PORTRAITS of CHRIST

from

the Epistle to the

Hebrews

*****

A ten-week, personal, daily Bible study from Hebrews 11

with a weekly, group study application

*****

Connie Cook

Contents

PORTRAIT # 1: The Word & The Image — Heb. 1:1-3

Week 1, Day 1: The Word and the Image — Hebrews 1:1-3

Week 1, Day 2: Creation, Part I — Hebrews 11:3

Week 1, Day 3: Creation, Part II — Hebrews 11:3

Week 1, Day 4: Creation, Part III — Hebrews 11:3

Week 1, Day 5: Creation, Part IV — Hebrews 11:3

Week 1 Group Study — Heb. 1:1-3, Heb. 11:3

PORTRAIT # 2: The Image & The Firstborn — Heb. 1-2

Week 2, Day 1: The Image and the Firstborn — Hebrews 1-2

Week 2, Day 2: Abel — Hebrews 11:4

Week 2, Day 3: Enoch, Part I — Hebrews 11:5-6

Week 2, Day 4: Enoch, Part II — Hebrews 11:5-6

Week 2, Day 5: Noah — Hebrews 11:7

Week 2 Group Study — Heb. 1-2, Heb. 11:4-7

PORTRAIT # 3: The Firstborn & The Builder — Heb. 3:1-6

Week 3, Day 1: The Firstborn and the Builder — Hebrews 3:1-6

Week 3, Day 2: Abraham, Part I — Hebrews 11:8

Week 3, Day 3: Abraham, Part II — Hebrews 11:9-10, 11:13-16

Week 3, Day 4: Abraham and Sarah — Hebrews 11:11-12

Week 3, Day 5: Abraham and Isaac — Hebrews 11:17-19

Week 3 Group Study — Heb. 3:1-6, Heb. 11:8-19

PORTRAIT # 4: The Firstborn & The Builder (Part 2) Heb. 1-2, 3:1-6

Week 4, Day 1: The Firstborn and the Builder — Hebrews 1-2, 3:1-6

Week 4, Day 2: Isaac — Hebrews 11:20

Week 4, Day 3: Jacob — Hebrews 11:21

Week 4, Day 4: Joseph, Part I — Hebrews 11:22

Week 4, Day 5: Joseph, Part II — Hebrews 11:22

Week 4 Group Study — Heb. 1,-2, 3:1-6, Heb. 11:20-22

PORTRAIT # 5: The Firstborn & The Builder (Part 3) — Heb. 2:11-18, 3:1-6

Week 5, Day 1: The Firstborn and the Builder — Hebrews 2:11-18, 3:1-6

Week 5, Day 2: Moses, Part I — Hebrews 11:23

Week 5, Day 3: Moses, Part II — Hebrews 11:24-26

Week 5, Day 4: Moses, Part III — Hebrews 11:27

Week 5, Day 5: Moses, Part IV — Hebrews 11:28

Week 5 Group Study — Heb. 2:11-18, 3:1-6, Heb. 11:23-28

PORTRAIT # 6: The Builder & The Promise Keeper — Heb. 3:1-19, 4:1-11

Week 6, Day 1: The Builder & The Promise Keeper — Hebrews 3:1-19, 4:1-11

Week 6, Day 2: The Nation Israel — Hebrews 11:29

Week 6, Day 3: The Nation Israel and Joshua — Hebrews 11:30

Week 6, Day 4: Rahab — Hebrews 11:31

Week 6, Day 5: Joshua and Rahab — Hebrews 11:30-31

Week 6 Group Study — Heb. 3:1-19, 4:1-11, Heb. 11:29-31

PORTRAIT # 7: The Promise Keeper & The Sword Keeper — Heb. 4

Week 7, Day 1: The Promise Keeper and the Sword Keeper — Hebrews 4

Week 7, Day 2: Gideon — Hebrews 11:32-34

Week 7, Day 3: Barak — Hebrews 11:32-34

Week 7, Day 4: Jephthah — Hebrews 11:32-34

Week 7, Day 5: Samson — Hebrews 11:32-34

Week 7 Group Study — Heb. 4, Heb. 11:32-34

PORTRAIT # 8: The Promise Keeper & The Sword Keeper (Part 2) — Heb. 4

Week 8, Day 1: The Promise Keeper and the Sword Keeper — Hebrews 4

Week 8, Day 2: Samuel — Hebrews 11:32-34

Week 8, Day 3: Samuel and David — Hebrews 11:32-34

Week 8, Day 4: David, Part I — Hebrews 11:32-34

Week 8, Day 5: David, Part II — Hebrews 11:32-34

Week 8 Group Study — Heb. 4, 11:32-34

PORTRAIT # 9: The Sword Keeper & The Author — Heb. 4:12-16, 5:1-10

Week 9, Day 1: The Sword Keeper and the Author — Hebrews 4:12-16, 5:1-10

Week 9, Day 2: Elijah and Elisha — Hebrews 11:32, 35

Week 9, Day 3: Daniel, the Man of God, and Samson — Hebrews 11:32-33

Week 9, Day 4: Daniel's Friends — Hebrews 11:32, 34

Week 9, Day 5: The Martyred Prophets — Hebrews 11:32, 35-37

Week 9 Group Study — Heb. 4:12-16, 5:1-10, 11:32-37

PORTRAIT # 10: The Author & The Finisher — Heb. 12:1-3

Week 10, Day 1: The Author and the Finisher — Hebrews 12:1-3

Week 10, Day 2: John the Baptist — Hebrews 11:37-39

Week 10, Day 3: “Us” — Hebrews 11:39-40

Week 10, Day 4: Us — Hebrews 11:39-40

Week 10, Day 4: Jesus and His Witnesses — Hebrews 11-12:1-3

Week 10 Group Study — Heb. 12:1-3, 11:37-40

PORTRAIT # 1: The Word & The Image — Heb. 1:1-3

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

1 — The W________ of God is the fullest expression of God. (Heb. 1:1-2, John 1:1)

2 — The I____________ of God is the i____________ God made v____________. (Heb. 1:3)

3 — All things were made through the W________ and the w________. (Heb. 1:2, 11:3, John 1:1-3)

4 — The v____________ was created from the i____________. (Heb. 11:3, Rom. 1:20)

5 — The v____________ creation makes the i____________ v____________. (Rom. 1:20, Gen. 1:26-27)

6 — God's w________ makes the i____________ v____________. (Heb. 11:3, John 1:1-4)

Key words: word, image, invisible, visible.

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 1: The Word & The Image — Heb. 1:1-3

Week 1, Day 1: The Word and the Image — Hebrews 1:1-3

Today's Readings: Hebrews 1:1-3, John 1:1, 14

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

1 — The W________ of God is the fullest expression of God. (Heb. 1:1-2, John 1:1)

2 — The I____________ of God is the i____________ God made v____________. (Heb. 1:3)

* * * * *

This study is not a treatise on the book of Hebrews. I'll leave that study to the Bible scholars. This study is an in-depth look at one chapter in Hebrews — Chapter 11; the Hall of Faith — and a skimming of the surface from pieces of the rest of the book.

I'm a big believer in Matthew 5:17 — Jesus' claim that He came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets (the Old Testament). It's one reason I love sinking my teeth into the Old Testament stories. Every bite of them fills my mouth with a big piece of Jesus! It's what makes the Old Testament fascinating to me. Although the portraits hung in the Hall of Faith are portraits of saints like Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, etc., the more I study their stories, the more I learn about the God-Man, Jesus Christ.

In addition to looking in-depth into Hebrews 11 and the stories of its heroes (and heroines) of the faith, we'll begin and end each week (in our group study time) with a look at two related portraits of Christ as seen elsewhere in the book of Hebrews. This week's portraits (as I hope you've noticed) are “The Word and the Image.” But before we unveil this week's portraits, it might be a good idea to talk a little about the book of Hebrews as a whole — why it was written and to whom? What is its main theme?

