegetarianism, special diets, and even the use of marijuana, peyote or other hallucinogenic drugs, which are designed to enhance spiritual vitality. The Hebrew authors called such practices all kinds of strange teachings and warned against becoming involved with such beliefs, because they turn attention from the strengthening by grace which trust in the living Christ can bring to the troubled heart. Noting that the ascetic practices of some had done them no good, the authors asserted such practices are of no value to those who eat them, echoing a similar thought by Paul in Colossians 2:23.

Our faith should rest in the person of Jesus instead of in some empty ritual. The authors of Hebrews presented Christ's sacrifice as the antitype of the sin offering on the Day of Atonement. The Cross is our altar. The priests of Israel could not eat the flesh of any animal whose blood was sprinkled on the mercy seat, though they partook freely of the flesh of other sacrificed animals. The bodies of the sin offerings were burnt outside the camp where Jesus was also taken when He was crucified (John 19:20). Though the priests had no right to eat of the bodies of the sin offerings, we do have the right to nourish ourselves on the life of our great Sin Offering, Jesus. We are "eating Christ" when we trust and obey Him. Verse 13 appeals for us to “go outside the camp” which is the religious establishment, whether of Judaism or of a distorted Christianity. This does not necessarily mean a physical withdrawal, but refers more to the inner attitude which sees no value in religious ritual and dietary restrictions. It looks directly to the promises of the new covenant for personal strength to live by. Visible religious practices are often highly regarded by society. Those who live by faith, without the need for impressive buildings, rituals, altars, vestments and the like, are often scorned as having nothing beautiful about their faith to commend it. God has never made anything more beautiful than a genuinely holy person whose inner commitment and fellowship with Christ is visibly evidenced by a loving spirit, a humble attitude, a forgiving heart and a moral walk.  Christians have already attained to that "city that is to come" in our spirits (12:22); we shall enter it in body at the resurrection when Jesus returns (Revelation 21:2-4). We are in no need now of ornate buildings, special ceremonies and elaborate ritual.

True faith is manifest with the sacrifices of genuine praise, and compassionate sharing and help. Worship and service: these are the fruits produced by genuine life from God. They are to be done through Jesus, and continually (according to the Greek), because it is with such sacrifices (not by empty rituals) that God is pleased (Isaiah 58:6-9; Hosea 6:6; James 1:27). The worship of Christians together and their practical deeds of compassion and help are the "sacrifices" with which God is pleased.

The author's basis for urging readers to give willing response to their leaders is that the leaders are Godly men who deeply feel their responsibility to lead wisely and lovingly as men who must give an account. This account must be given, not to the congregation, but to the Lord (1 Peter 5:2-4). If individuals yield voluntary submission to such responsible leadership, it will make the leader's work a joy and great advantage to all. Note that the responsibility for making the operations of a church a joy rather than a burden is placed on the congregation, not on their leaders.

The mark of a true Christian leader will be that he/she leads the congregation in acts of true Christian worship, not in empty rituals or the construction of marvelous edifices, but in acts of compassion, spreading the gospel and discipleship of the saints.

“Brotherly love must continue. Do not neglect hospitality, because through it some have entertained angels without knowing it.  Remember those in prison as though you were in prison with them, and those ill-treated as though you too felt their torment.  Marriage must be honored among all and the marriage bed kept undefiled, for God will judge sexually immoral people and adulterers. Your conduct must be free from the love of money and you must be content with what you have, for he has said, “I will never leave you and I will never abandon you.” So we can say with confidence, “The Lord is my helper, andI will not be afraid. What can man do to me?” Hebrews 13-1-6

Of principle importance is brotherly love. Jesus Himself said this would be the mark by which His true disciples would be known (John 13:35). It is not a love based on personal liking, but on a shared relationship. All Christians are "members one of another" because we share the life of Christ. We value and care for each other because we are brothers and sisters, whether we naturally like each other or not. In 12:12-17, the authors had already shown their concern that their readers guard their influence on other believers and strive to live at peace, avoiding immorality and a materialistic spirit. Here the writers indicated the more positive side of actively showing love. There is a practical quality to this love, as 1John 3:17 indicates: "If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?"

