In which we discuss Hebrews 12:25-29; God speaking to them and us; the failure of Israel; Haggai and the exiles; the parable of the Prodigal Son; things material and spiritual; things unshakeable.
Tim: Let us turn to Hebrews chapter 12. We are getting into a new passage, but I need to reiterate that verses 18 to 24, contrasting the differences between Mount Sinai and Mount Zion, is one of the great classic passages in scripture! It gives us a great contrast between the Old and New Covenants, or the Old Covenant versus the Gospel. It is always a good thing to go back and revisit that on occasion as a reminder that the Gospel is not coming to preaching on fear, guilt and condemnation. That describes Mount Sinai, and we have not come to that in Christ.
Dwight: It is very prevalent in the church today. I remember an old deacon in my former church who was asked what he was going to preach on that day. His standard answer was always, “Sin.” Why preach on sin when we can preach that we have been liberated from sin? That is the better message!
Roger: Hiking up Mount Zion is far better than a hike up Mount Sinai.
Tim: Yes! There are no snakes on that trail and no trees with forbidden fruit. This is a reminder that faith in Christ is not based on fear and trembling and blazing fire and gloom and darkness and images of terror. We have come to Christ which is the Heavenly Jerusalem and it’s a place of joy! Let’s read the last verses of chapter 12,
25 See to it that you do not refuse Him who is speaking. For if those did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape who turn away from Him who warns us from heaven. 26 And His voice shook the earth then, but now He has promised, saying, “Yet once more I will shake not only the earth, but also the heaven.” 27 This expression, “Yet once more,” denotes the removing of those things which can be shaken, as of created things, so that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. 28 Therefore, since we receive a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let’s show gratitude, by which we may offer to God an acceptable service with reverence and awe; 29 for our God is a consuming fire.
I love passages like this where the inspired author quotes from the Old Testament and then gives us the interpretation! He quotes from the book of Haggai, then in verse 27 gives us the Gospel interpretation. Let us take a look at some of the details.
He first encourages, “…do not refuse him who is speaking.” We have already come across several verses about God speaking in Jesus. The first chapter of Hebrews is a contrast between the word of angels and the word which is better, the word of Christ. Remember, everything heard in the Old Covenant is substandard to Christ, because Christ is better in all things.
Roger: Chapter 1 also points out that God has spoken in Jesus “…in these last days.”
Tim: I was going to mention that. You folks are too well educated for me to get ahead of you. Let’s press on.
Roger: You have taught us to let the scripture interpret the scripture, so this is not a new statement since it refers back to the first chapter.
Tim: Exactly! Let us go back and read what Roger referenced,
God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom He also made the world.
The word spoken to the fathers by the prophets were mostly warnings about what would happen to them because of their disobedience to the covenant. The prophets were rarely speaking to a faithful people. I do not get this about the theology of Zionism which demands reverence to Old Testament Israel, them being hailed as “God’s chosen people.”
When we read the Gospels, the teachings of Jesus put Old Covenant Israel’s failures on display. Jesus and the apostles’ main message was how their fathers continually screwed up when it came to walking in obedience to God. In other words, the New Testament message does not exalt Old Testament Isreal, saying how faithful and courageous they were. The offspring of Old Covenant Israel, the scribes and the Pharisees, who were the objects of Jesus’ message of woe, saying that generation would bear the judgment of all the blood shed from Abel to Zechariah the son of Berechiah (Matthew 23:35-36). That’s not exactly high praise!
Jesus longed to bring these people into his fold, but they would not have it. We could add in Stephen’s sermon in Acts 7, the subject of which was Old Covenant Israel’s failures. He told his listeners that they were failing in the same manner as their fathers. I just do not get why modern Christians slobber on about how great Israel is. You cannot read the teachings of Jesus or read Stephen’s sermon about Israels’ failed history and conclude that they were a wonderful people.
God gave Israel warnings about their straying and rebellion. They did not listen when God spoke through the prophets. They did not listen to the prophets on earth, and Jesus then was warning them from heaven. The early church preached that the origins of this final warning were heaven itself, not from the mouths of earthly preachers. Let’s look at Hebrews 2,
For this reason, we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it. 2 For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every violation and act of disobedience received a just punishment, 3 how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, 4 God also testifying with them, both by signs and wonders, and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will.
The author is saying that every time the people of Jesus’ day saw a miraculous sign, every time they watched a lame man get up and walk, every time they watched a blind man get his sight back, that was the voice of God ringing clear and true. They did not pay attention, just like their fathers of Old Covenant Isreal.
