SIN > Unmasked: Failing to ‘do what you know’

Disobedience – but not as you know it.

Anybody who has followed my blogs will get that I see that there exists a type of knowledge and knowing that the world calls ‘esoteric’. [ http://godwithoutchurch.blogspot.com/ ] This shouldn’t trouble any keen disciple of Jesus, since he made it quite plain (e.g. as we have seen in Matthew 13) that it is a normal part of the kingdom of God and His ekklesia that knowledge is not entirely up to us and our will and power to know.  God searches motives and knows us all according to our motivations and intent regarding knowledge.  We can be ‘blocked’ from knowing things.

By nature, we humans crave power; that’s why we happily pursue the idea that “knowledge is power” even when it might be destructive or negative power over against power than adds, constructs and instructs.  God has known that all along; that’s why He reserves the right to administer knowledge and knowing 'according to His will' among us “mere mortals”.

In the New Testament, there are three different Greek words translated into English as some kind or type of (or means to) knowledge; and one of those is eidw which reasonably translates into English as intuition and discernment.  In my frame of reference, humans are comprised of body, soul and spirit; and knowledge – or at least the process of knowing something – can be initiated in all of those locales.  Intuition/discernment tends to have its ignition in the spirit – and, as Paul teaches us, it is in (with, by) the spirit that we truly know another person.  Disciples of Jesus are encouraged to get to know each other this way: see his second letter to the Corinthians 5:16.

Man’s ways may tell us we’re out of our mind; but Paul wisely notes: “If we are out of our mind, it is for God; if we are of sound mind, it is for you.” (2 Corinthians 5:13).

“Hence”, he says, “from now on we regard no one according to the flesh [alone].  Although we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer.  Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.  The old has passed away; behold the new has come!”  And “All this is from God...” he says.  The ‘new’ embraces intuition and discernment and their pivotal role.

And let me point out too that the New Testament contains plenty of references to the skill of discernment, its critical importance to disciples of Jesus, and its position as one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit given by the grace of God to some believers for the benefit of His ekklesia. Some theologians refer to it as ‘moral perception’, insight, and the practical application of the thing ‘known’.

If we allow this concept, the concept of intuition, and the understandings coming to us from Jesus’ words about God’s reading our motivations and intentions before allowing us to ‘hear’ correctly, we can make a whole lot better sense of the passage I’m referring to here: Hebrews chapter 2.

We must pay closer attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away.  For if the message spoken by angels was binding, and every transgression and disobedience received its just punishment, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation?

A motto I have found helpful and valuable in my journey with God is: ‘When you see a ‘therefore’, look to see what it’s there for.”  These first words of Hebrews 2 have a ‘therefore’; what is it there for?  Perhaps it’s there to encourage us to re-read the letter without the human-imposed chapter and verse numbers to get the writer’s message in context.

We need to pay proper attention to what we have heard – a binding ‘message spoken by angels’ – lest we drift away from it.  And ‘drifting away’ embraces two of the concepts we talked about earlier in our definition of sin: falling short and veering across a demarcation line.

The writer of this letter is telling the Hebrew believers that this message is binding precisely because it was mediated to us by angels, not by humans.  What is the message?  In the immediate, the message is Hebrews chapter 1 – the paragraphs from the beginning of the letter up to the text that says ‘therefore’.  Beyond that, it is the story of Jesus they have all just lived through, from His pre-birth announcement to his ascension into glory.  And it was ‘spoken’ “On many past occasions and in many different ways ... to our fathers [ancestors] through the prophets.”

The point the writer is making throughout the first part of his letter is – as I have referenced elsewhere – the clear and marked superiority of the new covenant in Jesus Christ over the old covenant of Abraham, Moses and even David.  The new covenant is a covenant brokered by angels, not humans; and its essential nature is a far superior message about a far superior priesthood and sacrifice, announced and mediated by angels, not by humans and so on.

My 50+ years of experience as a follower of Jesus tells me that huge tracts of humanity have done precisely what the writer to the Hebrews was warning against: missing the point!  We are not supposed to blend the old covenant with the new as if the new simply extends or augments the old; we are supposed to get the message that the new covenant supplants, usurps and replaces the old – there can be no blending and co-habitation.

And to make his point with utter profundity, he announces that even Abraham, Moses and David themselves understood this.

One of my favourite authors is Brian McLaren.  Along with famed fellow-author Tony Campolo, they wrote Adventures in Missing the Point, (Zondervan 2006).  In my view, church history from the death of the first apostles til now is close to 2,000 years of adventures in missing the point – with all-too-few rare exceptions.  The history of divisions, schisms, denominations, murders (sanitised into ‘martyrdoms’) and political justifications indicate to me that we act as if Hebrews was not penned by an apostle of Jesus or that it only applies if we think it applies and how we think it applies – usually presenting us in favourable light without question.

Now – what’s this got to do with disobedience?  If you haven’t already worked it out, let me explain.

The popular (and might I stress predominantly Western European) notion of obedience and disobedience is that it’s about carrying out (or not) a command, an order, an instruction, a law, a rule, a regulation, a decree, a precept, an ultimatum.  Most people I speak to imagine that obeying or disobeying God is about identifying a command, law or instruction God has previously given and we have written down somewhere.  Most notable is, of course, the ten commandments.

But is that what Jesus said?  On the one hand, he said that, if you choose to be a legalist, if you break one of the laws, you are guilty of breaking them all – a rather difficult standard for sure.  On the other hand, he said that there really is only one law – or perhaps two (if you want to put a full stop mid sentence).  Both Jesus and Paul concur: Matthew 22 and Galatians 5 tell us that the whole law is fulfilled in a single decree – to love as you have been loved by God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Suddenly ‘law’ is a meaningless concept when it comes to obedience and disobedience if by ‘law’ we mean any of the things in the paragraph above.  And that’s what Paul iterates over and over again.  Law is nothing more nor less than a kind of ‘school-master’ or mentor, guru, guide or signpost to draw us towards our proper destination: Christ.