Church members then checked up on those in need and saw to it that their basic needs for food, shelter and clothing were met. They were to be hospitable and generous, even with total strangers or any who showed need of their ministrations. Certain Old Testament saints, because of their hospitable ways, had enjoyed extraordinary experiences with angelic (Genesis 18; Judges 8; Judges13). Hospitality to strangers is a peculiarly significant mark of Christian ministry since it reflects the undeserving mercy which the Christian has received from God already. Jesus said, "Freely you have received, freely give" (Matthew 10:8), and warm hospitality reflects such an attitude. Such hospitality is not manifest in the modem practice of repaying entertainment by one's friends, though that is not wrong in itself It is simply not reaching out to strangers as Jesus commanded (Luke 14:13-14). Fear of being taken advantage of keeps many from this practice, but first-century believers found a way to minimize that. An early Christian commentary, the Didache, limited visits to only one day, or two if necessary. If a Christian stayed three days, he was regarded as a false prophet.

True Christian concern is aware of the needs of prisoners and others suffering difficult circumstances. Empathy is expected for, not merely help. We must feel with the prisoner or the mistreated, the shame, hurt and hopelessness they often experience, and minister to them out of awareness that we too could have been where they are, had our circumstances been the same as theirs. Even those imprisoned justly merit Christian help, since Jesus ministered to the guilty and the condemned simply because they were human beings, who were victims of self-deceit or ignorance. Churches in the modern era have too easily shifted concern for the poor and homeless to the shoulders of government. That help should be welcomed, but it must be remembered that it will often be impersonal. Christians can add dimensions of love and continuance that non-Christians are not capable of showing. Each Christian should frequently review his or her efforts in this direction. Yes, the exhortations remain valid today!

In Christian reality, marriage must be preserved as God-given and honorable, with no sexual infidelity tolerated. The writers and audience of Hebrews saw clearly that marriage cannot exist where sexual infidelity is tolerated, though even failure in this area would not call for cold condemnation. Counsel, understanding, and a willingness to forgive and restore upon repentance are needed.

The family is the basic unit of society; any breakdown soon begins to affect general society, as we see ample proof of in today’s culture. Christian laxity is probably responsible for the dismissive attitude of many young people who regard marriage, and particularly marriage vows. God views infidelity as serious and will allow the natural consequences of pain, hurt and guilt to take their terrible toll; no way can be found to escape it. In this way He judges the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. Knowing the inevitable consequences should induce couples to work hard at solving marriage rifts, seeking spiritual help to flee temptations to sexual sin. Christian leaders must see that such help is available and is not superficial or inaccurate. The moral climate of society may regard Biblical sexual standards as quaint and old-fashioned, but the church especially ought to hold to such standards.

Genuine Christianity exhibits a contented, greed-free attitude. The basis for such contentment is God's promise and ability to supply the necessities of life (Matthew 6:25-34). Loving money must especially be avoided as it becomes a substitute for faith in God's loving care, inducing a false trust in an unreliable supply. God has said He will never leave us nor forsake us. Though credit cards were unknown in the first century, they often constitute a trap today that results in financial ruin and destruction. The point of danger is the love of money which cancels out the sense of God's love and promised supply, launching the believer into worldly schemes for financial security that belie all trust in God. Yes, God can and often does supply methods of financial support using banks, insurance, securities and other means, b these must be seen as coming from His hand. It is always spiritually dangerous to grow financially discontent.

Good words to remember in these times of economic uncertainty and marital degradation. Christians with their eyes focused on Jesus will find their strength in ministries of compassion, marital fidelity and financial contentment. God is there for our support and supply, if we but focus on Him and Him alone. When we do so, the world cannot help but notice, as they noticed in the early centuries of Christianity, our uniqueness within human societies.