When I was in Bible College, I was taught that the book of Hebrews was written to Hebrew Christians (hence the title of the book) who were undergoing persecution from their fellow Jews. The reason for its writing (and its main theme) was to tell these persecuted Jewish Christians, “Don't turn back to Judaism, whatever the cost! Christ is superior to the old ways.” I'd like to make these minor alterations: “Don't turn back to a Christ-less Judaism. What would be the point? Christ is the fulfillment of the old ways.”

That is a theme we're going to see with every portrait. The author of Hebrews revealed hidden truths from the Law and the Prophets, and every one of those truths he pointed out pointed to Christ.

With that, let's pull the curtain off our first two portraits and look at Christ as the Word of God and the Image of God. Only one of those portraits is painted explicitly in today's Hebrews reading (1:1-3).

Which portrait — the Word or the Image — can be found in so many words in Hebrews 1:1-3?

Depending on the version of the Bible you're using, perhaps neither word appears, so let me quote Hebrews 1:3a. for you from the King James Version of the Bible: (speaking of Christ) “who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of His person...” (emphasis added).

Colossians 1:15 also states that He is, “...the image of the invisible God...” (emphasis added)

Time for our first Greek lesson of this study. (The closest I'll probably ever get to learning Greek is learning how to look up words in my English-Greek concordance/dictionary, but still, I'll pass on to you what I've learned from using that non-skill.) Hebrews 1:3 and Colossians 1:15 use different Greek words that are both translated “image” in the King James. Both of these Greek words should look familiar. The “image” of Colossians 1:15 is the Greek word, “eikon” (“an image”), but the “express image” of Hebrews 1:3 is “charakter” (“a print, a stamp, or the express image”).

Because our modern understanding of the word “image” (and the English word “icon”) leave plenty of room for misunderstanding Colossians 1:15 and Hebrews 1:3, let's spend some time on the meaning of Christ as the image of the invisible God or the express image of God.

Somehow, I once found myself teaching a Sunday School class of mixed-age children on Colossians 1:15. I didn't understand the verse myself when I first started out planning that lesson. How on earth was I going to teach the deep concepts contained in the verse to children ages four to twelve? Here's what I came up with: (you might as well follow along with the instructions I gave the kids).

“Okay, everybody, hold your hand up in front of you, and look at it. Now, close your eyes. Can you still see your hand? No? Well, where did it go? Is your hand still there? Feel it with your other hand to make sure it's still there. It is? Okay, good. Open your eyes again, and take another look at your hand.

“Now! I want someone to tell me, what went away when you closed your eyes and what came back when you opened them? Your hand didn't go away, did it? But something went away, and something came back? What's the word for that something that went away and then came back again?”

The kids looked at me puzzled. They could see my point that something had “gone away” when they closed their eyes, but they didn't have a word for that “something.” So I gave them the word; that word is “image.” What they saw when their eyes were open and they were looking at a hand was the image of the hand. The thing that leaves the impression on our eyeballs to be passed on and interpreted by our brains is called an image.

We forget that an image simply means, “anything visible.” We tend to think of an “image” as a cheap copy of the real thing: a photo, a statue, a picture on the computer, an “icon” (in our English sense of the word). But the reason all these “images” are “images” is simply this: they're all visible.

With the reminder that an image is any reality made visible, it's time for one of today's Key Thoughts:

2 — The I____________ of God is the i____________ God made v____________.

Do you see the point of Colossians 1:15 and Hebrews 1:3? It's this: Christ IS God. He is not a cheap copy of God. He's not a statue or a photo of God. He IS the image. He is the invisible God made visible.

The Greek, “charakter,” used in Hebrews 1:3 makes this idea a little clearer to us than the “eikon” of Colossians 1:15. If “charakter” originally meant a print or a stamp — an exact impression — you can perhaps understand why we borrowed the word from the Greeks and turned it into our English “character.” That's what our characters are: prints or stamps (those deep impressions) left on our inner selves by series upon series of small, daily decisions that turn into habits that turn into characters. “Character” is an invisible image. Character is what we look like — but not what we look like from the outside; what we look like on the inside. And when the invisible God made Himself visible among humanity for thirty-three years, it was what He looked like on the inside that He came to reveal. Jesus shows us the character of God — who God really is; what God looks like on the inside.

It's true that “charakter” originally carried the meaning of a physically visible representation, but for those of us no longer able to see the invisible-God-made-visible with our physical eyes, we can see Him in a very complete way. We can see His character. The “how” of that process pulls the curtain off of this week's other portrait: the Word. But the theme of God's Word making the invisible visible to us will be picked up and expanded later this week; I'd best leave it alone for now.

Well, now that the curtain's off the portrait of “The Word,” though it's not painted explicitly in Hebrews 1:1-3 like it is in John 1:1, where do you see Jesus as the Word of God in Hebrews 1:1-3?

Quote the piece of Hebrews 1:1-3 that paints Jesus as the Word of God.

For years, I've puzzled over the first few verses of John 1. I understood that John was writing to tell his reading audience that Jesus is “the Word of God” and that “the Word of God” IS God. But I couldn't understand how a person could be a word. I couldn't grasp why “The Word” should be one of Jesus' titles. It was Hebrews 1:2 that first put me on to my present understanding of this title of Jesus.

Does Hebrews 1:2 help you understand John 1:1 better? If so, explain your new understanding.

The new understanding I took away from comparing Hebrews 1:2 with John 1:1 is a very simple one but a very profound and life-changing truth: He is the God who speaks! To us! To me!

Names, in the culture of the Bible, contained much more meaning than they do in our culture where they may be nothing more than any combination of phonetics that happens to strike a new parent's fancy. Names, biblically, went to the heart of a person's identity. They exposed characters. How wonderful that one of the names of Jesus, the invisible-God-made-visible, is, “THE WORD”!

In a general sense, what is the purpose of words?

If we're thinking along the same wavelength, you answered something to the effect of “communication.” For me, it opens up glorious meaning to Jesus' title, “The Word.” His desire to communicate — with us — goes to the heart of His identity, His character, to such an extent that “The Word” —“The Logos” — is one of His names. Revealing Himself to us, communicating with us, was the whole point of John 1:14 and the Word becoming flesh. The audible (the Word) became the visible.

And here, it's time for another Key Thought:

1 — The W________ of God is the fullest expression of God.

That was an easy one, wasn't it? Jesus is, quite simply, the fullest — the most complete — expression to us of who God is. The reason? Because, “...the Word was God...” (John 1:1).

There's so much to be said on these themes it will have to get itself said on our other days together this week. I need to finish today by explaining to you how I'd like to open and close each day's lesson.

As a Sunday School teacher of grades four to six, there are two questions I like to ask my class. I don't want my students just learning stories about Abraham or Moses or David. I want them learning to know God through learning stories about Abraham, Moses, or David. And I want them learning to know themselves so that what they're learning about God affects their own lives. I'd like us to do the same in our time together. For that reason, at the start of every lesson and all throughout every lesson, I'd like you to bear in mind the two questions I like to ask my Sunday School class. I'll close each daily lesson with these two questions and let you make your own discoveries as we explore Hebrews together.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 1: The Word & The Image — Heb. 1:1-3

Week 1, Day 2: Creation, Part I — Hebrews 11:3

Today's Readings: Hebrews 1:1-2, 11:1-3, Genesis 1:1-3, John 1:1-3

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

3 — All things were made through the W________ and the w________. (Heb. 1:2, 11:3, John 1:1-3)

4 — The v____________ was created from the i____________. (Heb. 11:3)

* * * * *

The opening verses of the Hall of Faith — Hebrews 11 — rely heavily on references to the visible and the invisible. There's a definition of faith relating to the visible and invisible that's hinted towards in Hebrews 11:1. I'd like you to remember it for the duration of this study. It will come up again.

Faith is the sight that sees the unseen.

There is no such thing as “blind faith” — not if its biblical faith, faith in God. In fact, those deficient in faith-vision are the truly blind. Faith is simply a different way of seeing — of seeing the invisible.

Restate Hebrews 11:1 in your own words.

Do you see that faith is not an airy-faery, floating-in-the-clouds, wishful-thinking sort of entity? No, it's got weight. It's got substance. It's based on evidence, and then, faith itself becomes an evidence. (But we'll pick up on this topic and on Hebrews 11:1-2 when we double back full-circle at the end of our ten weeks together to examine these verses again. I'll say no more now.)