One thing I’ve learned from Australian aboriginal disciples of Jesus is that aboriginal culture knows both law and lore; and that’s not uncommon in cultures around the world.  However, the polity of most Western European countries is based on law: “law and order” and “rule of law” – with little or no attention to “lore”.  But it is this concept of lore that disciples of Jesus need to catch up with.  This is what etymonline.com says about lore:

Lore is almost always an oral tradition passed down through the generations; and it is also almost always a form of esoteric knowledge.  So, what if the “new things” in Christ include a move by God to make His ways and His wishes known to His children via the spirit rather than by the mind and the body?  What if the message of the Old Testament book Song of Solomon is there precisely to unveil this part of God for us?  What if Paul’s concepts of knowing people (including Jesus) according to (by) the spirit and ‘living according to the Spirit’ are “how it’s done” in the new covenant?  What if we are meant to get our knowledge and learning from the Holy Spirit via our spirit rather than by rote learning, catechism, formal education or repetition of laws?

I wonder sometimes if Paul’s concept of “the law of the Spirit” might better be rendered “the lore of the Spirit”, since it is not at all a law code or any kind of set of instructions, but an unwritten ‘code of conduct’ transmitted spiritually down the generations.

What if God, seeking us out for intimacy and union as a good father does both his natural and his adopted children, encrypts his message for us, but first plants within us the encryption tool to both send and receive his message (the granting of the Holy Spirit)?

My actual experience with this dates back to 1983, while I was (albeit briefly) fulfilling a role as a ‘pastor’ in a rural parish in Australia.  God had his version of WhatsApp even before digital technology and computers were common.  We messaged each other back and forth for years; but it began when God got my number and messaged me: I want you to do what you know.  I didn’t have to think at all about what he meant: my intuition, insight, perception was decoded from eternity-speak into my spirit.  And from that day, that’s the path my life took: discerning the Spirit and ‘obeying’.  And that is precisely what this passage in Hebrews is talking about.

God has a version of WhatsApp or Signal that neither government nor police; neither Zuckerberg, Gates nor Cook; neither black-hat nor white-hat hackers can breach.  It transmits the “lore” of eternity – the zone of God’s abode; and it is both infinitely and organically variable for each of God’s hand-crafted individuals as well as for the channel we know of as ekklesia in all its forms: micro, mezzo and macro via the spiritual gifts God has granted her.

Furthermore, it is mediated by angels, not by humans; and is not subject to outages, power failures or data corruption or theft.  However, we might “fall asleep at the wheel” as we say.

We have two big problems:

One, we don’t trust it; we constantly seek verification from vastly inferior sources, questioning not just the message but the messenger, and God Himself.

Two (in part because we don’t trust it), we don’t “obey” it – and that, in my view, is precisely what the writer of the letter to the Hebrews was getting at in chapter 2.

The old hymn says: Trust and obey | for there’s no other way | to be happy in Jesus...

“Without faith, it is impossible to please God.”  Even if, at the end of time, we all come to faith in God (because that was God’s intention all along), might not we, our relationships with people and the planet, and our administration and politics on planet earth be transformed by ensuring we have the app; that we participate; and that we regularly remind ourselves and each other to “pay closer attention ... so that we don’t drift away [i.e. sin]”; and in so doing, find ourselves in all kinds of shit because we opt to neglect God’s lore – so readily available?

“He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the ekklesias.”

Hebrews was written to Jews.  On an occasion in Jesus’ ministry (see John 10), he was talking to some Jews as he strode around the temple courts in Solomon’s Colonade.  [It is possible some of these Jews were later the addressees of the letter.]  They stopped him and demanded: “How long will you keep us in suspense?  If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.”  To which Jesus replied:

“I already told you, but you did not believe.  The works I do in my Father’s name testify on my behalf.  But because you are not my sheep, you refuse to believe.  My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.  I give them eternal life, and they will never perish.  No one can snatch them out of my hand.  My Father who has given them to me is greater than all.  No one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.  I and the Father are one.”

“At this, the Jews again picked up stones to stone him...”

There’s an app for that!  But it won’t work on a “smart” phone.

Next: “It’s only wrong if you get caught.”

SIN > Unmasked: Sodomy???

Sodomy – but not as you know it.

‘Sodomy’: A cultural perspective

If you take note of many loud and boisterous voices these days, not only is homosexuality the ‘sin of Sodom’ (still referred to as sodomy in many legal jurisdictions around the world), it is also (apparently) the unforgivable sin – which, as we have seen, it clearly is not.

And if you consult a dictionary, many will inform you that ‘sodomy’ is one of three things: a) sexual intercourse using the anal orifice; b) sexual relations with animals; c) any sexual activity considered perverted.  Or perhaps it is all three.

Now while I understand that language is a cultural construct, and that languages evolve over time, the use of the word sodomy to describe various sexual sins is neither honest nor accurate to the related original historical data.  Culturally, sodomy is not exclusively sexual.

Many of the loud and boisterous voices I refer to will gladly tell you – and anybody else in ear-shot – that sodomy came from the evils of the inhabitants of the town of Sodom in the time of Abraham and his family.  Given that Sodom is generally linked to nearby Gomorrah, it is puzzling that homosexuality is not similarly linked to this town; perhaps it was just too hard to think of a way to say it simply – so sodomy would have to do.

Abraham was Lot’s uncle and as the nomadic family and their herds increased in size, the need arose for Lot to separate from Abraham and find his own place in the world.  Abraham let Lot choose and he selected the fertile lands at the south of the Dead Sea in the Jordan valley.  Many believe that the site of Sodom and its neighbours is now under the waters of the Dead Sea.

You can read the story in Genesis 14.  Cut to the end of the story and Lot and his family are in a lot of trouble and need to flee – which they do.  However, Lot’s wife loses her life and the towns of Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed.  According to the biblical record, they were destroyed because of their evil ways and their perversions.