“For you have not come to something that can be touched,  to a burning fire and darkness and gloom and a whirlwind and the blast of a trumpet and a voice uttering words such that those who heard begged to hear no more.  For they could not bear what was commanded: “If even an animal touches the mountain, it must be stoned.”  In fact, the scene was so terrifying that Moses said, “I shudder with fear.” But you have come to Mount Zion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the assembly and congregation of the firstborn, who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous, who have been made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks of something better than Abel’s does.” Hebrews 12:18-24

This picture indicates that mere mortals should be glad we don’t know God with our senses, because He is awesome and overwhelming and we cannot handle the truth of His unvarnished reality

Throughout the letter the authors drew a contrast between the old covenant of the law, which was given at Mount Sinai, and the new covenant of grace, which actually preceded the law and was made fully manifest in the ministry and sacrifice of Jesus. Fro Exodus and Deuteronomy, the authors now drew upon the fearful scene at Mount Sinai when the Ten Commandments were given and then, from the prophets, various elements of the heavenly Jerusalem associated with the new covenant.

The point of this description of Mount Sinai and the giving of the law is that the old covenant aroused unbearable fear. The sight of the burning mountain and the ever-increasing blare of a trumpet, the darkness, storm and fearful threats directed even toward dumb beasts, created such fear in the people that they begged Moses to plead with God for relief. Even Moses shook with fear! Terror is the invariable end of trying to obey a law which requires perfection. Fear of God's just condemnation is overwhelming! Most people do not feel this fear because they do not take the law seriously, at least not until they reach the end of their lives and its fearful judgments lie immediately before them. All who seek earnestly to obey the law find themselves confronted with such personal failure that they soon despair of escaping God's fearful condemnation. Mount Sinai stands as the symbol of this despair and fear.

By contrast, the new covenant wrought joyful celebration, "For what the law was powerless to do . . . God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering" (Romans 8:3).

The writers of Hebrews told their readers, including us, that “you must come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the Living God.” Abraham and the patriarchs sought it, Paul wrote of it (Galatians 4:26) as the mother to all believers. The authors of Hebrews viewed it as already attained by those who have believed the new covenant and come to Jesus. We are already residents of the city in a spiritual sense, though our bodies remain as strangers on earth.

Our arrival will be a cause of much celebration among the angels gathered there, and among the whole communion of saints who have passed before us. Without exception, all humans must stand before God to be judged, but the good news of the gospel is that believers may stand before God without fear, since Jesus Himself assures each one that he “has eternal life and will be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life” (John 5:24). This relief from the fear of judgment is an enormous blessing to those who know themselves to be sinners in word, thought and deed. The communion of saints gathered in the holy city will include the Old Testament saints whose spirits have been made perfect. The spiritual city’s gates are named for the 12 tribes of Israel and its foundation stones bear the names of the 12 apostles of the Lamb.

We are coming to kneel at Jesus’ feet, for Jesus is the mediator of the new covenant as Moses was the mediator of the old covenant. The old covenant was but a shadow of the new covenant. Moses was a temporary mediator; Jesus is an eternal mediator. The sprinkling of His blood on the mercy seat does not merely cover sin for a time, but removes them entirely.

What we can take away from this passage is that Christians have already attained many of the blessings of heaven in our lifetime. We live spiritually with God every moment of our days and we can feel encouraged by the saints who have gone before us, for we belong to a body of believers who share a heavenly citizenship. For this reason, we have no fear of God’s judgment and need not fear even as we stand before His throne on Judgment Day.

“Take care not to refuse the one who is speaking! For if they did not escape when they refused the one who warned them on earth, how much less shall we, if we reject the one who warns from heaven? Then his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, “I will once more shake not only the earth but heaven too.”  Now this phrase “once more” indicates the removal of what is shaken, that is, of created things, so that what is unshaken may remain. So since we are receiving an unshakable kingdom, let us give thanks, and through this let us offer worship pleasing to God in devotion and awe. For our God is indeed a devouring fire.”  Hebrews 12:25-29

Christians possess enormous resources for living and it is of utmost importance to act in accordance with them. Truth understood is never acceptable in and of itself; it must accomplish something in order to become reality. The authors warn (for the fifth time) that their readers should not turn back from the truth they have learned. Professing Christians should never return to the more comfortable and less demanding life in Judaism or to an accommodation to the unbelieving lifestyles around them.