Let's look now at today's theme verse, Hebrews 11:3. We'll be camping out here for the rest of Week 1, so get out your tent pegs, and prepare to do some pounding.

It's Hebrews 11:3 that shows us the link between our two portraits of Hebrews 1:1-3 — between sound and sight; between the audible and the visible; the Word and the Image.

When the author of Hebrews wrote in Hebrews 11:3 that the visible was created from the invisible (my paraphrase), what do you think he had in mind?

I suppose my question told the answers to one of today's Key Thoughts, so go ahead; fill in the blanks.

4 — The v____________ was created from the i____________.

I've heard different teachings on this verse — how it gives us a hint that God created everything out of invisible particles: atoms and so on. If there's one thing I've learned in all my studying of God's Word it is that passages very seldom (if ever) have only one meaning. Far be it from me to say that God didn't have electrons, protons, neutrons, nuclei, etc. in mind when He inspired Hebrews 11:3 to be written. I think there are at least two more meanings to be seen from it, however. We'll look at one of them today.

From Genesis 1:1-3 and Hebrews 11:3, what method did God use to create everything visible?

Are you seeing that meaning I see in God creating the visible out of the invisible? The spoken word is invisible, isn't it, though it is audible? And it was through His spoken word that God created all creation.

From John 1:1-3 and Hebrews 1:1-2, through whom did God create everything visible?

And that unavoidably brings us to our other Key Thought of the day. I hope you'll know the answers.

3 — All things were made through the W________ and the w________.

It can hardly be coincidence, can it, that God made the universe and everything in it through His Son, the Word (according to John 1:1-3 and Hebrews 1:1-2) and that He spoke and brought the universe and everything in it into existence (Gen. 1, Heb. 11:3)? A little play on words? That, certainly, but like all of God's plays on words, an enormously meaningful one.

What does Jesus' title “the Word of God” mean to you, personally?

We only got to touch on the subject yesterday, but God is the God who speaks. And that trait of His reminds me that He is the all-relational God. If His desire to communicate with us is embedded within the very name (one of the names) of His Son, it tells me that His communication with us is of vital importance; not only to us (which it certainly is), but to Him! Don't you love that?! And why would His communication with us be of such vital importance to Him? I can only guess that it is because God is crying out to make Himself known — to us! And why would God want to be known? Because of His intense desire to be in relationship — with us! Communication is at the heart of relationship.

I haven't had you read all of the creation account from Genesis 1, but if I had, you'd know that God began every one of His acts of creation by, first, speaking. I said a moment ago that God's communication with us is certainly of vital importance to us.

From Genesis 1 and Hebrews 11:3, comment on how God's spoken word — His communication — is of vital importance to us.

It doesn't get more vital than that! All life — all everything, in fact — came from His spoken word. We are utterly dependent on His spoken word, His communication, for our very lives.

Do you remember Deuteronomy 8:3, “...man doth not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD...” Even our daily, physical bread of wheat or rye or oats proceeded originally out of the mouth of God. Every grain of every type of grain today comes from the original grains of wheat, rye, oats, etc. that God spoke into existence back in the beginning.

It would be presumptuous of me (just slightly!) to say that I know exactly why God chose to create through His spoken word, but I can see at least one meaning in His method: He is the all-relational, crying-out-to-be-known Communicator, and He wanted to teach us that we are completely and thoroughly dependent on His spoken word — on His communication with us.

Have you ever experienced a time where it seemed that God was silent to you? Describe the effect it had on you.

Having just come through a time where it seemed that God wasn't speaking to me — where His silence hung over me like a thick, black cloud — I can tell you that not hearing from God isn't fun! Who can say why these times occur? Perhaps, like a fast from physical, daily bread, we learn a hunger for God's speaking in a way that we couldn't learn in any other way. God's apparent silence increased my hunger to hear from Him a hundred-fold.

It is important to remember at those times of God's apparent silence, however, that the silence is only apparent. How do I know? Because of Hebrews 1:1-2.

From Hebrews 1:1-2, how can we have the confidence that God is never silent towards us?

There is never a time where I can't call to mind that image of God that I've seen through His Son and be reminded of who God is and the things He's said. He has spoken; He's still speaking. Now, He speaks to us through His Son.

I know He speaks into my life continually, whether or not I can hear Him, because I know that my life, my very existence, is completely and utterly dependent on His speaking. Isn't that what Deuteronomy 8:3 teaches us? I've experienced that truth for myself.

Why did He create us as helplessly dependent creatures? Again, I would be presumptuous to think I know all the reasons, but one of the reasons must certainly be because He is the all-relational God and He desires to be in relationship with us. When we realize our utter dependence on Him it throws us back on Him.

And just as I am utterly dependent on His spoken word, so I am utterly dependent on His Word, His Son, through whom I can be in a right relationship with God. Being in relationship with the all-relational God is the only true life there is. Anything else is death, pure-and-simple, flat-out, and straight-up!

On that note, let me close my thoughts today with John 17:3: “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent” (emphasis added).

I hope that final thought gives you lots to write about in our two, closing questions.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 1: The Word & The Image — Heb. 1:1-3

Week 1, Day 3: Creation, Part II — Hebrews 11:3

Today's Readings: Hebrews 1:3, 11:3, Genesis 1:3-4a., John 1:1-4, Romans 1:20

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

4 — The v____________ was created from the i____________. (Heb. 11:3, Rom. 1:20)

5 — The v____________ creation makes the i____________ v____________. (Rom. 1:20)

6 — God's w________ makes the i____________ v____________. (Heb. 11:3, John 1:1-4)

* * * * *

I'm tickled to notice who are this week's faith-heroes (and heroines) from Hebrews 11.

Who are the faith-heroes of Hebrews 11:3?

Did you ever expect to find yourself listed as one of the faith-heroes of the Hebrews 11 Hall of Faith? But there we are — our portraits hung, large as life, in that third verse of Hebrews 11. That is, as long as you are one of the “we” who sees through faith-eyes (which see the unseen) to see God creating the universe through His word (and His Word).

There is only one way we can see that unseen event, however. And that way of seeing is made possible by the identical means through which God created all of visible creation.

On the subject of seeing through faith-eyes, Romans 10:17 speaks some very famous words on the topic of faith: “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (emphasis added).

What is the means God used to make you and I able to “see” the unseen event of His creation of the universe?

Did you answer, “His Word”? Because God “...spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets...” and inspired one of those prophets to record the details of how He created creation, we are able to “see” the event. He created the visible universe through His spoken word; through His spoken word, He made that event visible to the prophet who wrote about it; now, through His written Word, we are still able to “see” (through faith-eyes) His creation of the world. (Tomorrow, I'd like to touch on the difference between God's written Word and His spoken word, in case you're wondering what I mean by those terms.) As Romans 10:17 informs us, seeing through the eyes of faith only comes about through our hearing from God. But our hearing from God only comes about because He is the God who speaks! And all that discussion should tell you the answers to one of today's Key Thoughts.

6 — God's w________ makes the i____________ v____________.

Do you see it? It's God word (first, spoken; now, written and spoken — more on that difference tomorrow) that makes the invisible visible. Of course, in a very literal sense, it was also God's Word (His Son) as His image (the invisible God made visible) who also made the invisible visible.

From today's readings in Genesis 1, John 1, and Hebrews 1, I'd like you to see Key Thought # 6 in action. We'll also look at today's reading from Romans 1 to see Key Thoughts # 4 and 5 in action. Do you remember the answer to Key Thought # 4? Let's review.

4 — The v____________ was created from the i____________.

In case your memory is no better than mine, I'll give you the answers again: “The visible was created from the invisible.” Yesterday, we discussed Hebrews 11:3 and the creation of the visible world through God's invisible word. Today, we'll see the second meaning I find in Hebrews 11:3's declaration that the visible was created from the invisible. That second meaning is closely related to Key Thought # 5.

5 — The v____________ creation makes the i____________ v____________.

You might have guessed the answers to Key Thought # 5 already, but if not, they are, “The visible creation makes the invisible visible.”