There is ample evidence to suggest that some of the perversions of Sodom were sexual in nature – hardly unexpected – and some were homosexual in nature.  This is the reason for today’s dictionary definitions of ‘sodomy’.

However, accepting the cultural, linguistic and dictionary definitions without question very often leads to the neglect of God’s definition.  English dictionaries are only a few hundred years old and at the time of their earliest compilation, the Church held great sway over society and over what were considered ‘public morals’, including (emphatically) pubic morals.

However, if you stay only with the text of the story in Genesis, you miss what – specifically - God thinks of the matter.  We all need to take a good look at Ezekiel 16.

But a brief note before we go there is warranted.  Virtually all of what modern “Christians” think about homosexuality comes from God’s old will that is now null and void.  It is most often referred to as the Old Testament.  At the end of a lot of research, I concur with William O. Walker Jr on the website https://www.westarinstitute.org/resources/the-fourth-r/what-the-new-testament-says-about-homosexuality/ as at October 17, 2019:

Proposition 2: “At most, there are only three passages in the entire New Testament [what I call God’s new will] that refer to what we today would call homosexual activity” (Rom 1:26-27, 1 Cor 6:9-10 and 1 Tim 1:8-11);

Proposition 3: “Two of the three passages that possibly refer to homosexuality are simply more-or-less miscellaneous catalogues of behaviours that are regarded as unacceptable, with no particular emphasis placed on any individual item in the list.”

Proposition 4: “It may well be that the two lists of unacceptable behaviours—1 Cor 6 and 1 Tim 1—do not refer to homosexuality at all.”

The lists in some translations refer to ‘male prostitutes’  (Greek word meaning soft, cowardly or lacking in self-control) and ‘sodomites’ (Greek word meaning literally ‘to bed a male’).

Walker cites Dale B Martin whose research clearly demonstrates that there is no certainty at all as to the most acceptable translation of these two words used by Paul in these lists.  Like many words we use today, they can be taken literally or not.  Martin’s conclusion is that when this second word (sometimes translated ‘sodomites’) is used independently, it is generally NOT used to name some sexual immorality but rather economic injustice or exploitation.

Martin concludes that it means “exploiting of others by means of sex, but not necessarily by homosexual sex.” [Sex and the Single Savior, Dale B Martin, Westminster John Knox Press 2006, page 39.]

Walker suggests “that it might even refer to exploitation that has nothing at all to do with sex.”  Furthermore, there is nothing in the New Testament that enters the nuanced world of initiator and participant, or consent and willingness.

It is common in our language today and in many languages over many years that we use sexual language when we talk about things void of any sexual content.  By way of example – if you will pardon the use of a crude word – we often describe people as ‘arseholes’ when we mean that they are generally nasty, exploitative or corrupt people.  We do not mean it literally.  That, I believe, is what Paul was doing.

And I come to that position for two main reasons.

First, his writings are quite clear that all kinds of sexual sins are: unacceptable for disciples of Christ; can prevent the reception of the Kingdom of God; and are out-workings of idolatry (Romans 1).  Homosexuality is NOT singled out as any worse than unrestrained heterosexuality.  Both are regarded as expressions of sexual lust.  And as John pointed out in his epistle, there is both lust of the flesh and lust of the eyes.

Second, we can get a clearer view of how God sees ‘the sin of Sodom’ simply by reading a different part of the bible.  The Prophet Ezekiel agrees with some of our present day researchers and teachers: “Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy.  Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before me.  Therefore I removed them when I saw it.” (Ezekiel 16:49-50 NASB)

The sin of Sodom is NOT homosexuality; it is arrogance, gluttony, greed, careless ease, disdain for poor and needy people and being haughty – the outworking of which is committing abominations, including all sorts of sexual abominations.  Homosexuality is simply one of many sexual symptoms of a form of idolatry that is, at its heart, the worship of self.  Sound familiar?  As far as I can tell, the world has a very large population of ‘sodomites’ many of whom are not homosexual; and many of whom self-brand as ‘christian’.

The campaign against homosexuality is a deception from the father of lies himself in order to deflect guilt from the real sodomites.  And in the 21^st century, it would appear – according to God’s definition – that many countries are run by sodomites and many governments and private corporations overtly foster and encourage sodomites.  And that leads to one all-important question: is there a ‘sin’ element or component in homosexual acts – and if so, what is it?

The new testament – and the new covenant more generally – makes no significant distinction between sexual acts of a homosexual nature and those of a heterosexual or asexual nature.  However, what they do underscore is that, in either case, there can be a ‘sin’ element or characteristic to any sexual act – or indeed any other act.  What is it that makes any act a ‘sin’?  If you revisit earlier posts in this series, you can find answers.

a) it ‘crosses a line’ – transgresses: it contravenes an accepted fence-line or moral code, much like when a car veers onto the ‘wrong’ side of the road, crossing the centre line.  It is both dangerous and threatening not just to the one transgressing but to others on the ‘other’ side of the road.

b) it ‘misses the mark’ – falls short: it is below par; it is substandard; it’s power and force take it wide of an accepted target.  Again, it is both dangerous and threatening to those involved and those around about.

c) it operates on a ‘seeing is believing’ model instead of a ‘believing is seeing’ model: “I can’t see how this hurts me or anyone else, so therefore it’s OK.”  Perhaps one ought to consider the thought, “I believe others elsewhere have been hurt by this, therefore I’ll refrain so as not to put others in danger.”

d) it interferes with – even breaches – the principle of ‘personal sovereignty’ that is central and foundational to being ‘created in the image of God’ – the Ímago Dei.

A good question for all of us to ask – whether it is regarding sex or money or power or any other temptation of man – is: is this act characterised by any of these four principles?  That’s what makes any sexual act a sin – regardless of its being homo or hetero.

And God’s definition (in Ezekiel 16) puts up in neon lights the acts of human beings that God hated and punished in Sodom and Gomorrah.  God hates rapacious, uncaring capitalism as much as abusive, controlling, manipulative sexual relationships.