The Hebrew Christians were in danger of drifting away from that which they had heard. They stood in peril of refusing to follow God’s commands. As Jews – or Judaized Christians – they knew that violation of the law had produced immediate punishment. Now they were told that those who refused the One Who gave commandments from the mountain did not escape. “How shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation?” (Hebrews 2:1-3). “How much less will we [escape] if we turn away from him who warns us from heaven?” We are no longer dealing with a message spoken in the material realm by a lesser being, but a message spoken from heaven by God Himself. Both warning passages envisioned the same peril – apathy toward spiritual matters and complacency with a religious lifestyle that falls short of what God requires and has provided us the means to live. Complacency will not go unjudged forever because it constitutes a refusal of God’s grace and turning one’s back on truth and deliverance.

Christians must pay more careful attention. God speaks to us through invisible realities, through forces and principles that we cannot see, but actually govern human life. We should know that we have less to fear from earthquakes and economic disasters than we do from God Himself. The tremors of warning that began when Jesus preached continue through the age of the Church and will culminate in the great judgments described in Daniel and Revelation. The heavens and the earth we love so dearly will be rolled up like an old rug and replaced by the new heaven and earth.

Does that make you shiver? Much of what we used to consider to be stable has crumbled in the 20^th century. Faith in human government has been widely shaken; confidence in science as the savior of the race has waned as the problems of pollution, urban decay, biological warfare and existential despair increase. Long-accepted moral standards have disappeared under the onslaught of divorce, non-marriage partnerships, sexual explicitness, homosexuality and abortion.

There are things which cannot be shaken, which will remain forever! The removal of what is shaken reveals that which is unshakable, which is the kingdom of God into which those who trust in Jesus have entered. The kingdom of God is present wherever the King is honored, loved and obeyed. The Greek of this passage indicates a continuing, present process. We enter the kingdom at convertion; we abide in it deaily as we reckon upon the resources which come to us from our invisible, but present King. Such an unbroken supply should rouse a continuing sense of gratitude within us, leading to acceptable worship of God.

The proper attitude of Christians should be one of awe that a Being of such majesty and glory could find a way to dwell eternally with such sin-controlled and sin-injured creatures as us. God's love is a fire that destroys what it cannot purify, but purifies what it cannot destroy. In Jesus we have a relationship that cannot be destroyed (Romans 8:38-39).

One of our annual family traditions is to travel to Chitina, Alaska to dipnet for salmon. The mighty Copper River flows here and for the cost of a state harvest permit, each Alaskan family can harvest 30 red or silver salmon and 1 king salmon using a landing net on a long pole. It’s hard work and you never know what the weather will be like because just the other side of the mountains from the river is the massive ice field that is the Wrangell-St. Elias field. Sometimes it’s hot and sunny, sometimes it’s raining and cold, sometimes the fish practically jump into your net and other times you’ve wasted a lot of gasoline and money getting to a barren and extremely dangerous river.

One trip we were hiking to the river through a torrent of rain when we found a young man hunched down by some trees, shivering and wet. He wanted to know where the nearest roof was. We explained that was miles away at O’Brien creek, but that you could get under almost any spruce tree and find some relief from the rain and the wind. “Just throw your tarp over some of the branches and you have an instant tent,” BJ told him. About an hour after we got to our favorite spot and set up camp, the friends who were fishing with us caught up to us and reported that they’d had the same encounter with this man, who had still been looking for a roof and complaining about being cold and wet. He had not set up a spruce-and-tarp tent, though he had means to do so.

Apparently the tendency to reject well-intentioned advice and concentrate on our misery is a long-time human attribute, for the authors of Hebrews seem familiar with it. They advised their readers to “strengthen your feeble arms and weak knees” In other words, deal first with yourselves. Get your own hearts right toward your troubles. Only if we have experience His help can we aid anyone else in finding help for themselves. The plural imperative (strengthen, Gk: "lift up") implies a joint effort by many. We can help each other draw upon the resources of Christ by offering encouraging words and mutual prayers, sharing our experiences and sometimes simply being with someone who is undergoing trial.

The authors then advised to “make level paths for your feet, so that the lame may not be disabled, but rather healed.” Watch your influence on others! Take care that you do not act as a stumbling block for those who travel with you, some of whom may be of weaker faith than yours.