And now, let's look at Genesis 1:3-4a., John 1:1-4, and Hebrews 1:3 to see some examples of how God's word makes the invisible visible.

From Genesis 1:3-4a., what came first: God's speaking or God's seeing?

I love this one! Of course, from eternity past, God has always seen everything there is to see. But from the order of events as recorded in Genesis 1:3-4a., God spoke, and then, He saw. Perhaps that recorded order was recorded for us so that we'd understand that that order is the precedent for us: God speaks, and then, I see. From Genesis 1:3-4, it was God's word that brought about light. It is still God's Word that brings us light. If seeing through faith-eyes comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God, I see only because God speaks.

Notice that visible light was the first thing God spoke into existence. And it is light and only light that makes all seeing possible. Without light, there is only blindness.

Psalm 119:105 states that God's Word is a lamp — it is a light. If He had never spoken, there would be only darkness; there would be only blindness. Now, God's written Word is our lamp and our light.

But it's not only God's written Word that is called a light.

Who is the light, according to John 1:1-4 (and John 9:5)?

I find it interesting that the Word (the Son) is the Image — the invisible God made visible. But the Word is also the One who makes our vision possible; just as light is visible, but it is also the only means through which vision is possible.

Not only is the Word and the Image the Light, John 1:4 tells us that He is the Life. His life is our light, but His light is also our life.

In looking at the natural world, comment on the relationship between life and light.

Yesterday, I talked about how we are utterly dependent on God's spoken word for our very lives — our physical lives. Even the bread we eat — made from wheat, etc. — in a very literal, physical sense came from God's spoken word when He created the original grains of wheat, etc. In a very literal, spiritual sense, we are just as utterly dependent on God's word (and God's Word) for our spiritual lives (the only true life). I also see this principle enacted through John 1:4's connection between light and life.

Just now, I took a short break to go and make myself a cup of hot chocolate. As I filled the kettle, I noticed the first, little heads of green popping out of the container full of dirt that I have sitting on the windowsill by the kitchen sink.

The first thing I did after I noticed today's little, green heads poking out was to give a 180 degree turn to the container they live in. Why? Because the little green heads were pointing in the direction of the light coming through the window. I want these little, green heads to grow into straight, sturdy, green bodies. I don't want them limp and leaning. So I turned them in the direction in which they can straighten out as they grow toward the light.

Can you see where this illustration is going? Little, green heads of little, green vegetables are as utterly dependent on light for their physical lives as I am on them for my physical life. They grow toward the light of the sun because they must have that light to live. But when you trace any food-source back far enough, you discover that no life on earth could exist without the light of the sun. Even carnivores eat the life-forms that eat plant life. Even life-forms dwelling at the bottom of the deepest, darkest oceans depend on the trickle-down effect beginning with the sunlight-dependent life-forms nearer the surface where the light penetrates. Simply stated, no life on earth is possible without sunlight.

In a literal, physical sense, we are utterly dependent on God's word (and God's Word) for our physical lives through our dependence on physical bread which is utterly dependent on physical light which God spoke into existence. In a literal, spiritual sense, we are just as utterly dependent on the light of God's word (and God's Word) for our spiritual lives (the only true life).

I'm fascinated to notice how every aspect of God's physical creation provides us with some visible object lesson of God's invisible, spiritual realities. And that brings us to Romans 1:20 and Key Thoughts # 4 and 5. But hold that thought, because we still haven't seen Key Thought #6 through Hebrews 1:3.

Where do you see the principle that, “God's Word makes the invisible visible,” through Hebrews 1:3?

Again, I see the Word (the Son) revealing the invisible God to us visibly as His express image.

Where in Hebrews 1:3 do you see Jesus as “the light” ?

Where in Hebrews 1:3 do you see the Light and the Word sustaining all life (physical and spiritual)?

1 John 1:5 informs us that, “...God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.” But God is light in a way that is invisible to us at present. Or He would be, were it not for His Son. Jesus shows us that light.

And again, what is the means through which we know what Jesus looked like, through which we “see” “the brightness of his glory”?

1 Peter 1:8 says (speaking of Jesus), “Whom having not seen, you love...” Those of us who can no longer see Jesus in a physical way can see Him through faith-eyes by reading, hearing, and believing the testimonies of those who were privileged to see Him when He walked on earth. And what a gloriously radiant sight He is when seen through the eyes that see the invisible! Who could help loving Him? But notice that it's still God's Word making visible the invisible.

Now. On to Romans 1:20, Key Thoughts # 4 and 5, and that last thought I asked you to hold onto.

It was and is ultimately God's word that makes the invisible visible, but Romans 1:20 shows us another way in which God's word makes the invisible visible.

A moment or two ago, I mentioned that every aspect of the physical, visible creation provides us with an object lesson of God's spiritual, invisible realities. We've seen one example today with the relationship between life on earth and the sun's light. Can you think of others?

Read Romans 1:20 ; then, choose a characteristic of God and explain how nature demonstrates that characteristic of its Creator.

Proverbs 8 personifies wisdom and speaks of wisdom being in on the creation of the world. I'll say it was! I've been reading a book lately written by scientists who, by understanding that God created the world, belong to the Hebrews 11:3 faith-hero bunch. They describe creation in ways I can't even begin to understand. How much beyond our human thinking was the thinking of the One who put it all together — framing it like a Master Craftsman by simply speaking the words! When I look at creation, I am awestruck by the (for lack of a better word) smarts of the One who made it. Creation makes visible to me God's omniscience — His all-knowingness.

What is the first invisible attribute of God that comes to your mind which is made visible for you by His creation?

On our last days together this week, we'll see some more very specific ways in which Key Thought # 5 is played out: “The visible creation makes the invisible visible.”

Now, to Key Thought # 4: it was in comparing Hebrews 11:3 and Romans 1:20 that I began to see the other meaning I find in the truth that God created the visible out of the invisible.

From Romans 1:20, out of what other invisibilities besides His spoken word did God create creation?

It occurred to me after examining Hebrews 11:3 in light of Romans 1:20 that God created the visible world out of His invisible attributes — His eternal power and Godhead; His wisdom, His love, His immensity, His glory, His...(fill in the blanks with any other attribute of God you'd like to name). Creation flowed out of the nature of its Creator just as any work of art flows out of the nature of its creator. It's the reason the visible creation makes visible God's invisible attributes.

Again, on our last days together this week, we'll see some other ways in which Key Thoughts # 4 and 5 are played out. We'll be looking at God's visible creation to learn to know our Creator a little better.

And with that, it's time to close with our two questions:

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 1: The Word & The Image — Heb. 1:1-3

Week 1, Day 4: Creation, Part III — Hebrews 11:3

Today's Readings: Hebrews 1:1-3, 11:3, Genesis 1:26-27, Exodus 20:3-5a., Psalm 115

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

4 — The v____________ was created from the i____________. (Heb. 11:3)

5 — The v____________ creation makes the i____________ v ____________. (Gen. 1:26-27)

* * * * *

I promised you that today I would tell you what I mean by God's spoken word and His written word and the difference between the two. To explain, let me give you a concrete example that happened this morning. I like to start my day with prayer, and I like to start my prayer time with praise. Sometimes, to remind me of any one of the millions of reasons I have to praise God, I'll flop the Bible open wherever it wants to flop and ask God to guide me to a passage where He can show me whatever it is about Himself that He wants to show me to aid in my praises of Him. (All respectable Bible teachers will tell you the Bible is not meant to be flopped open at random, but I do it sometimes, anyway, and I did it this morning.) The flopped-open passage “happened” to be the pages containing Daniel 5-6. Typically, wherever the Bible flops open, I have something underlined, and typically, my eyes are drawn to the underlined bit, and typically, I find something there that reminds me of who God is. Today was no exception — though I couldn't quite see it at first. From Daniel 5-6, I'd underlined four bits (for one reason or another — I can't remember now why they were underlined originally). The first was from the story of Belshazzar, seeing the writing on the wall immediately before his destruction fell. I'd underlined Daniel's words to Belshazzar: “...and thou hast praised the gods of silver, and gold...” (Dan. 5:23). Then, I'd underlined the end of Belshazzar's story, “...In the night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain” (Dan. 5:30). Across the page to Daniel 6, I'd underlined (describing Daniel), “...he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime” (v. 10). Then, from the same chapter, I'd underlined the words King Darius spoke immediately before throwing Daniel into the lions' den (and I hope you remember how that incident turned out): “Thy God whom thou servest continually, he will deliver thee” (v. 16).