‘Sodomy’: A historical perspective 

Early in 2018, ABC News Australia ran an article with the title “In the age of #MeToo, how do we talk about sexual violence against men?” This of course comes within the context of Australia’s royal commission into institutional child sexual abuse.  It begins with these two sentences:

 There are around 1 million male survivors of sexual assault in Australia.

And of the 6,875 survivors to testify at the royal commission into child sexual abuse, almost 65 per cent were male.

Is there historical precedent for the kind of behaviours that have come to light in this inquiry?  I’ll leave that to practicing historians.  One thing that is clear, I think, is that in our English biblical record, we do not see any recognition of the twin concepts of permission and consent.  A person might be ‘found guilty’ of ‘sodomy’ or of adultery or of ‘fornication’, but it always appears decidedly one-sided with little to know concept of perpetrator and ‘victim’, permission or consent.  21^st century concepts and understandings – and law – are far more nuanced.

While the ABC News article was attempting to raise a serious question – the very title of the article – it also throws up serious questions for Christians and other theologians around this matter of the transition from old covenant ‘law’ to the new covenant in Jesus the Christ.

And this of course is the subject of rape.  In neither the old testament nor the new testament – at least in our extant English translations – is there any serious questioning of the theory of patriarchy and male dominance.  It is assumed that adult males rule; and that females and children are chattels and ‘possessions’.  Without ascribing guilt on anyone’s part, abuse of a minor by a priest, teacher or ‘mentor’ in a position of trust stems from the notions of possession and entitlement, with a massive power differential.  In today’s world, we get that and understand it at least to some degree; in days gone by, let’s just say, not so much!

So let me highlight a key paragraph in the ABC News article referenced here:

Male rape has been the object both of concern and of squeamish silence in Australian (sic) since the earliest days of white settlement. Government documents of the time make frequent reference to the problem of forced sodomy in the penal colonies, as do court papers and letters to the press.

[We can safely assume the dictionary definition of ‘sodomy’ I referred to earlier is in mind here.]

It’s well established that “female factories” were a striking feature of early Australian penal settlements, sitting rather like a prison within a prison.  Indeed, this is part of the story of Australia’s Granny Smith apple (see Us Aussies by Mal Garvin): ‘Granny’ Smith used to bake apple pies for the offspring of the dalliances between the women in the ‘female factories’ and the men in the wider prison community – usually left to fend for themselves outside the prison after a certain age.

How many of those dalliances were consensual and how many were rape?  We’ll probably never know.  The history also clearly shows “forced sodomy” – male rape – was treated, as the author notes, with “squeamish silence” in Australia.  One can fairly assume it was similarly treated back in the British fatherland.

Here’s a few links I have found useful and informative, if rather disturbing, in my pursuit of a humane and more ‘christian’ approach to this issue.

https://www.humandignitytrust.org/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wartime_sexual_violence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rape

This is my BIG QUESTION: with His absolute focus on justice, mercy and compassion, how does God see the people involved?

In my experience and opinion, we’re living in the age of “fools rush in where angels fear to tread”.  In our haste to hate, we criminalise people – most often the wrong people.  And it has taken over 200 years to come up with a half-decent study or inquiry into the absolute travesty of injustice, intolerance and cruelty meted out to unsuspecting, unwilling and trusting souls.

If we can’t honestly, sincerely and credibly grasp the issue of sin and guilt – as God sees it in the new covenant era of Jesus – we need to stay out, hold our tongues and not presume too much lest we be found by God to be precisely that person in Matthew 7 who rages about the speck in his brother’s eye while completely ignoring the log in his own.  In our pursuit of a guilty verdict for someone we despise, we become the guilty as far as God is concerned – and guilty of the sin of speaking and judging for God without His approval, permission or imprimatur.

Is there an unforgivable sin?  Yes.  But it’s not homosexuality; it’s attributing a work of the Spirit of God to the Prince of Darkness – a thing we can easily become guilty of if we pursue the line of ignorantly and haughtily prosecuting what and when God defends.

The story goes that the mid-sixteenth century English martyr John Bradford observed a group of prisoners being led to execution and responded, “There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford.”  We err greatly when we presume to know God’s thoughts and ways when we clearly do not (see Isaiah 59) and then presume to be His executioner.  That is precisely the story of some of the Pharisees Jesus faced and addressed.

Next: Disobedience – but not as you know it.

SIN > Unmasked: Is swearing sin?

“Swear not at all” (see Matthew 5:34)

The biggest problem here is that when we refer to coarse language as ‘swearing’, we miss the point – thrice.

First, we miss the point that coarse language, while often hard to tolerate and very grating, is not what Jesus was talking about when he said “don’t swear”.

Second, we miss the point that real swearing “taking an oath” can literally be a case of ‘taking the name of the Lord in vain’ and opening oneself to the charge of “the name of God is blasphemed because of you”.  Yet we so often do it uncritically as a matter of course.

Third, we miss the point that coarse language is a form of speech in any language and can be altogether legitimate when it is not just gratuitous dribble for the sake of using the words or making a noise.  It ought not, therefore, be censored simplistically – which is a form of ‘tone-policing’.

Being aware and circumspect is probably, for me, the baseline of this matter.  On the one hand, I want to ‘say what I mean and mean what I say’; on the other hand, both language and behaviour can easily bring God and others into unjustified disrepute.  Libel, defamation, slander are serious issues of human behaviour and language and can utterly destroy relationships, endeavours and enterprises.

The following links from www.openbible.info are very useful and helpful here.

https://www.openbible.info/topics/foul_language

https://www.openbible.info/topics/oaths

Let your ‘yes’ mean yes and your ‘no’ mean no.

As far as I am concerned, the new covenant words of Jesus take priority in the matter of authority for the people of God in the current era.  As I see it, what is presented in the old testament must be understood through the prism of the new testament; and what is presented to us by others in the new testament must be taken in conjunction with the recorded words of Jesus where such is available to us.  And the matter of ‘oaths’ or ‘swearing’ is a prime example of how that works.