These two exhortations are drawn from Isaiah 35:4: "Say to those with fearful hearts, 'Be strong, do not fear; your God will come, he will come with vengeance; with divine retribution he will come to save you.'" We are not just to wait patiently for the coming of Christ (Hebrews 10:37) but to expect Him to act in sovereign deliverance in response to Christian prayer. Acts 12 records such a deliverance for Peter when Herod put him in prison. Any degree of persecution should be met by the Christian body gathering in mutual support so that no one is spiritually disabled. It is necessary to be strong for the sake of others and ourselves. The way we bear suffering has enormous impact on the whole Christian community.

“Pursue peace with everyone, and holiness, for without it no one will see the Lord. See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God, that no one be like a bitter root springing up and causing trouble, and through him many become defiled. And see to it that no one becomes an immoral or godless person like Esau, who sold his own birthright for a single meal. For you know that later when he wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no opportunity for repentance, although he sought the blessing with tears.”  Hebrews 12:14-17

This concern for others leads to a more general exhortation to the whole community of faith. Each member is to pursue peace with all men and holiness before God. As Paul suggested in Romans 12:18, to live at peace with all is not always possible, but it must be pursued "as far as it depends on you!" Believers should never to the cause of strife! Disputes in the Christian community ought to be settled by arbitration rather than lawsuits. Seeking counsel is preferable to hurling charges; forbearance is most fitting for those whom God has forgiven. How many disgraceful public displays of church disagreements could be prevented if this admonition were heeded.

Of greater importance is the pursuit of holiness, for without it no one will see the Lord. Whether this refers to a spiritual vision of God or seeing Jesus at his Second Coming, it clearly precludes any who are not pursuing holiness from having a close and vital relationship with God. Holiness does not just refer to righteous behavior; it is a gift of God Who imparts righteousness to the one who believes in Jesus. If we pursue righteous behavior only as a means to "seeing" the Lord, we will eventually find ourselves with the Pharisees, blindly ignorant of terrible failure while claiming a relationship that did not really exist. Practicing a continual reckoning of ourselves as already righteous within by a gracious act of God on the basis of the death and resurrection of Jesus will strongly motivate us to live righteously and be inwardly distressed at any failure to do so. This inward distress will bring us repeatedly to the throne of grace for forgiveness and recovery. We will progressively be transformed into Christ's likeness with “ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit" (2 Corinthians 3:18).

A failure to do allow this transformation is to miss the grace of God. Such unbelief is a bitter root which will create strife and defile many. Unbelief refuses to reckon on God's provision of righteousness because it feels confident it can produce an acceptable righteousness on its own. Strife and defilement are the bitter fruit which this root inevitably produces. It will reveal itself either in sexual immorality or godlessness. The first is defilement of the body; the second is defilement of the soul. Our author only touches on the first at this point but will bring it up again at 13:4.

The authors used Esau to illustrate the second form. The word for godlessness is bebelos, which is best translated "profane" or, as we would say, "secular." It is a mindset which takes little notice of anything beyond the material. This was Esau's outlook (Genesis 27:30-40). He thought so little of the promises of God to Abraham and Isaac, to which he was the primary heir as the firstborn, that he sold those rights to his brother Jacob for a bowl of stew! So unimportant was this transaction in his eyes that later he assumed he could still receive the blessing which accompanied the right of firstborn. Though his brother Jacob had tricked their blind father into conferring the blessing upon himself, Esau still tried to change his father's words and gain the blessing he had sold. His father could not and would not change his mind, so Esau lost both the birthright and the blessing.

That is the secular mentality. It has little time for worship or service, but it is intent upon material gain and earthly advantage. Professing Christians who claim to be born again but who live no differently than non-Christians are repeating the godlessness of Esau. They too will find a surprising rejection in the last day. Jesus had them in mind when He said, "Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'" (Matthew 7:23).

Psychologist Dr. Larry Crabb has described the mentality of many today who look for human help outside of themselves or an intimate relationship with the divine.

“Too often people take a word like authenticity and they secularize it to mean ‘I’m going to let you know exactly what I feel,’ thinking that that is going to result in intimacy and a release of guilt.