As I've told you, I can't remember why I originally underlined the bits I had underlined. It wasn't to point out the contrast that perhaps you're already seeing (if you're a little quicker on the draw than I was). I glanced back and forth from one underlining to the other for a time, not immediately seeing what I was meant to see. Then, it struck me. Belshazzar had worshipped the gods of gold and silver. Had his gods of gold and silver been able to deliver him? They had not. Daniel had served the God of heaven. Had his God been able to deliver him? He certainly had.

Then, I was reminded that my culture around me serves the gods of gold and silver. And those gods are no more able to deliver anyone now than they were in Belshazzar's time. (Psalm 115 sprang to mind.) But I'm privileged to serve the God of heaven. And is He able to deliver? He certainly is!

From my example of this morning, are you beginning to see what I mean by the difference between God's spoken word and His written word? God's written word is the Bible, of course. I would define God's spoken word as His direct communication with us. In my experience, God speaks to me — He communicates with me — through His written word. I'm not suggesting that God's spoken word is never audible to us. He certainly spoke audibly to some of the prophets who wrote down His written word. I know people who have heard an audible voice which they believe was God speaking to them. I never have. I know people who have seen visions, etc. I never have. God is certainly not limited to speaking to us through His written word. I am, however, only able to share my experiences in this study, and He speaks to me through His written word. (He also speaks to me through that still, small, inner voice, but even then, He is usually applying personally and practically some principle I've already seen through His written word.) God's spoken word makes His written word more than just ink on a page.

I must admit, though, that for me God's written word is not always identical to His spoken word. I have gone through those times of reading the written word and coming away with nothing — hearing only silence from God. Instead of bread, hot out of the oven and dripping with butter, God's written word tasted to me like dry, stale crusts. Nothing made sense. Nothing seemed relevant to my life. Nothing struck me with the exciting freshness I'd come to expect from reading the Bible. As I've expressed, I believe perhaps God was teaching me a new hunger for His spoken word (as well, as His written word) through those times.

Besides illustrating the difference (and the relationship) between God's spoken and His written word, there was another reason I wanted to share this morning's example. That example relates to the direction today's lesson has taken.

Why do you believe God needed to speak the words of Exodus 20:3-5a. to His people? How are those words relevant to us today?

Those who consider themselves non-religious are deceived. We were created to worship, and worship we will! The worship of the visible is our default setting. For us, as God's people, the battle is between resting all of our weight on the visible or of seeing through the eyes of faith. Materialism (the worship of the visible) has always been the belief system with the strongest pull for the general public. From the beginning of human history, we strove to worship what could be seen. If we couldn't see it, we'd turn it into some kind of an image in order to worship it.

Yet the people to whom the Bible was written were forbidden to make and worship images of the invisible God. They had to understand very clearly that faith, seeing the unseen, was required in the worship of their God. And whenever they fell away from that worship of the One True God, they always began by worshipping what they could see — be it the sun or the moon or a golden calf.

For those of us enlightened souls who would never dream of bowing down to a golden calf, the temptation is still to worship the works of our hands. Can you see that it's no coincidence that the worship of matter and energy as the creator of the universe is called materialism and that the worship of money and commodities as the most important thing in my personal universe is called materialism? The two are related. Both grow out of our desperate clinging to that which can be seen — the material world. And out of our refusal to walk by faith not sight.

I want you to notice, however, that there are more differences between the “gods of the nations” and the One True God than just the visibility/invisibility difference.

What abilities do the gods of silver and gold of Psalm 115 have?

It's interesting to me that humanity's tendency is to fashion for itself visible gods but gods who are decidedly mute. Perhaps a God who can be known is not humanity's greatest desire. A God who can speak just may possibly want to interfere in things.

There are some big trade-offs, however, in worshipping visible-and-non-interfering gods. The non-interfering gods of gold and silver don't bother to interfere in times of crisis, either, as Belshazzar learned. (And as many who worship them have learned to their sorrow through stock market crashes and bank failures.) They're incapable of delivering themselves, much less those who put their trust in them.

Still, believing in the invisible goes against fallen human nature's grain. Faith in the invisible God would be impossible for us if were not for one major difference between the visible gods and the invisible One True God: He is the God who speaks! I say that we would find it impossible to believe in an invisible and mute God because, as we saw yesterday, faith comes by hearing. And hearing happens because He is the God who speaks. Again, it's God's written and spoken word that makes us capable of seeing through faith-eyes which see the unseen. (There's Key Thought # 6 again.)

We are supposed to be revisiting Key Thoughts # 4 and 5 today. So let's do that now. By this point, I'm sure you don't need any help filling in the blanks.

4 — The v____________ was created from the i____________.

5 — The v____________ creation makes the i____________ v____________.

God knows we're visual thinkers. He made us to be. He knows it's hard for us to accept what we can't see. So He gave us what we could see. He created a visible creation and left His visible fingerprints all over that creation. The visible creation holds one lesson after another about His invisible realities.

I want us to notice one of those object lessons from Genesis 1:26-27.

Compare Genesis 1:26-27 and Exodus 20:3-5a. Point out the similarities.

For starters, comparing the two passages points out the folly of worshipping the creation rather than the Creator. The Creator put His creation on earth under the governance of humanity. (Genesis 1:26, Psalm 115:16.) Instead of governing earth's creation wisely and well, humanity's temptation is to worship it. That kind of behaviour only makes slaves of the ones who were meant to govern.

Then, not all translations will reflect this similarity, but there's a pairing of two significant words in the two passages. I'll quote for you from the King James: “...And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...” (Gen. 1:26). “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness...” (Ex. 20:4). When He issued the second commandment, was God deliberately pointing the hearer back to Genesis 1:26? Was He reminding His people that He had already given them an image and likeness of Himself? He created humanity in that image and likeness. Only He is able to create images and likenesses of Himself because only He knows exactly what He looks like. (Tomorrow, we'll revisit Genesis 1:26-27 to see one of God's invisible qualities revealed through this visible image.)

God wanted His people to have a clear understanding of what He's like. He desires to reveal Himself. He wants us to know Him because He is the all-relational God. So He gave us His express image. I can't help but think that when He created man in His image, He had in mind that one Man who would be His image. He had in mind that time when He would make Himself visible. The invisible God didn't intend to stay invisible forever.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 1: The Word & The Image — Heb. 1:1-3

Week 1, Day 5: Creation, Part IV — Hebrews 11:3

Today's Readings: Hebrews 1:1-3, 11:3, Genesis 1:26-27, Genesis 2:18, 2:23-24, Ephesians 5:30-32

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

4 — The v____________ was created from the i____________. (Heb. 11:3)

5 — The v____________ creation makes the i____________ v____________. (Gen. 1:26-27)

* * * * *

Look quickly through Genesis 1 to notice all the “dividing” or “separating” that God did in His creative works. The words “divide” or “separate” are used very often, but they are not used in every one of God's acts of creation. Still, I see His dividing work on each day of creation.

Can you see God's work of creative separation on each day of creation? If so, explain how.

I see God doing a separating work on Day 1 (as stated) by dividing light from darkness. On Day 2, God separated “the waters which were above” from “the waters which were below” on the earth by putting a “firmament” (our atmosphere) in between the two. On Day 3, God created dry ground and separated it from the seas. Then, He created plant life (and here's where I see His creative work of separation in all the life-forms He created) to multiply each according to its own “kind.” It's a statement of separation. On Day 4, again, there's a stated separation between day and night, seasons, years, etc. created by the heavenly bodies in relation to the earth. Day 5 is the creation of sea-dwelling life-forms and birds — again, demonstrating the separation of reproduction according to kind. And on Day 6 God made the land animals, and again, the stock phrase, “after his kind,” is repeated. Except in one case.