If we take the words of Numbers 30:2

If a man vows a vow to the Lord, or swears an oath to bind himself by a pledge, he shall not break his word.  He shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.

And Deuteronomy 23:21-23

If you make a vow to the Lord your God, you shall not delay fulfilling it, for the Lord your God will surely require it of you, and you will be guilty of sin.  But if you refrain from vowing, you will not be guilty of sin.  You shall be careful to do what has passed your lips, for you have voluntarily vowed to the Lord your God what you have promised with your mouth.

Then we take Jesus’ words of Matthew 5:33-37

...you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’  But I say to you, do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.  And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black.  Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.

Apostle James concurred with Jesus (James 5:12)

But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation.

How did apostle Paul make his solemn affirmations?  Romans 1:9; Galatians 1:20; 2 Corinthians 1:23

For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I mention you always in my prayers...

In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!

But I call God to witness against me – it was to spare you that I refrained from coming again to Corinth.

Throughout history, disciples of Jesus have refused to make oaths following these principles.  As a result, in many jurisdictions to this day, an alternative to an oath (to ‘swearing’ – on the bible or anything else) is available as a legal affirmatory tool.

We have at our disposal – if we are joined to Christ as he and apostle Paul envision it – an avenue to take and a power/dynamic to make our word certain and be certain of our words;  in other words, to ‘say what you mean and mean what you say’.

Why is making an oath (‘swearing’) such a big issue?  I believe it is because making an oath directly interferes with personal sovereignty.  The only ‘person’ we have direct control over is ourselves; we have no real control over another person – and we certainly have no control over God.  So, in the event that we have to make good on our oath, we cannot because that would breach the other person’s (or God’s) sovereignty.  And that is not how God works; neither is it how things work in the kingdom of God.

[On this blog, there are series of posts on this matter of the kingdom of God.]

In addition, making an oath leaves us wide open to the charge ‘taking the name of the Lord our God in vain.’

It’s what comes out of the mouth that defiles a person

A commandment we’re (allegedly) familiar with:

You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain. (Exodus 20:7)

And just in case we missed it, the commandment given the second time (that’s the meaning of ‘Deuteronomy’)

You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain. (Deuteronomy 5:11)

Three words from Matthew’s account of Jesus:

I tell you, on the day of judgment, people will give account for every careless word they speak. (12:36)

For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned. (12:37)

And he called the people to him and said to them, ‘Hear and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.” (15:10-11)

What did Jesus’ apostles teach?

Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. (Ephesians 4:29)

Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. (Ephesians 5:4)

But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth. Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator. (Colossians 3:8-10)

Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person. (Colossians 4:6)

But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness. (2 Timothy 2:16)

If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless. (James 1:26)

If anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man; the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great things.  How great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire!  And the tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness. (James 3:2-6)

From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so. (James 3:10)

Solomon’s wisdom advises us:

Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life. (Proverbs 4:23)

What I hope we have learned from this section is this:

Making an oath – the real ‘swearing’ – is the doorway to sin, albeit forgivable;

What we commonly call swearing – foul language – is unbecoming and not fitting for a member of the household and family of God when it pours froth from us like in the scriptures above.

That does not preclude strong and direct speech when the situation and the Spirit of God demand it – when, as Paul put it, “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us”.  Review this short passage in Paul’s letter to the Galatians – 5:1-15.  He pulls no punches in saying that he wished those Jews who go on demanding Gentiles be circumcised would go ‘all the way’ and cut off their balls too (emasculate, mutilate, castrate themselves – depending on which translation you read).

“Say what you mean and mean what you say.”  And say it under the authority and with the power of the Holy Spirit – remembering clearly that you will give account for it.

Next: Sodomy – but not as you know it.

SIN > Unmasked: Self-righteousness; “not guilty, your honour.”

Three modes of righteousness – which works?

At the outset here, I want to posit a definition of two terms: righteousness and imprimatur.  You’ll see why as we go along.

Righteousness:

Breaking the word down into its parts – right-eous-ness – and working from right to left: the word literally means ‘the state of being in the way of right’ (where right means true and ‘as it ought to be’).  Thinking of it theologically, it means the state of being in right relationship with God – and therefore on track to being (or ‘potentially’) in right relationship with other humans and the rest of creation.

Imprimatur:

An imprimatur is an official stamp of approval; an item with an imprimatur is officially authorised and approved.  A few hundred years ago, the only approved and authorised bible was that with the imprimatur of King James – hence the Authorised Version / King James Version.

Let me now link those two together as we begin this examination: there are three ‘modes’ of righteousness in popular thinking; only one has the imprimatur of God.  Only one mode or type of righteousness is approved by God, secures the divine stamp of approval, and delivers the status of righteous, the verdict of ‘not guilty’ and the declaration of ‘justified’.

Three modes or types of righteousness

One: self-righteousness.  This is that righteousness that we calculate, determine and append to ourselves: we set the terms; we give the assent; we declare it done.  Here you place all your trust in yourself.  In this mode of righteousness, God is who we say he is based on our preferred theology and his standards are those we assess and ascribe to him.  God ‘accepts’ me because I am a good person by the standards I use to measure good and bad.  The USA idea of good guys and bad guys – goodies and baddies – is typical of this approach.  God has to accept me because I’m a ‘righteous’ person by my definition and standards – which I have come to by careful study of the scriptures and religious rules.  You are your own imprimatur.

Two: other-righteousness.  This is that righteousness that comes from placing ourselves under a go-between – a mediator; righteousness which we derive second-hand from our go-between or mediator.  Here you place all your trust is another person or a system.  This ‘other’ person may be a priest, a pastor, a guru, a celebrity, a parent, a shaman, a cleverman – even just a friend.  In this mode, there is always that second ‘layer’ of authority.  In some circles, there are multiple tiers, all the way up to the supreme (yet still human) ‘father’.  God accepts you because you ‘go through the right channels’.  That person – or the system / hierarchy they represent – becomes your imprimatur.