“What may in fact be happening is that you are demanding that the other person now deal with your feelings the way you want him or her to. If the other person doesn’t do that, then you go into hiding convinced that nobody will ever deal with how you really feel; so why bother caring? The point is that you are not facing the real issue. Authenticity demands that you expose yourself not for the purpose of getting a person to respond to you in the way that you  want, but exposing yourself so you can respond to what God wants. Only God can truly deal with your sin. Only God can truly forgive you.” (Crabb, 1989)

In other words, in our modern psychodrama we want to put the burden of our inner life on other people rather than on ourselves and our relationship with God. The writers of Hebrews understood that this can never work out.

“Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, ¹  we must get rid of every weight and the sin that clings so closely, and run with endurance the race set out for us, keeping our eyes fixed on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of our faith. For the joy set out for him he endured the cross, disregarding its shame, and has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God.  Think of him who endured such opposition against himself by sinners, so that you may not grow weary in your souls and give up.” Hebrews 12:1-3

Imagine a sports stadium filled with a capacity crowd all looking for the front runners in a marathon. The runners are the readers of this epistle (including us in the 21^st Century), who need to run a grueling race. Encircling the track is a stadium filled with a great cloud of witnesses, among them many of the worthies of the past named in chapter 11. They are witnesses in the sense of bearing testimony that the race can be run successfully and that the rewards are great.

I used to swim competitively in high school and one way we would strengthen ourselves for races was to practice with dive belts on. On the day of the race, we wouldn’t wear the belts and consequently we would be faster because our bodies had adapted to the extra weight in the water.  So I am familiar with the admonition to “get rid of every weight” that makes for a successful race. I know more competitive swimmers who shave their bodies to cut down on the resistance through the water that might be a metaphor for sin that clings so tightly. Endurance athletes know that the lighter the load you start out with, the longer you can travel at speed.

Remember that Chapter 12 is part and parcel with Chapter 11. Moses laid aside the privileges of royalty for the sake of his God-given mission. Similarly we must throw off whatever may hinder faith even though it may be right for others. Joseph properly ruled in Egypt, but for Moses it was a hindering weight. He needed to go be a shepherd. Other weights might well be ambition, anxieties, hobbies, wealth or fame. Each runner must honestly judge what hinders faith for him or her and resolutely lay it aside, even though others seem to be unhindered by the same thing.

The primary block to gaining the prize is the sin that so easily entangles. The writers did not specify what this entangling sin is, so we can take for granted that it is the sin continually warned about in Hebrews --persistent unbelief We should not take God's Word lightly! Do not excuse any sin as all right for you, but forbidden to others! Do not feel you can evade God's discipline or judgment! "God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows". (Galatians 6:7). Unbelief often looks trivial to us, but Moses was kept out of the Promised Land because he treated God's word lightly on one occasion (Deuteronomy 32:51-52; Psalm 106:33). David apparently felt that his twin sins of adultery and murder could be overlooked because he was king, but God felt otherwise and sent Nathan the prophet to expose his wickedness and to announce his punishment.

The race is life itself. God who gives us life is also God who starts us in this race. We are all here for a purpose, to live our lives in fulfillment of God's intent for us. This requires faith in God's revelation, but also perseverance and endurance. Life is not a 100-yard dash, but a long and sometimes agonizing marathon. No one knows just how long it will be. Its very uncertainty requires that we run it as if it will last a long time, being prepared to keep going no matter what happens. The goal toward which we run is the end of life, whether it be death or the sudden transformation of living saints at the return of Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:51-52). Jesus told the suffering saints of Smyrna, "Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown of life" (Revelation 2:10).

How is consistent endurance possible? The authors of Hebrews told us to “fix our eyes on Jesus.” This is the central theme of Hebrews, stated repeatedly (Hebrews 2:9; 4:14; 4:16). The writers effectively advised that we listen to the testimonies of those who have gone before because they know the way and know what will impede your progress, but above all else, fix your eyes on Jesus, because he can do what no one else can – impart faith to you and bring it to perfection in the end. Jesus stands at the finish line, but He also meets you along the route to provide strength and encouragement and to guard your steps from disaster. Other men and women of faith can encourage and inspire us, but Jesus is above and behind them all.