In what one act of creation was no mention made of separation or of creation according to “kind”?

Instead, what statement did God make before that particular act of creation?

In the case of one land “animal” (at least, some believe he's only an animal — I would have to disagree) the repetition of “after his kind” is missing. (We'll come back to that absence in a moment.)

When I first noticed all the dividing going on in Genesis 1, I was puzzled. I'd always thought of divisions as bad things. I associated God's nature with unity, harmony, and peace. I now see, however, that creating and dividing (in the right context) are flip sides of the same coin.

Any act of creation involves an act of division. An artist sketches by dividing. He takes a pencil and uses lines to make separations. When he paints, he divides — he differentiates — by using colour. A homogeneous, white piece of paper is not a creative work. Were it not for God's creative, dividing work, "creation" could have no real meaning. Everything would be a homogeneous mass. Homogeneous masses are not terribly creative. Creativity demands diversity. Diversity demands difference or division.

Think of the “after his kind” of all of the life-forms God made. If life hadn't been created to multiply according to “kind,” life would have soon become a homogeneous mass. There is a necessary dividing work in God's creation of all the diversity of life-forms that stands out to me in His formulaic phrase of Genesis 1. And all life continues to multiply only according to its “kind.” There are chromosomal barriers between “kinds” that have never been observed to be crossed and weren't meant to be crossed.

Those chromosomal walls are not necessarily walls between what we call species. After all, the divisions between species are man-made (or man-decided). The fact that domestic dogs and wolves can interbreed says that dogs and wolves belong to the same kind and can reproduce according to kind. Dogs and cats, on the other hand, are different kinds. No half dogs/half cats have ever been produced.

Let's go back, now, to that subject I told you we'd get back to. Why didn't God use the words “after his kind” when He created the first humans, and what does it show us that He, instead, said He would make them in His own image, according to His likeness? What I'm not suggesting is that we were created “after God's kind.” That is impossible as God's “kind” is uncreated. No, we are not divine. We will never be divine. But perhaps, there is another division being emphasized by the absent “after his kind” in the creation of mankind — the division between animals and ourselves. We are different in essence from the animals, and that essential difference comes from the image of God. All other created life-forms were created after their own kind. Only humanity was made in the image of God.

As well as noticing the division between man and animals from God's enormously meaningful words in Genesis 1:26-27, I notice a significant lack of division in man's creation. It's the only act of creation where division is not, in some way, highlighted. What does that absence mean? What I think it means will require a long, meandering route to get to my point, so we'd better get started.

Please copy out Genesis 1:26-27, underlining all the personal pronouns. Underline singular pronouns with a single line, and plural pronouns with a double line.

I've heard these verses pointed out as the first revelation of the triune (three-in-one) God in the Bible. (This is almost the first hint toward the tri-personal nature of the One True God. The first is contained within the first verse of the Bible. God's revealed name in Hebrew in the first verse — Elohim — is a plural noun used as a singular noun.)

Until recently, I don't think I'd ever seen the implications regarding ourselves of the revelation of (or at least, a strong hint toward) God's triune nature from Genesis 1:26-27. When I began to notice those implications, it was through noticing, not only the mixture of singular and plural pronouns God uses in speaking of Himself; it was through noticing the mixture of the singular and plural references to “man.”

From Genesis 1:27b., why would God refer to “man” as “them”?

Not too difficult! Although many are attempting to change this particular convention of the English language, “man” in English may still be used to mean humans in general — both male and female.

From Genesis 2:23-24, how does the plural become singular in one specific situation?

It struck me on one particular reading that when God referred to Himself in the plural one minute and the singular the next — then, did the same thing with “man” — He was very intentionally pointing out one important aspect of His nature — His image — in which “man” was created. His unity is a unity from plurality. Within God's own nature, He is in relationship. (The “one” of Deuteronomy 6:4's famous declaration, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one...” uses the same Hebrew word for “one” that Genesis 2:24 uses to describe the “one flesh” of the combined unity of a man and a woman, by the way. In other words, it's a “oneness” that allows for a unity drawn from a plurality.)

What was God's first announcement in His creative work that something was “not good” (Gen. 2:18)?

This idea does not originate with me, but I've heard it taught that the “not good” in this verse is “not good” because aloneness cannot reflect God's nature and character, and good is good only because it reflects God's character and nature. I said a moment ago, “Within God's own nature, He is in relationship.” I've said it before; I'll say it often this study: our God is the all-relational God. When God created “man” in His image, He couldn't have created a man, singular — alone. That state of existence would not have visibly demonstrated God's invisible qualities. In the unique combination of male and female into (what God calls) “one flesh,” “man” was created in God's image in a very specific way.

And here's where our long, meandering route comes out at a point (at least, I hope it will): the separation conspicuous by its absence in the account of the creation of “man” is intentional. Man was not created for separation — separation from the animal world, certainly. But not any other kind.

Point out the stated lack of separation in Genesis 2:18 and 23-24 (and Matthew 19:4-6).

They're famous words, spoken often at wedding ceremonies: “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” No, it's not good for man to be alone. God created him/them to be all-relational, too. And Jesus warns us that when God joins a man and a woman into “one flesh,” they are not meant to be “put asunder.” Why? Because man was created to reflect the image of God. Marriage is a picture of something vitally important to Him. And here's where this lesson takes a sharp and surprising turn.

According to Ephesians 5:30-32, in what surprising way does the union of a man and a woman into “one flesh” also reflect the nature of our all-relational God?

This is staggering! When God created “man” in His image (“male and female created he them”) and put them into a composite unity, He created an object lesson for one aspect of His image that should stun us! Not only is He the all-relational God as regards His own nature, His goal in creating humanity in His own image was to enter into relationship with them; the kind of relationship in which there can be no separation. God created two visible representations (or images) to help us understand His relationship with His people — the “one flesh” of the human body and the “one flesh” of marriage. Genesis 2:23-24 and Ephesians 5:30-32 show us how a man's own body equates to his union with his wife. God chose two object lessons in which no separation is possible (at least, no separation is easy) — a head and a body and a man and a wife — and said, “This is the kind of relationship I desire to have with the people I created: the kind of relationship where we will never be separated.”

I want to go back to Day 1 of creation and talk about light and darkness and God's separation of the two for a moment. I promise, it will relate to the subject at hand.

Where did darkness come from in Genesis 1:1-2? Did God create it?

We can see that God did not create darkness, formlessness, or emptiness. These were the states that existed before God began His creative dividing work. In fact, darkness is simply the absence of light —that which is separated from light. Remember 1 John 1:5b.? “...God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.” Darkness and light are often biblical symbols for evil and righteousness.

Where did evil come from? Did God create it? If not, how could a thing exist unless God created it?

Genesis 1:2-4 and 2:18 give us the answer to this old conundrum. Like darkness, evil is an uncreated thing. It is the state of being divided from God. I believe it was the reason God paused in His creation of man to announce that it was possible for something to be “not good.” It would be “not good” for man to be alone. It's contrary to the image of the all-relational God for man to be alone.

I've sometimes thought of self as the source of all evil. It was Satan's choice of self over God that created the separation between himself and the all-good, all-relational God. That choice and that separation bred every other form of evil on our earth after he convinced the first humans (and every other one since) to follow him in his choice and his separation.

As the opposite of heaven (which will be all-relational), I've come to believe that hell will be anti-relational — a state of complete self-ness and aloneness. It will be the logical outcome of the existence that many have already chosen — a self-first existence. But there, they will finally see and understand the folly of living for self by seeing and understanding the horror that is hell — the total and ultimate culmination of the self-first life by the total and ultimate separation from God, the all-relational One.

Still, self (in and of itself) is not the ultimate evil or the source of all evil. God created other “selves” and is, Himself, a Self. It is self separated from God that's the problem. It's this self — the old self, the flesh, which, by nature, seeks only its own interests — that the Bible speaks of as needing to be crucified. But the antidote to the evil of self-ness is not simply unselfishness. It's relationship. The old self must be killed in order to be born again as a new self — a self resurrected into the relationship of the perfect unity between God and man that God desires; a relationship He compares to the relationship between a head and its body and a man and his wife.