Three: Christ-righteousness.  This is that righteousness that comes from placing yourself at God’s mercy by admitting that you are ‘guilty as charged’ and have no leg to stand on besides the one He provides.  Here you place all your trust in Jesus Christ as the only mediator between God and man who can actually deliver what you are seeking to obtain.  Jesus effectively becomes to us all the things we need for salvation and righteousness.  Apostle Peter makes this point in his letter to the Jewish believers: “His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through the knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence.”  Jesus becomes our imprimatur

Of course, I’m not ignorant of the sea of religious debate around this.  However, my concern is not to attempt to prove one ‘system’ superior to all others; rather it is to lay out clearly that system which is central to our particular historical and cultural tradition.  In this respect, I am taking my cues from the writings of the sages in that particular historical and cultural tradition.  For us in the English-speaking world, there is enough given to us in our scriptures that we can genuinely come to the truth if that is our authentic pursuit.

And in that regard, two things stand out starkly to me as pivotal issues: there is one ‘mediator’ who totally has the divine imprimatur; and there is one approach to righteousness that, likewise, has the divine imprimatur.

·         There is one mediator between God and man: the man Christ Jesus – 1 Timothy 2:5

·         Jesus is “the approved” of God: on what basis?  At his baptism, God clearly declares: “This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased.” – echoed by Peter in his letter some years later.  And Paul notes in his letter to the Romans that he was “...set apart for the gospel of God, which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, having come of the seed of David according to flesh, having been declared the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness, by resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.”

·         Paul notes (Romans 3:21) there is a righteousness revealed that is not dependent on the old law or on keeping religious laws and rules and protocols.

·         There is a problem with being “unacquainted with the teaching about righteousness”. (Hebrews 5)

·         Peter, writing to Jewish christians of his day noted, “It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than to have known it and then to turn away from the holy commandment passed on to them.” (2 Peter 2:21)

Now, with that context and background, plus what’s gone before in this series, it’s not hard to see that self-righteousness and other-righteousness is missing the mark, falling short and living by sight; which shines a spotlight on one of the strange features of old Israel identified by the prophets whose writings we have in our bibles: the protest, “we have not sinned”.

Despite all the evidence to the contrary, this protest goes up from the earth to assault God’s ears as if the people had never heard a thing.  And in one sense, I suppose they hadn’t, if God ‘hardened the hearts’ of the people.

Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel all carried a theme that went roughly like this: “Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and return and be healed.”

This is the same theme Jesus picked up on hundreds of years later speaking of the Jewish people of his day.  It’s the idea I referred to earlier about why Jesus spoke in parables.  Indeed, that is precisely what Matthew records (chapter 13) in his version of events when Jesus spoke to the people in the parable of the sower.

And this aligns with Paul’s understanding that, for a time, the Jews are blocked from entering the blessing to allow for the grafting-in of the Gentiles, the nations of the world.

And if you look at the record of Paul’s letter to the Romans, chapter 9, the Jews were not slow in raising the protest that if God was ‘blocking’ them, how could they be guilty of anything?  ‘Why does God still find fault’, they protest; ‘who can resist God’s will?’

One of the great laments of the old testament prophets of Israel was that, despite everything, they insisted they had done nothing wrong: ‘not guilty, your honour’, they would say; ‘we have just cause and clear justification for acting as we did’.  Jesus and Paul and Peter ran into exactly the same thing hundreds of years later.  What does that tell us?

Paul’s response was strident:

But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?  Shall what is formed say to Him who formed it, ‘Why have you made me like this?”  Does not the potter have the right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special occasions and another for common use?

What if God, intending to show His wrath and make His power known, bore with great patience the vessels of His wrath, prepared for destruction?  What if He did this to make the riches of His glory known to the vessels of His mercy, whom He prepared in advance for glory – including us, whom He has called not only from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles?  As he says in Hosea: “I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people, and I will her ‘my beloved’ who is not my beloved” and “It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them, ‘you are not my people’ they will be called ‘sons of the living God’.

Then the light begins to dawn: Paul opens up some of the revelation given to Him by the Spirit of God – revelation that had not up to that time been revealed.  God chose Paul to be the bearer of the revelation reserved for that time following the death and resurrection of Jesus and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.  Paul continues:

Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the Israelites is like the sand of the sea, only the remnant will be saved.  For the Lord will carry out His sentence on the earth thoroughly and decisively.”

It is just as Isaiah foretold: “Unless the Lord of Hosts had left us descendants, we would have become like Sodom, we would have resembled Gomorrah.”

And here’s the kicker – from Paul:

What then will we say?  That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it.  Why not?  Because their pursuit was not by faith, but as if it were by works.  They stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written: “See, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and the one who believes in Him will never be put to shame.”

[You see that the ‘stumbling stone’ in ‘Zion’ is Jesus when you turn on the light of other references such as the letter to the Hebrews.]

Righteousness that is pursued by law (the Law, legalism, rules and regulations, protocols, etc.) cannot produce the right standing before God and the justification needed for salvation.  Why not?  A) because not everyone can understand and keep the law, so its discriminatory; and B) because self-effort and the struggles of go-betweens are just “works” (human effort) – which again is discriminatory.

As Paul put it: “God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that He might have mercy on us all.”

There is not a single person – ever – who can justly claim before God “Not guilty”; with the exception of Jesus.  And for that reason, plus the fact that He did not wince and pull back but went all the way through death to resurrection, God has declared Him ‘Son of God with power’: Jesus Christ our Lord.

Therefore: the righteousness of Christ, appropriated by faith, not by law (any kind of law), has God’s imprimatur and is the approved method of being ‘right’ in the sight of God.  And this righteousness was the subject and the content of the gospel Paul (and others) took throughout Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and the ends of the Roman empire.  And for that, he had the imprimatur of God: note 1 Thessalonians 2:4.

