Bible Diary - Hebrews 8:7-13
August 31, 2008
Why does an omniscient God need to create a second covenant with his people? There can be only one answer: It was simply unmerited grace. After all, it wasn’t God who screwed up the first covenant! God loves His created beings so much that He gives them a second chance. The evidence of this extraordinary love was sending His Son. He simply chose, for His own good reasons, to be merciful.
8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, no one would have looked for a second one. 8:8 But showing its fault, God says to them,
“Look, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will complete a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.
8:9 “It will not be like the covenant that I made with their fathers, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not continue in my covenant and I had no regard for them, says the Lord.
8:10 “For this is the covenant that I will establish with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and I will inscribe them on their hearts. And I will be their God and they will be my people.
8:11 “And there will be no need at all for each one to teach his countryman or each one to teach his brother saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ since they will all know me, from the least to the greatest.
8:12 “For I will be merciful toward their evil deeds, and their sins I will remember no longer.”
8:13 When he speaks of a new covenant, he makes the first obsolete. Now what is growing obsolete and aging is about to disappear.
Only God knows the beginning and the end. He is in control of His creation, from the new galaxy still forming, millions of light-years away, to the babies that were born on Earth this day. There can be only one response to this great mystery: joyful praise.
Dave
-sdg-
Model shipyard revisited
August 28, 2008
It’s time for a progress report on construction of the Pride of Baltimore II, a plank-on-frame model that I started in 2004. To get the full history of Pride construction, go to Model Shipyard and select Pride of Baltimore II. I have resolved to keep construction moving in the faint hope of actually finishing it while my eyes and hands are still functioning relatively well. I have another model, The Fair American, on the ways, and there is an unopened kit of the Constitution laying around somewhere.
Here is one of the images of the Pride, as it looks on August 28, 2008.
Dave, which he likes making chips and sawdust.
Blog comments
August 27, 2008
It’s hard to view comments on a blog article through the eyes of the commenter. A recent post on Riverside Rambles, written by Joan Ryan, a regular and very thoughtful commenter, offers some delightful insights into the psyche of a blog commenter.
The commenting person’s need for validation is an interesting point. I wonder if women, in general, feel a greater need to be validated than do men. I would like to think that I, being a man, don’t really care what other readers may or may not think about my comments. I give it my best shot and let the chips fall where they may. Am I kidding myself?
Is the smiley face necessary to avoid word bombs? Again, I would like to think that clear English prose should be sufficient. Since blogging seems to encourage sloppy writing, perhaps the smiley has a place, but I try to avoid using these cutesy things as much as I can. I certainly agree with Joan’s main point that most of us don’t want to unnecessarily offend our readers. I confess, though, that sometimes I want to offend in hopes of getting a response.
I believe we shy away from communicating religious viewpoints because they deal with the Big Issues that are important to us. I want people to know how I am grappling with life’s important questions. I may be on the right track, or I may be totally wrong, but it’s my track, and it seems important that you, the reader, at least understand where I am coming from. Whether you agree or not is your business. My goal is to write without rant. Who can object to that?
Dave, grinning, ducking, and running.
Bible Diary - Hebrews 8:1-6
August 24, 2008
The starting point for me to understand these high priestly passages is simply to acknowledge my sin. As Paul states in Romans 7:15, “For I don’t understand what I am doing. For I do not do what I want – instead, I do what I hate.” I know what he means. Just trying hard to please God isn’t enough. Like my Jewish counterpart in the First Century, I need someone to stand in the gap between me and a Holy God. Jesus Christ, the true High Priest, does this.
The High Priest of a Better Covenant
8:1 Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We have such a high priest, one who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 8:2 a minister in the sanctuary and the true tabernacle that the Lord, not man, set up. 8:3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. So this one too had to have something to offer. 8:4 Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest, since there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. 8:5 The place where they serve is a sketch and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary, just as Moses was warned by God as he was about to complete the tabernacle. For he says, “See that you make everything according to the design shown to you on the mountain.” 8:6 But now Jesus has obtained a superior ministry, since the covenant that he mediates is also better and is enacted on better promises.
This passage says that no human intermediary can completely fill the gap between sinful man and holy God, although even “a sketch and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary” is valuable in that it points to the heavenly sanctuary. The author’s main point is that only the Son of God can intercede for me before God.
Dave, pondering and giving thanks for this great mystery.
-sdg
Are we paying attention now?
August 23, 2008
Although I am pretty certain about who I will vote for in November, I still listen to what both Obama and McCain are saying. I doubt if many people have paid too close attention to the race so far, but columnist Peggy Noonan writes that They’re Paying Attention Now.
It’s hard for our political class to remember that Mr. Obama has been famous in America only since the winter of ‘08. America met him barely six months ago! The political class first interviewed him, or read the interview, in 2003 or ‘04, when he was a rising star. They know him. Everyone else is still absorbing.