When Israel rebelled, God didn’t just stay quiet and let them figure things out for themselves. He sent prophets and wise men to warn the nation about the calamity they were going to suffer.
When God’s warnings came to pass and judgment fell upon Israel, it was because God was faithful to his word. We looked at this before when we examined the promises of God and concluded that we would not want God to be faithful in keeping his promises from the Old Covenant. Under the Old Covenant, God promised calamity if the people were rebellious. He promised that the curses would come upon them for their unfaithfulness. This would be a time we would not want God to keep his promises.
Roger: In Christ, all the promises of God are “yes” and “amen.”
Tim: Promises of God under the New Covenant are beautiful! He will be faithful to keep the promises of the Father’s love. Under the Old Covenant, the people agreed to walk in his ways, but failed. If they wanted God to keep his promise of blessings upon them, then they were obligated to be faithful to their promise of obedience.
Chuck: They got what they deserved.
Tim: When they agreed in a bilateral manner, a mutual agreement to keep God’s covenant, they set themselves up for judgment if they failed.
Israel was stubborn when God spoke, and they stiffened their necks and went about their own way. The author of Hebrews now says That God’s voice “…shook the earth then, but now he has promised saying, ‘Yet once more I will shake not only the earth, but also the heaven’” (Hebrews 12:26).
Let’s get a little background on the prophet Haggai. Haggai is one of the post-exilic prophets. In five 587 BC, Babylon conquered the Kingdom of Judah and took many captives while leaving others in the land. The Jews had 70 years to ponder the destruction of the temple and experience the pain of captivity. The king of Babylon eventually decreed to send the people back to Jerusalem. There they assumed the task of rebuilding the temple. Haggai was one of the prophets alive at that time to bring encouragement.
Haggai notices that people start building their own houses, so he chews them out to get the work going back on the temple. When we read this passage, let’s read it from the perspective of the first century church who were taught to interpret the Old Testament with Christ in mind. Remember Jesus telling his disciples that the law, prophets, and psalms all spoke about him (Luke 24:27, 44). Consider too that the returned exiles are seeing the ruins of an old temple that was destroyed in judgment and were contemplating the rise of a new temple. Think about that in terms of the first century church. Here is Haggai, chapter 2,
On the twenty-first of the seventh month, the word of the Lord came by Haggai the prophet, saying, 2 “Speak now to Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest, and to the remnant of the people, saying, 3 ‘Who is left among you who saw this temple in its former glory? And how do you see it now? Does it not seem to you like nothing in comparison?
We can fill in with the narrative in Ezra where they started laying the foundation of temple. Everyone started shouting and cheering and but there were a bunch of people weeping. It says in Ezra 3:12-13,
“Yet many of the priests and Levites and heads of fathers’ households, the old men who had seen the first temple, wept with a loud voice when the foundation of this house was laid before their eyes, while many shouted aloud for joy, 13 so that the people could not distinguish the sound of the shout of joy from the sound of the weeping of the people, because the people were shouting with a loud shout, and the sound was heard far away.”
There were mixed feelings from the different generations. The younger generation was ecstatic that the temple was being rebuilt. The older generation seemed a little disappointed thinking that the new temple will be nothing compared to what they remember in their youth. Here’s Haggai 2:4-9,
But now take courage, Zerubbabel,’ declares the Lord, ‘take courage also, Joshua son of Jehozadak, the high priest, and all you people of the land take courage,’ declares the Lord, ‘and work; for I am with you,’ declares the Lord of armies. 5 ‘As for the promise which I made you when you came out of Egypt, My Spirit remains in your midst; do not fear!’ 6 For this is what the Lord of armies says: ‘Once more in a little while, I am going to shake the heavens and the earth, the sea also and the dry land. 7 I will shake all the nations; and they will come with the wealth of all nations, and I will fill this house with glory,’ says the Lord of armies. 8 ‘The silver is Mine and the gold is Mine,’ declares the Lord of armies. 9 ‘The latter glory of this house will be greater than the former,’ says the Lord of armies, ‘and in this place I will give peace,’ declares the Lord of armies.” (words in bold quoted in Hebrews)
Roger: So, are we talking about the temple here or are we talking about the New Covenant?
Tim: That’s the question, isn’t it? We return to asking, “How did the early church interpret these passages?” There is certainly evidence within the text of Hebrews that would lead us to believe it’s at least possible the writer is talking about the covenants.
Roger: I would say he’s talking about the New Covenant otherwise God comes across as being bipolar.
Tim: When the early church read, “…the latter glory of this house will be greater than the former,” it’s not beyond the realm of probability that he’s talking about the glory of the Old Covenant being surpassed by the glory of the new. Leave been over 2nd Corinthians 3 multiple times which speaks of the fading glory of Moses to be replaced by the glory of Christ in the New Covenant.