Trying to secure a benefit by means other than that laid down by the giver of that benefit is what we call fraud.  Is it not then legitimate to label as fraud all attempts to gain the righteousness and justification of God by any means other than that laid down by God?

Therein lies the “sin” of old Israel; of the Israel of Jesus’ day; and of many people today.  We miss that important point; and we repeat the hackneyed protest, “we have not sinned”.  That’s self-righteousness, self-justification and failing to have the humble attitude that might allow us to hear and so to listen and so to be justified, and so to be His beloved.

Next: “Swear not at all”

SIN > Unmasked: Repentance Lost – Pt 2

Are all sinners redeemable?

Paul notes that God rejected Israel ‘for a time’ in order to make her jealous.  However, he specifically makes the point that God was not, in doing this, permanently rejecting Israel: far from it.

Mirroring God’s attitude, Paul says to the Romans [Berean Study Bible at biblehub.com], “I am speaking to you Gentiles ... in the hope that I may provoke my own people [Paul was a Jew] to jealousy and save some of them.  For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead [a kind of resurrection]?”

Then he continues:

Now if some branches have been broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot have been grafted in among the others to share in the nourishment of the olive root [that’s Israel], do not boast over those branches.  If you do, remember this: you do not support the root, but the root supports you.

You might say then, ‘Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in’.  That is correct: they were broken off because of unbelief [literally, ‘unfaith’], but you stand by faith.  Do not be arrogant, but be afraid.  For if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you either.

Take notice therefore of the kindness and severity of God: severity to those who fell, but kindness to you, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.  And if they [Israel] do not persist in unfaith, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

If you were cut off from a wild olive tree and, contrary to nature, were grafted into one that is cultivated, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!

And to reiterate!:

I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you will not be conceited: a hardening in part has come to Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.  And thus all Israel will be saved.

Paul draws this from his own tradition’s scriptures – in the prophets:

The Deliverer will come from Zion; He will remove godlessness from Jacob.  And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins.  [Referencing Isaiah 59 and 27]

So...this tells me there is another very highly dangerous sin that – apparently – is impossible to come back from: conceited arrogance as to superiority – “I’m better than you and you’d better believe it”.  In other words: hubris.

But just why is it impossible to come back from it?  Here is another critically important truth:

Repentance is not simply a thing we can conjure up by ourselves, at will, when we feel like it, when we are hard-pressed to experience God’s mercy and kindness.

That might be remorse, but it’s not repentance; Paul calls it ‘presuming upon the kindness and forbearance of God.’  Isaiah calls it an improper fast (see his chapter 58).

Consider these scriptures [from the Berean Study Bible at biblehub.com]:

Acts 5:29-32 – “But Peter and the other apostles replied, ‘We must obey God rather than men.  The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had killed by hanging Him on a tree.  God exalted Him to His right hand as Prince and Savior, in order to grant repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel.  We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him’.”

Acts 11:15-18  [Peter again] – “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, just as He had come upon us at the beginning.  Then I remembered the word of the Lord, as He used to say, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’  So if God gave them the same gift as He gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to hinder the work of God?  When they heard this, their objections were put to rest, and they glorified God, saying, ‘So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life’.”

2 Timothy 2:23-26 [Paul to his apprentice Timothy] – “But reject foolish and ignorant speculation, for you know that it breeds quarreling.  And a servant of the Lord must not be quarrelsome, but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, and forbearing.  He must gently reprove those who oppose him, in the hope that God may grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth.  Then they will come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, who has taken them captive to his will.”

Romans 2:3-4 – “...when you, O man, pass judgment on others, yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment?  Or do you disregard the riches of His kindness, tolerance, and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness leads you to repentance?”

2 Peter 3:9 – “The Lord is not slow to fulfil His promise as some understand slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish but everyone to come to repentance.”

God leads sinners to repentance; it is a grace gift.  Blogger Burk Parsons [https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/gift-repentance/] wisely notes, “Just as our righteousness is a foreign, or “alien,” righteousness from Christ (you’ll find that clearly in Paul’s letter to the Romans), so is our repentance.  It is granted to us by God Himself.”

If we think we can flippantly ‘pick up’ repentance at will, then ‘put it down’ when it’s too inconvenient, God knows – because of what we see in John 2:23-25.  The same text that gives us John 3:16, a little earlier notes, “While he[Jesus] was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the signs He was doing and believed in His name.  But Jesus did not entrust Himself to them, for He knew all men.  He did not need any testimony about man, for He knew what was in a man.”

It’s rather like the story with the parables: God knows if the heart is right; and repentance will not be granted to one who remains arrogant and self-righteous, presuming upon the kindness and forbearance of God and trying to outsmart or defraud the Holy Spirit.

Coming full-circle to the questions at the beginning: God remains in control; He ‘grants repentance unto eternal life’ to those He knows.  And he has made it plain that, if one is privileged to enjoy the fruits of His salvation and spiritual blessings in Christ by being in that sphere of influence and then fall into the trap of hubris and superiority and judgement, He withholds repentance because of the outrageous suffering it inflicts again on His Son Jesus.  And without repentance, there is no access to His life.  In that sense, salvation can be ‘lost’.

Next: “We have not sinned.”

Self-righteous hubris – which righteousness works?

SIN > Unmasked: Repentance Lost – Pt 1

Are all sinners redeemable?

Even over my lifetime there have been a number of iterations of this question.  Probably the most common way of expressing it is with the question, ‘can I lose my salvation?’  Another popular rendition of it has been the statement: ‘once saved, always saved’.


Can salvation be ‘lost’?  Can repentance be out of reach?  Are all sinners redeemable?  Whichever way you look at it, there is one non-negotiable piece of understanding that lies at the heart of unveiling a satisfactory – and truth-affirming – resolution to the Hebrews 6 dilemma.  So, first, let’s scope the dilemma- and to do this, I’m using the King James (Authorised) rendition of the Hebrews passage because that translation seems to be the one that is most often quoted in the arguments and debates around this subject.