This is what they see:
An attractive, intelligent man, interesting, but—he’s hard to categorize. Is he Gen. Obama? No, no military background. Brilliant Businessman Obama? No, he never worked in business. Famous Name Obama? No, it’s a new name, an unusual one. Longtime Southern Governor Obama? No. He’s a community organizer (what’s that?), then a lawyer (boo), then a state legislator (so what, so’s my cousin), then U.S. senator (less than four years!).
There is no pre-existing category for him.
. . . And over there is Mr. McCain, and—well, we know him. He’s POW/senator/prickly, irritating John McCain.
Traditionally, the election campaigns begin after Labor Day. and the talking heads will see to it that we don’t forget that an election is coming up. I’s up to us to supplement the media spin with some independent reading, and Peggy Noonan is always worth reading.
Dave, who may be letting his GOP prejudice show a bit.
Saddleback showdown
August 18, 2008
Saturday evening’s Saddleback political event may come to be regarded as the true kick-off of the presidential election campaign of 2008. It was unprecedented in terms of venue and format. Held at California’s Saddleback Church, Pastor Rick Warren conducted back-to-back hour-long interviews, first with Barack Obama and then with John McCain. The interviews overlapped briefly, producing this memorable photo op.
The meeting was billed as a step toward a return to civility in political public intercourse, but the candidates were not given the opportunity to engage each other, civilly or otherwise. Rick Warren posed the questions and pretty much sat back and let the candidates respond as they wished. Neither heard the answers of their rival. The result was a stark contrast of views, especially on abortion and religious faith. It was no surprise that Obama was pro-choice and McCain pro-life, of course, but what they said (or didn’t say) about their faith in front of a neo-evangelical audience was very interesting.
Taken at face value, Obama professes an orthodox Christian faith. His use of Scripture and his talk about the Lordship of Jesus Christ (indirectly) is impossible to reconcile with his pro-choice views, but at least he knew the language and basic principles of being a Christian. Quoting Rick Warren’s The Purpose Driven Life, he professed that his religion wasn’t about Obama but about God. Or something like that.
John McCain, on the other hand, sounded like his faith and convictions were based more on patriotism than belief in God. His unbridled optimism about the future of our country is very appealing, but no one with a Christian worldview would share McCain’s enthusiasm about putting America first.
Worldview
What kept me uncharacteristically glued to the tube for two long hours with too many commercials was the hope of getting some insight into their respective worldviews. I didn’t expect either to reflect a Christian worldview, and I wasn’t disappointed in that. Missing in the responses of both Obama and McCain were clues about what they believed about Creation, the Fall, and Redemption, which arguably are the structural elements of every philosophy and ideology, Christian or secular.
When asked whether or not they believed in the existence of evil, each quickly answered yes, but they elaborated on their answers in vastly different ways. Obama sees evil mostly in the abstract and appeared to see evidence of evil both in the U.S. and abroad. His specific examples of evil were few and sketchy. My conclusion was that he does not deny that bad things happen but does not have clear conviction about the source of evil in the world or how to respond to it. Except for saying that we all must join together to fight evil in the world, his posture seemed basically reactive and vague. This partly may be because he has been fortunate enough to have had little personal contact with evil.
McCain, in contrast, has strong feelings about evil in the world. He mentioned his Viet Nam captivity, the events of 9/11 and talked about the threat of Al-Qaida today. He had no trouble pointing to specific examples of evil in the world today. Such black or white characterizations may not always be a Good Thing for a President, although in the cases of prison brutality and Al-Qaida it’s easy to agree. I would feel more comfortable with McCain if I thought his convictions were part of a Christian worldview.
The genius of Rick Warren’s approach was letting us hear Obama and McCain respond off the cuff to open ended questions about the issues of the day. It was not a debate. Each man responded in his own way to the same questions. Most of the time Warren was able to sit back and listen with the rest of us without imposing his own views.
One thought that I came away with is that Obama is too young and too inexperienced; McCain is too old and too experienced. What is sure is that they would bring quite different perspectives to the problems of the day. Who they would select as key advisors is crucial, and we should keep our eyes peeled for clues as the campaign grinds on..
When asked who are the three wisest people you know, and who would you most rely on as President, Obama first named his wife, his grandmother, and Senator Kennedy. McCain put General Petraeus at the top of his list and added a couple of respected national figures, the names of whom I don’t recall. (There is a lot that I don’t recall these days.) I found neither response very comforting.
If you listened to the Saddleback Showdown, what are your thoughts? If you didn’t listen, you may have missed an important bit of our political history.
Dave, wondering how to vote for Mr. None of the Above.
Bible Diary - Hebrews 7:18-28
August 17, 2008
The desire to draw near to God seems to me to be a given of human existence. For the ancient Israelites, feeding this desire boiled down to living according to the law of God with the help of their priests. Problem was, trying to meet the law’s demands for personal holiness was futile, and their priests weren’t much help. The writer of Hebrews says this was because their priests were appointed by men, not affirmed by God.