Why look away from human leaders to Jesus? Because he is the author and perfecter of our faith. He gives it and completes it. The word translated here "author" is archegos (seen also in 2:10) and means  pioneer or leader. Jesus has gone before us in this race to keep faith. He knows the need for it. He himself ran the race. He laid aside every weight, every tie of family and friends. He set his face against the popular sin of unbelief and daily lived in patient perseverance, trusting his Father to work everything out for Him. He set the perfect example. Remember, God turned from Him as He hung on the cross. It was by sheer faith that Jesus faced the bitter agony of rejection and desertion amid the taunting, scourging and crucifying.

Jesus is more than an example, however; He is empowerment itself! Through the moments, days, weeks and years of our lives, we find strength imparted to us when we look to Him. By faith Jesus is within us. He has entered the sanctuary, into our innermost person, to the very place where we need strength and grace. He is available every moment to help us in time of need through to work of the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 3:16). Faith is essential to spiritual vitality. Jesus is our example of the kind of faith required, but His very life in us imparts the faith we need to run the race of life successfully. "I can do everything through him who gives me strength" (Philippians 4:13).

“You have not yet resisted to the point of bloodshed in your struggle against sin. And have you forgotten the exhortation addressed to you as sons?  “My son, do not scorn the Lord’s discipline or give up when he corrects you. “For the Lord disciplines the one he loves and chastises every son he accepts.”

“Endure your suffering as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is there that a father does not discipline? But if you do not experience discipline, something all sons have shared in, then you are illegitimate and are not sons. Besides, we have experienced discipline from our earthly fathers and we respected them; shall we not submit ourselves all the more to the Father of spirits and receive life? For they disciplined us for a little while as seemed good to them, but he does so for our benefit, that we may share his holiness. Now all discipline seems painful at the time, not joyful. But later it produces the fruit of peace and righteousness for those trained by it. Therefore, strengthen your listless hands and your weak knees, and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but be healed.”  Hebrews 12:4-13

Christians are to exhibit certain point of view toward hardship and opposition. It might be summed up as “Remember, it’s not as bad as it could be!” The Hebrew Christians hadn’t shed their blood yet and behind the difficulties that they faced and would face in the future would be a father’s loving heart.

An incident from the Old Testament illustrates this. David was rebuked by the Lord for numbering Israel and was given the choice of three punishments. He wisely let the Lord decide, and undoubtedly experienced the least hurtful of the three, but in the plague God sent, 70,000 Israelites died! (2 Samuel 24). That was a lesson David never forgot! It is important to note that our authors insisted that such discipline comes from God's love for those sons He is bringing to glory. Severe discipline only comes to those who have violated great responsibility or who are being trained for tough assignments. Many Christians today have testified that God got their attention only after some severe trial or circumstance!

God has adopted us as His children. Christians are not illegitimate children for whom no future is being prepared, but legitimate children who require discipline to develop properly. Anyone who has ever competed in sports knows that great athletes must endure what they would rather not in order to become great athletes. The Hebrew Christians were told to “hang tough" because their trials were proof that they were beloved children and not bastards. Similarly, we discipline our earthly children because we love them and care what will happen to them. Our children may not always like our discipline, but looking back on my own parents’ attempts to discipline me, I know those punishments were meant for my own good. How much more should we accept the discipline of our God, Who makes no mistakes and Who aims at enabling us to share His own perfect character! The reference to God as the Father of our spirits is meant as a contrast to "human fathers" and reminds us that the fruit borne by suffering is spiritual in nature.

The trials, .disappointments, hardships and even physical attacks which sometimes constitute God's discipline may be painful to bear. No one enjoys such experiences. C. S. Lewis noted, "God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: it is His megaphone to arouse a deaf world". Pain is not the whole story. There is always an effect which follows. There is a harvest of righteousness and peace which invariably will come for those who have been trained by discipline.

Christian suffering is not simply sheer circumstantial misery or the result of blind chance. Paul declared, "We know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope" (Romans 5:34). James stated, "You know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything" (James 1:3-4). Peter concurred, "These [trials] have come so that your faith---of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire---may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed" (1 Peter 1:7).

How foolish then it is to complain and grouse about the difficulties we face. In rebelling against difficult circumstances we shut ourselves off from learning the lessons God is teaching us.