There are two profoundly important truths that seem to escape many who call themselves christians – including those who are esteemed (and paid) to be ‘shepherds’ among the people of God.  The deficiency of these two things deals a death-blow to the spiritual life of many.

One is the truth that God is circumspect in regard to whom his truth is revealed to and to whom ‘repentance leading to eternal life’ is granted.  We ourselves are encouraged to practise the same principle by the scripture in Matthew 7: “Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.”  God doesn’t do it; Jesus didn’t do it; neither are we to do it.

Many people dangerously misread the words of Jesus recorded in Matthew 25, Mark 4 and Luke 19: three different accounts of the one teaching of Jesus.  For many, this is their justification for 1) a rabid capitalist economy by which people are taught to be tough, uncompromising and merciless in their bid to get along in the world; and 2) financial gain is the blessing of God and proof of one’s righteousness and acceptability to God.

For others, it’s interpreted as a kind of opposite to that: it’s the way of the kingdom of man, standing in stark contrast to the ways of the kingdom of God.

Neither is true.  If we were to read all the relevant bits of the gospel records, not just do a ‘cut and paste’ proof-text exercise, we would see that we are told quite specifically it applies to hearing (or listening).  The parables of the ten virgins, the ‘talents’, the lamp in its lamp-stand, etc. need to be interpreted through the prism that is given to us in Luke chapter 8: “Pay attention therefore to how you listen...” – the attitude of your heart.  That was the clearly stated purpose of Jesus’ speaking in parables: those whose heart attitude was right would get the meaning of the parable and, hence, the whole kit and caboodle of the good news of the kingdom of God.  And they would ‘get it’ mostly by the ministry of the Holy Spirit, not by study and academic pursuits.  In contrast, those whose attitude was screwed up and fundamentally self-serving would not get the meaning of the parable and, hence, neither would they get what it was pointing to; furthermore, they would go away more confused (i.e. with less) than when they came to ‘hear’ what Jesus had to say.  And that’s what happened.

Jesus could see quite clearly those whose heart was fixed against him by the way they listened and how they went away with less understanding than they came with.  Conversely, he saw the heart attitude of those who believed him as their lives lit up with the unspoken truth the parables contained.  This is absolutely consistent with a much maligned principle of human life on earth: in the kingdom of man, ‘seeing is believing’; in the kingdom of God ‘believing is seeing’.  Coming right back to Hebrews, we can note chapter 11, verse 3: “by faith we understand...”  Few get it; and many spend countless hours trying to make it work the other way: “by understanding we believe”.  It can’t and it won’t work that way.  His ways are not our ways – we’d be wise to believe it.

Let’s not miss here one of the great wonders of the grace of God: no human being needs to be ‘smart’, clever, or academic to fully apprehend the truth of the gospel of the kingdom of God in Jesus Christ.  On the flipside, even the most unlearned or disabled can receive from the Holy Spirit as much as the cleverest of us all – perhaps even more.  Do we get that?

How you listen, how you respond and how you deal with the ‘little’ you get not only determines how much ‘more’ (or less!) you get, it also determines God’s willingness to draw you into his confidence.  I and many of his people around the world and across time can attest to this truth and it lines up with other things we know from scripture in scores of places.  Again: his ways are not our ways.

As it stands, we largely only listen when we like what we hear.  That’s the common way of man.  Yet it is the very thing that God in the old testament prophets, Jesus, and the first apostles told us would keep us from mercy and from finding repentance  ‘Be careful how you hear’, we are told; our common attitude, however, is the thing that betrays our hubris, self-righteousness, and pursuit of personal benefit – which we then label ‘success’.  Argh!

The second is the truth that, while God has a particular – and unique – agenda for the Jews, non-Jews (Gentiles or ‘the nations’ besides the Jews) have a ‘conditional inclusion’ in God’s overall agenda of uniting all things – and all peoples – under one head (Jesus) and into one family – what is known in the new testament as the ekklesia.

[Perhaps we could even note here that one definition of ekklesia might be “those who hear right”.]

To get a handle on this, we need to get the message of Paul’s letter to the Romans, chapters 9 to 11.  I’ll leave you to read that for yourself, but the masterkey is found in chapter 11 with the concept of ‘grafting’ (as in horticultural grafting of plants).  In my view, chapters 9 to 11 of Romans are the best layout of ‘the Jew and the Gentile in the plan of God’ that we have access to.

In summary form, the story goes like this:

·         God’s mercy is his own sovereign act - always and exclusively.

·         From the earliest times, it always was God’s intention to include “all nations” in Israel.  Israel’s former name was Jacob; it was changed to Israel (literally ‘God contends’ or ‘God wrestles’) after the ‘struggle’ or ‘contention’ with God recorded in Genesis 32.  Unfortunately, it never sat well with Israel that “the nations” (the ‘gentiles’) be included.  Hubris became the hallmark of the nation as they jealously guarded and prosecuted their specialness and superiority.

·         Israel, in God’s eyes, was to be the bearer of his grace and his blessing to the world.  Hubris took over and they sought to assert their superiority and to subjugate, insult and disdain all others.

·         God would have none of that, so he subjugated and humbled them; and then grafted in the ‘dogs’ and the ‘unclean’ (cf. Matthew 15 and Acts 10) – those Israel loved to hate – to provoke Israel to jealousy.

That doesn’t mean by any means that they are given up for good.  Note Paul’s question and answer section in Romans 11: “Did God reject His people?  Certainly not!”; “Did they stumble so as to lose their share?  Certainly not!”

However, it does mean 1) that Israel must learn their lessons; and 2) if the gentiles grafted in act with presumption and hubris like Israel, they will be cut off – with no possibility of finding repentance again.  That’s what Hebrews 6 is talking about.  If we understand what God has been up to all along, and we understand Paul’s explanation of how that works, we will understand Hebrews 6 – and we will understand the seriousness of His mercy towards us and how important is Romans 2:1-5.

Part 2 follows