7:18 On the one hand a former command is set aside because it is weak and useless, 7:19 for the law made nothing perfect. On the other hand a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God. 7:20 And since this was not done without a sworn affirmation – for the others have become priests without a sworn affirmation, 7:21 but Jesus did so with a sworn affirmation by the one who said to him, “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest forever’” – 7:22 accordingly Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant. 7:23 And the others who became priests were numerous, because death prevented them from continuing in office, 7:24 but he holds his priesthood permanently since he lives forever. 7:25 So he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. 7:26 For it is indeed fitting for us to have such a high priest: holy, innocent, undefiled, separate from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. 7:27 He has no need to do every day what those priests do, to offer sacrifices first for their own sins and then for the sins of the people, since he did this in offering himself once for all. 7:28 For the law appoints as high priests men subject to weakness, but the word of solemn affirmation that came after the law appoints a son made perfect forever.
It’s a different ball game now because of God’s strong affirmation of the priesthood of Jesus. With Him we have a perfect High Priest, one who is effective and guaranteed by God to live forever. He will always be there to intercede for us and our descendants at the throne of God.
The religious landscape has changed drastically since the letter to the Hebrews was written. The message hasn’t changed, but this letter to the Hebrews portrays only one aspect of the mystery of God the Son. So I can’t stop here; I must keep on going and hear what the rest of Scripture tells me about God’s redemptive acts in time and history through His Son.
Dave, trusting.
-sdg-
Guess who won?
August 10, 2008
On July 31, 2008, at 0635 hours, I ruined the day of this bass. So… let’s see now, four pounds of lipped bass in left hand, slippery camera in right hand pointed backwards, pinky on shutter button, and bang-o! It looks like neither of us are particularly enjoying the moment. For my part I barked my shin wrestling him into the boat. For his part, he should have known better than to ingest a plastic worm! Maybe both parties are a little tetched in the head.
I had already been on the water since sunrise without seeing any sign of bass, except, of course, for the monsters feeding far out from shore. This one was apparently cruising for a shad breakfast under the branches of a large Weeping Willow at water’s edge between two boat docks, not a common occurrence on a hot July morning.
Dave, getting tired of being accused of forgetting how to catch bass.
Bible Diary - Hebrews 7:11-17
August 10, 2008
The author assumes that perfection in matters of the law is the goal, and that the Levitical priesthood was not able to help the people achieve the perfection that God required of them. Something else was needed, a priest that lives forever, like Melchizedek.
Jesus and the Priesthood of Melchizedek
7:11 So if perfection had in fact been possible through the Levitical priesthood – for on that basis the people received the law – what further need would there have been for another priest to arise, said to be in the order of Melchizedek and not in Aaron’s order? 7:12 For when the priesthood changes, a change in the law must come as well. 7:13 Yet the one these things are spoken about belongs to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever officiated at the altar. 7:14 For it is clear that our Lord is descended from Judah, yet Moses said nothing about priests in connection with that tribe. 7:15 And this is even clearer if another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, 7:16 who has become a priest not by a legal regulation about physical descent but by the power of an indestructible life. 7:17 For here is the testimony about him: “You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.”
It’s not hard to figure where the author is going with this. Having snuck a peek at the back of the book, we know that Jesus is the needed High Priest. But the author is not ready quite yet to spring it on us.
Dave, maybe getting a little smart-alecky here.
Temporarily immortal
August 4, 2008
Thanks to blogger Michael Kruse for pointing me to Into the sunset. It is about the new trend in end-of-life care and raises the question: “The idea that the terminally ill need pain relief and humane care care instead of “curing” is catching on. But what about the people who just grow old?”
In America, the hospice movement was founded in 1974 to deal with the pain relief and humane care of the terminally ill, but what about those who cannot be easily defined as “terminally ill?”
Yet for all its successes, the hospice movement faces challenges that will far outstrip the resources now dedicated to palliative care, even in the richest countries. Hospices are generally associated with cancer, where after a certain stage life expectancy is short and fairly predictable. But the current habit of treating people as “either temporarily immortal, or dying”—as Joanne Lynn, an American geriatrics expert, puts it—makes no sense when patients suffer chronic disease of the heart or lungs, or succumb slowly to dementia, or to general decay. An important category of people, already huge in the rich world and soon to grow in developing countries (see article), consists of elderly people who will never be well, but have no idea when they will die. There is no single answer: hospitals, nursing homes and family care will all play a role.
My mother- and father-in law were elderly folk who would never be well, but had no idea of when they would die. In God’s good time they finally met their end in nursing home beds, and they had good, compassionate care for the most part, but it’s still a hell of a way to die.
To all who are still young enough to shrug off this situation, that’s okay, but it’s becoming more of an attention-grabber for this gent in his 78th year. I was on the local hospital Board of Trustees when the first hospice was formed in my town, so I already have a healthy appreciation for the “live-and-let-die” convictions of hospice leaders. For those not familiar with hospices I commend this article.
Dave, not fearing death but a tad uneasy about the process.