It's time to bring this lesson to a close by remembering our Key Thoughts for today.

4 — The v____________ was created from the i____________.

5 — The v____________ creation makes the i____________ v____________.

Comment on any new insights you may have gained today from man's creation in the image of God as a visible object lesson of God's invisible attributes.

When I look at the body I walk around in that Genesis 1 tells me was created in the image of God, I'm awestruck to realize that God was already thinking about His relationship with His people — His body — when He created Adam and Eve's visible representations of that relationship. What a startling object lesson of a startling truth — He desires to be in a relationship with His people which is so close that no separation is possible. What does that truth do for your heart?

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

WEEK 1 Group Study — Heb. 1:1-3, Heb. 11:3

Review Readings: Hebrews 1:1-3, 11:3, John 1:1-4, Romans 1:20, Genesis 1:26-27

* * * * *

Key Thoughts for Review:

1 — The W________ of God is the fullest expression of God. (Heb. 1:1-2, John 1:1)

2 — The I____________ of God is the i____________ God made v____________. (Heb. 1:3)

3 — All things were made through the W________ and the w________. (Heb. 1:2, 11:3, John 1:1-3)

4 — The v____________ was created from the i____________. (Heb. 11:3, Rom. 1:20)

5 — The v____________ creation makes the i____________ v____________. (Rom. 1:20, Gen. 1:26-27)

6 — God's w________ makes the i____________ v____________. (Heb. 11:3, John 1:1-4)

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: The Word & The Image

1 — How do this week's Key Thoughts expand on this week's Hebrews Portraits of Christ? Review the Key Thoughts to share any new insights gained this week on Jesus as the Word and the Image.

2 — What connections can you see between this week's two portraits: the Word and the Image?

3 — In every lesson this week, I was amazed to see the all-relational nature of God and His desire for relationship with us emerge in a new way from all that I was learning. In what way do this week's portraits of Christ as the Word of God and the Image of God speak to the theme of relationship?

4 — Relate one of God's invisible qualities made visible for you through His visible creation.

5 — In Hebrews 11:3, the word for “framed” or “formed,” describing how God created the worlds, is the Greek word, “katartizo,” a word often translated, “perfected.” It gives us a picture of the Master Craftsman, just through His spoken word, fine-tuning and carefully fitting together each delicate piece of His masterpiece. Give an example from your own scientific knowledge of this perfect framing. “Katartizo” can also mean, “to prepare, mend, or restore.” Have you seen God's finely-tuned, perfect, creating-or-healing work being accomplished in your own life through His spoken word to you? Think about this: He created all we see on earth in six days. He takes much longer to “frame,” “perfect,” and “restore” His human creations. In what way does that fact speak to you, personally?

And finally, one last time for the week, please share any of your own discoveries this week about...

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 2: The Image & The Firstborn — Heb. 1-2

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

Part I — The F____________ is p____________________... (Heb. 1:6, 11:4, Col. 1:15-19, Gen. 4:4)

1 — ...because the F____________ is the S________ of God and... (Heb. 1)

2 — ...because the F____________ IS the i____________ of God. (Heb. 1:3, Col. 1:15)

Part II — The F____________ is the p____________________... (Heb. 11:5-7, Col. 1:15, 18)

1 — ...because the F____________ is the S________ of Man and... (Heb. 2)

2 — ...because His people are IN His i____________. (Heb. 2:11, 11:5-7, Gen. 1:26, 5:1-3, 2 Cor. 3:18)

Key words: Image, Firstborn, son, preeminent, prototype

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 2: The Image & The Firstborn — Heb. 1-2

Week 2, Day 1: The Image and the Firstborn — Hebrews 1-2

Today's Readings: Hebrews 1-2, Colossians 1:15-19

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

Part I — The F____________ is p____________________... (Heb. 1:6, Col. 1:15-19)

1 — ...because the F____________ is the S________ of God and... (Heb. 1)

2 — ...because the F____________ IS the i____________ of God. (Col. 1:15, Heb. 1:3)

Part II — The F____________ is the p____________________... (Col. 1:15, 18)

1 — ...because the F____________ is the S________ of Man and... (Heb. 2)

2 — ...because His people are IN His i____________. (Heb. 2:11)

* * * * *

Colossians 1:15-19, one of today's passages (which I hope you've already read), is a sort-of condensed version of the themes expounded upon in Hebrews 1-2. I want to focus our attention on the first verse of it for a moment because that verse links this week's portraits of Christ: the Image and the Firstborn.

Unfortunately, Colossians 1:15 is a verse that those who read only part of the Bible (and convince themselves that it can be made to teach that Christ is not really and truly God) like to have at their fingertips to argue their case. “Christ is the image of God,” they'll say. “That means He's not really and truly God, only His image. Just like we were made in His image.” From last week, I hope you'll have a better understanding of what it means that Christ IS the image of God (if you didn't already) than those who believe Christ is only a cheap copy of God.

Colossians 1:15 also states that Jesus is the Firstborn. Those who read only part of the Bible and manage to disbelieve in Jesus' divine nature also like to point to His position as “the Firstborn” to “prove” that He can't be God. After all, if He was once born, that means there must have been a time before He had existence, doesn't it? In that case, He can't be the eternal God, can He?

This idea is one that we'll be addressing as we look at the portrait of Christ as the Firstborn for the next four weeks. By the end of that time, I hope you'll be able to see that Christ's rightful position of Firstborn has nothing to do with birth (nor does His status as the only begotten Son of God).

If you'll read past Colossians 1:15 down to verse nineteen (especially if you read it in conjunction with Hebrews 1), I hope you can see why I say a person must be restricted to a very partial reading of the Bible in order to use Colossians 1:15 to “prove” Jesus' non-deity. If Jesus' deity is removed from Colossians 1:15-19 and Hebrews 1, neither passage retains any kind of point.

From Colossians 1:15-19 and Hebrews 1, list the verses very clearly demonstrating Jesus as God.

Colossians 1:15-19 has two, related themes. By stating that Jesus is the image of the invisible God, Colossians 1 teaches us that Jesus IS the invisible God made visible. By stating that Jesus is the firstborn over all creation, Colossians 1 teaches us (our first Key Thought of the week) that Jesus is preeminent.

Part I — The F____________ is p____________________...

Because preeminent is not a word we use everyday, it may need some defining. (It's a word used in Colossians 1:18 in the King James, and I chose it for my Key Thought because I am hopelessly addicted to alliteration. Though I realize that alliteration is considered fatally tacky by some, I hope you'll bear with me in my weakness.) The word translated “preeminence” in Colossians 1:18 is the Greek “proteuo” which comes from the Greek “protos” which means “first.” (Hang on to “protos.” You'll see it again.)

Simply stated, the Firstborn is, well, first! Not just first, as in, coming before (although He was before all creation — Col. 1:17) but first, as in, preeminent — supreme; above all; in top spot; in first place.

If we were living in the days when the Bible was written, whenever we heard, “firstborn,” we would immediately think of the right of inheritance. “Firstborn” is a term synonymous with “the heir.” Not just an heir, but the heir; the crown prince or the one who got the lions' share of an inheritance. The one in first place, top spot, supreme among his siblings. If you're a youngest (like I am), I hope you'll be grateful for God's view of the firstborn that we're going to see throughout this study. His view had little to do with birth order. But He does use the term “firstborn” to mean “the preeminent one” and “the heir.”

Which verses from Hebrews 1 deal with Jesus as God's Heir?

From Hebrews 1 (and Colossians 1:16), over whom is Jesus' preeminence being emphasized?

Colossians 2:18 speaks of worshipping angels as an activity not recommended. In Colossians 1, Paul writes of Christ's preeminence as the Image and the Firstborn because there were those in the church of Colosse who were being led astray into the worship of angels. Hebrews 1 corrects the same error. There can be no comparison between the Son and His creation — which includes angels; powerful, radiant beings though they are. The angels are commanded to worship the Son (as are we). Angels are never to be worshipped. The Son is preeminent over the angels as the Creator over His creation. He is “the heir of all things” because through the Son all things were created — including angels (Heb. 1:2, Col. 1:16).