Ron: It was a temporary glory because the glow on his face faded.
Roger: We are told he covered his because the glory was fading.
Tim: Yes! At first the people were afraid of that glow on his face, so he covered it. However, Paul says that glory or glow was growing dim and about to pass away.
Roger: then he says that veil still covers their face to this day of those hearing the preaching of Moses. It is the preaching of the Gospel that removes it.
Tim: Paul says we are being transformed from glory to glory. Many interpret this as progressive sanctification, that when we walk in Christ, we are getting better every day. In the context, what he means is that we are being transformed by leaving the glory that is fading away, repenting of that glory, and being transformed into the glory of the New Covenant. This fits what Haggai is saying that the latter glory of this house would be greater than the former glory.
Roger: This would also be in keeping with Hebrews where the old glory is the shaking of the heavens and the earth, and being replaced by the New Covenant which cannot be shaken. That statement in Hebrews is taken directly from Haggai and we can deduce that what can’t be shaken is the New Covenant.
Tim: In verse 27, he says, “…this expression, yet once more, denotes the removing of those things which can be shaken.” The word in Greek translated “removing” means “…to transfer from one place to another, to change as in things instituted or established.” The writer has used this term before in Hebrews 7:12 where he said, “For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.” This word “change” is the same Greek word. Most translations use the word “remove,” but I wonder if a better word would be “transferal.” It denotes the transferal of those things which cannot be shaken, doing away with them. We could consider it an exchange of the things which can – and will – be shaken for those which are unshakeable.
Roger: The change of law refers to the doing away of the law of Moses and being replaced by the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus. We have looked at that before.
Tim: As Romans 8:2 puts it, the law of sin and death was replaced or removed so that the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus would be operative. There are people on social media who continue to insist that Torah is still operative, and we are obligated to keep it. I argue that the law is only as good as the covenant to which it is attached. You really cannot talk about the law without talking about the covenant under which the laws operate. If the old law is still operative, that means the Old Covenant remains; but if that Old Covenant passed away then so do the laws attached to it.
Ty: The term is “fulfilled.”
Tim: “Fulfilled” might be the better word. God told the people that if they were disobedient, there would be curses upon them. Well, they were disobedient! God then determines that he will bring this failed covenant to an end. In AD 70, Jesus comes back to destroy the temple and Jerusalem, bringing justice to all who suffered under that covenant from righteous Abel to Zachariah the son of Berechiah (Matthew 23:35). In this, God fulfilled his side of the contract stipulated in the Old Covenant.
Ty: We know that these two covenants cannot be intertwined because grace and truth are superior to the law with its judgment and punishment. If you bind yourself to the law, then you must also fear the punishment that comes from breaking it. If you bind yourself with Christ, there is no punishment in his grace. The Old Covenant can be preparatory, but it cannot be mixed with the new, they can’t be combined.
Ron: I do not recall that the Old Testament talked much about God’s love. Isn’t there more talk of annihilating certain groups until the New Testament came? Jesus spoke a lot about love, more than the Old Testament did. Is that true?
Tim: It is not that the Old Testament never talked about love. It certainly did and Jesus pointed this out when he cites the law in calling out the scribes and Pharisees for their lack of compassion. Although the Old Covenant called for love and compassion, Jesus criticized the scribes and Pharisees for their culpability in the deaths of the prophets who preceded them. When Jesus lamented that he longed to gather them under his wings as a hen gathers her chicks, he is describing God in the Old Covenant as being full of compassion and love for his people.
The problem is that they are stubborn and rebellious. It turned out to be like any relationship with a loving parent and a rebellious child. No parent who loves his child turns that love into hatred. God of the Old Covenant is more like the father of the prodigal son. I could be reading into the parable, but I imagine the father was grieved at what his son was doing. Still, he waited patiently for his child to return.
Ty: If you have a righteous father and an unrighteous son, how can the two be together?
Tim: In the case of the parable, the prodigal son is out there in his rebellion while the father sits on the porch waiting compassionately for him to return. We could say that the Old Testament is the biography of the rebellious son.
Ty: It is also the biography of sin versus having your sin removed. When the prodigal son finally comes back to his father, he gives up his sin and unrighteousness, saying, “I would rather be a slave in my father’s household than be unrighteous in a pigsty.”
Tim: The father would not agree to those terms because of his compassion. It was full restoration or nothing.
Ty: It is a picture of Christ who restores us to full sonship under God as opposed to the Old Covenant. This is not a picture of the Old Covenant at all.
Tim: The second son is the picture of the Old Covenant. This parable is always named for the one son, but it’s really about the contrast between the two sons. The second son exemplified the spirit of the Old Covenant.
Ty: He stays with his father claiming to keep all the rules, but even though he claims obedience he doesn’t really seem to love His father.
Tim: That also is the pattern in the Old Testament. God is compassionate toward his people, but the people do not respond in love. God was not lacking love under the Old Covenant; it was the people who lacked love.
Chuck: Love really cannot be demonstrated by rule-keeping. This is why the Old Covenant is a tutor to lead us to Christ. It is like saying, “Here are rules that you can’t follow; that will lead you to the solution.”
Tim: You can go through the motions of obedience but that does not really translate into a love relationship with God.
Roger: We notice that the father didn’t go chasing after the younger son. He was patient until his son came to his senses. The son was expected to be mistreated or treated less than a son, but the grace the father showed treated him as if he had never left and been faithful the whole time.
Tim: This parable is rich with imagery! By feeding with the pigs, others would have considered him to be as unclean as the pigs. That would have been one of the most shocking things about this.
Roger: Exactly!
Tim: The original listeners would have thought the son be required to perform quite a bit of ritual to reenter polite society. He would have been considered as deserving the life of a slave rather than a son.
Ron: The older brother considered that he was not qualified to come back much less throw a party for him.
Tim: That was his chief complaint. He gripes that his brother made a mess of his life and that he’s being let off easily. He should be required to jump through multiple religious hoops.
Dwight: The law would allow him to come back, but not without cleansing sacrifices. The twist is that the father graciously welcomed him back.
Valori: Does this point out who has the authority to change the stipulations of the covenant, which would be God?
Tim: We have studied in Hebrews that the New Covenant was ratified by God taking an oath to himself alone (Hebrews 6:13-20). The father assured his second son that he had always been in his good favor, and he was in no way violating the father/son relationship. The shocking twist in this story is that the younger kid comes back after squandering all the wealth and he’s received back by the father with open arms.
In modern times, loving outcasts and reaching out to those who are unlovable gets pushback from institutional Christianity. It is almost as if you’re forced to apologize for even thinking that they could be acceptable and welcomed by the father. When asked, “Where do you draw the line?”, my response is, “That’s a question the Pharisees would ask.” Jesus pushed the line way farther than institutional Christians today.
Ty: Peter asked the same thing, “How many times do you forgive?”
Tim: Rabbinic teachings set the number at three, so Peter considered himeself pretty generous when he pushed the line to seven. Jesus was voicing the spirit of the prodigal son’s father when he said, let us take your 7 and multiply it by 70!” What he is saying is quit counting the offences and just work on being a forgiving person. Forgive as many times as you need to bring the brother or sister back into the fold.
Let’s get back to our passage where he’s discussing things that can be shaken versus things unshakeable. Several times in Hebrews the author has mentioned things created or made with hands as opposed to things not made with hands. He said Jesus ascended into the heavens “not made with hands” (see Hebrews 9:11, 24). That heaven is our unshakeable kingdom. When it is completely established, the things created by hands are removed.
Roger: Futurists say that everything we see around us in the material world is what will be removed. I believe it is more the things of the Old Covenant, those things of the flesh of which Paul boasted and said they were worth nothing compared to Christ.
Valori: That Old Covenant was for those people then and not for those in modern times.
Roger: That would include the temple.
Tim: I agree. The modern Christian is insulted and disappointed if you teach the current material world as being the way God wants it. It is like the old folks remembering the temple before it was destroyed. They look at the new temple and say, “Well, I’m pretty disappointed that this is what we’re left with.” The problem was the issue of timing. The New Covenant had not come yet. They could have lived by faith looking ahead for the coming of God’s Messiah, instead they pitched in to rebuild what God had already destroyed once.
Valori: Modern Christians enjoy the burden of the Old Covenant rather than the glory of the heavenly temple.
Tim: Unfortunately, modern Christians do not think much beyond material things. The attitude is that they need to rebuild something that can be shaken like the first century temple. They say, “We need to rebuild it for the glory of God!” It amazes me how enthusiastic Christian preachers are to rebuild fear, condemnation, and useless ritual. They will preach Jesus on one day and then the next week preach guilt and fear, casting doubts on the ability of Jesus to save you from those things. They preach things which can be shaken.
Valori: So, a temple built within can be the real problem.
Tim: Or, it could be any humanly created message or theology.
Ty: Why would you want to reinstate a strictness of following the letter of the law? Why would you want to rebuild a system that was strict and guaranteed a curse for failure?
Tim: It is a good question. I think there is something in it that appeals to our self-righteous nature. We like a religion that gives us performance points and keeps score. It may be over the top to compare institutional religion to commerce where you get coupons or fuel points, or if your performance gives you discounts or better savings. Even better, you get promoted from regular to premium membership.
Roger: It is the same mentality in the Baptist Church with the envelopes that had boxes you could check off.
Tim: We have discussed this many times. If one man checks off five boxes and others only check off three, what does that do to the nature of the relationship? Does the first man think he’s better than the rest?
Chuck: I still wonder about the want to rebuild the temple and temple system. Do people actually think they will then be held to the obligations demanded by that system? Will they be going back to Judaism?
Tim: Honestly, I am not sure if they have really thought this through. I asked one Christian who was a messianic Jew, “Do you think you should be travelling to Jerusalem three times a year?” He replied, “Maybe I should.” Mind you, there is no temple there for worship even if he did go.
I read one man on social media who thought one of the greatest heresies in the church today was abandoning the keeping of the Sabbath day. Of course, it had to be Saturday, but it should be a day of rest. He lamented, “That’s not too hard for the church.” I responded that it was not that hard for me because I don’t like getting out of the house on any day.
Then I asked if he thought he was gaining righteousness before God by keeping Sabbath, and did he get righteousness beyond what comes in Christ? Their response was a dodge from the question but insisting that Torah practice is essential in obeying God. There is that class of Christian who think our commitment to obedience will be a green-beret type devotion to Jesus. I respond that more devotion to legalism is not the Gospel.
There will always be preachers who tell you that you have not done enough, or you don’t have enough points to please God. This is preaching a Gospel that can be shaken, that is made with human hands. The Gospel proclaims that you will never earn the points you need, so the Gospel life is walking totally on the points that God has given you in Christ. The Gospel teaches that you have this vast wealth of spiritual riches at any moment. Christ at any moment gives you access into the loving presence of the father.
Valori: The point of the Gospel is that we never leave the presence of the father. Even if you go to bed feeling miserable, you rest in the presence of the father.
Tim: Exactly! There are professing Christians who will dispute this, but I bet they are people who pitch their tent on Mount Sinai rather than on Mount Zion.
Valori: One of the liberties we have is to not judge our brothers and sisters. That is one way to use our freedom.
Tim: Right! People who camp on Mount Zion understand the beauty of the Gospel and will not be comparing whether they have more points than you do. They will understand we all share the abundance of Christ’s riches.
Ron: Just like the school system.
Valori: Everybody gets a ribbon.
Dwight: There is no way we can approach the throne of God boldly if we’re harboring any fear or guilt. Anxiety over whether we are acceptable to God kills the ability to approach God’s throne with confidence.
Tim: That is a theology that can be shaken. The author goes on to express a beautiful truth,
“Therefore, since we receive a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let’s show gratitude, by which we may offer to God an acceptable service with reverence and awe; 29 for our God is a consuming fire.”
Notice he does not say they offer God service in order to receive a Kingdom. He affirms that they will assuredly receive that Kingdom that cannot be shaken and that is the reason for gratitude. He ends by reminding them that God is a consuming fire. I take this to mean that the Kingdom which can be shaken is going to be consumed in fire and all that will be left is the unshakeable Kingdom.
This is the truth we need that motivates us to enter the presence of the father with confidence and come with gratitude. There is no groveling over our sins as much preaching today would advocate. It is taught that you cannot go to God unless you feel bad and have mourned over your sins. If you must do this, then that Kingdom is not unshakable, and you are not unshakeable.
Dwight: Think about all those who have left the church devastated by something the preacher said in condemnation. They preach about something that is easily shaken.
Valori: They seem to be spending most of their time on an unstable Kingdom.
Tim: If we’re looking for someone to preach the Gospel, the Gospel preached needs to be a solid rock that is unshakable and makes us unshakable in the face of an accusing world.
Debbie: You mentioned last Sunday that if we walk out of church feeling condemned or fearful or guilt-ridden, then we haven’t heard the Gospel.
Tim: Yes, you have basically heard the Old Covenant message from Mount Sinai which the author emphasized Christians have not come to. Christians who choose to camp on Mount Zion versus those who camp on Mount Sinai see vastly different scenery. It makes all the difference in heaven and earth as to whether your Gospel can be shaken or if it’s an unshakable faith.
Valori: You will be grounded on earth if you aren’t grounded in heaven.
Tim: We should be grounded in heaven because the things in heaven cannot be shaken!
Leave a Reply