In Hebrews 1:10-12, the author also emphasizes the Son's preeminence over all the visible creation as its Creator. All the visible universe is wearing out and dying slowly. Only its Creator is eternal — without beginning and without end. Colossians 1:16 sums it up: the visible universe and the invisible universe (the invisible, spiritual powers: angels and fallen angels, in other words) — both were created by Him and for Him. He is the preeminent heir. Why? Here comes another Key Thought:

...because the F____________ is the S________ of God and...

Did God ever call any of the angels His only begotten Son? Nope! Not according to Hebrews 1:5-6. Angels are God's created servants. Christ is His only begotten Son (John 3:16).

Like “preeminent,” “begotten” is another of those words we don't use in real life. Likely, you have a general understanding of what the word means. It's important to understand what the word means when God uses it of His only begotten Son, however, because, like “firstborn” its use in this context has nothing to do with birth.

Think back to Day 5 of last week (and I quote): “What I'm not suggesting is that we were created 'after God's kind.' That is impossible as God's 'kind' is uncreated.”

The “begetting” of the only begotten Son of God has this in common with “begetting” in our ordinary sense of the word — what is “begotten” is according to “kind.” What is begotten canine is canine; what is begotten feline is feline; what is begotten human is human. And what is begotten divine is divine. But God's “kind” is uncreated. God's “kind” is unborn. God's “kind” is eternal — without beginning and without end. So is God's begotten. Using Jesus' status as the “begotten” and the “firstborn” to decide, “A-ha! That proves it! He had a beginning! He can't be God,” is, therefore, tragic misunderstanding.

It's for the reason that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God that He is the preeminent Firstborn. It's for the reason that He IS God. It's for the reason that He IS the invisible God made visible — His image.

2 — ...because the F____________ IS the i____________ of God.

What Colossians 1:15 shows us by handing us these two portraits together — the Image and the Firstborn — is to tell us that they are connected. That is a connection we're going to be investigating this week. That connection is this little phrase: “Like Father, Like Son.” Remember it! We'll see that connection drawn through our Hebrews 11 faith-heroes as we move through this week's lessons.

And now, it's time to move to Part II and the second meaning I see in the Jesus' title, “The Firstborn”:

Part II — The F____________ is the p____________________...

This one is going to require a little explaining. First, I might as well give you the answer straight off. The answer is “The Firstborn is the prototype.” And now, what does it mean?

I was set off on the trail of this Key Thought by noticing the Greek word for firstborn used in Colossians 1:15, 18, and Hebrews 1:6. It is the word “prototokos.” (Remember that “protos” you were supposed to hang onto?) I was instantly reminded of our English word “prototype.” (We obviously borrowed the “proto” from the Greek.) In Colossians 1:18, I see the “prototype” aspect of the Firstborn.

Define a prototype.

In what way is the firstborn a prototype in Colossians 1:18?

It's this meaning of “firstborn” that includes the information we are told in Colossians 1:17. He is before all things. He is the “protos.” He was first. And those who come after are IN His image.

And with Key Thought Part II, we are now into Hebrews 2 territory.

Give a title to the portrait of Jesus as seen in Hebrews 2.

I don't know about you, but I see the title, “The Son of Man” — one of Jesus' favourite names for Himself — all over Hebrews 2's description of Jesus. If Hebrews 1 is all about the Son of God, Hebrews 2 is all about the Son of Man. As the Son of Man, He was the prototype for the rest of us “sons (and daughters) of men.” He is like “His brethren” (or perhaps, we are like Him) because He is the Firstborn among them.

There is a portrait of Jesus that is more common in Hebrews than any other. Oddly enough, I haven't chosen that portrait, in so many words, as one of the portraits we'll be examining in our ten weeks together. But in Hebrews 2:17 this portrait is first introduced. Jesus is portrayed here as our High Priest.

Though I haven't chosen “The High Priest” as the title of a portrait, the concept of Jesus as our High Priest is contained within today's lesson. The role of the biblical priest was to stand in the gap between a holy God and sinful man — to act as go-between; to mediate. When Jesus is painted as the High Priest in Hebrews, this is His role (called “mediating” in Hebrews 8:6, 9:15, 12:24). 1 Timothy 2:5 tells us that there is only one, true mediator between God and man — it's the Man, Christ Jesus.

According to Hebrews 2:17, why is Jesus perfectly equipped to be our High Priest — our mediator?

It's because of Hebrews 1 and Hebrews 2 that Jesus is our one, true mediator — because He is the Son of God and the Son of Man. Because He is the Firstborn — the preeminent prototype; perfectly God and perfectly Man — He stands in the gap as our perfect High Priest.

Let's close today by having you fill in the last of our Key Thoughts for the week. Why is the Firstborn the prototype?

1 — ...because the F____________ is the S________ of Man and...

2 — ...because His people are IN His i____________.

Hebrews 2:17 tells us that Jesus, the Son of Man, was “made like unto” us. But the reality is He came first. As we saw last week, we were “made like unto” Him — created IN His image. (Only He IS the image of the invisible God. We are IN His image. The difference a preposition makes!) He is the prototype. There is a deeper meaning still that we'll see this week (again through our Hebrews 11 faith-heroes) in which we are being made into His image. But that will have to wait for later.

Have you remembered to remember throughout the lesson our two, daily, make-your-own-discoveries questions? If not, you can think them through now.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 2: The Image & The Firstborn — Heb. 1-2

Week 2, Day 2: Abel — Hebrews 11:4

Today's Readings: Hebrews 1:6, 2:9-10, 11:4, 11:6,

Genesis 4:1-16

* * * * *

Key Thought:

Part I — The F____________ is p____________________... (Heb. 1:6, 11:4, Gen. 4:4)

* * * * *

I won't assign you Genesis 2-3 to read, but let's connect the dots between Genesis 1 and 4. A major event happened in between Hebrews 11:3 (creation) and Hebrews 11:4 (Cain and Abel's offerings).

What happened to change the world from its state of perfection after creation to the imperfection made obvious by the death of Abel? (If you don't know the answer, feel free to read Genesis 2-3.)

There are those who feel that the Genesis 3 account of the first sin must be only a kind of allegory. All the talk of “magic” fruit, talking snakes, etc. can't be literally and historically true, can it?

I am one of those who believe that the Genesis 3 account of “magic” fruit, talking snakes, etc. is a kind of allegory. However, I believe it to be a literal, historically-true allegory. In other words, while I believe the events of Genesis 3 happened as described, I also believe there is deeper and symbolical meaning hidden below the surface of the events themselves.

Take the two trees of Genesis 2-3, for instance. They start off a pattern that we'll be noticing this week. I can't think of a catchy title for this pattern, so I'll call it, “Two images of two different pathways.” I see the two trees of Genesis 2-3 as iconic — representative of two different ways or choices. Eating of the tree of life would have led to eternal life (Gen. 3:22). By contrast, eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil led down the path to death. The first represented God and His way. The other represented the choice not to go God's way.

I've often wondered, “But why was the first choice to obey or disobey God presented to Adam and Eve in the form of eating some fruit from a tree? What's the significance?”

We're not told directly, but our own knowledge of biological realities can help us toward an answer. Yet again, I find God's visible creation making visible His invisible, spiritual truths.

Why do we, as humans, eat (fruit or any other kind of food)?

Simple, isn't it? We eat to live. We are utterly dependent on outside nourishment to sustain life.

Read Deuteronomy 8:3, 16-18 and explain why you think we were created to be dependent on food.

I can see that God made us dependent to “humble us” to do us good in the end. It's difficult (though not impossible — we've all managed it at one time or another) to confuse the creature for the Creator when the creatures are helplessly dependent on so many things outside themselves for their very lives.

Now. Does all this open up a new significance for you of the two, iconic-though-literal trees? It does for me. By presenting the first humans with the choice between eating from two trees — the tree of life and (what became) the tree of death (Gen. 2:17) — God was presenting the man and woman with this choice: they could choose dependency on Himself and live! Or they could choose independence from Him. They could choose separation from Him. But independence from God is the path to death. There is no real life possible apart from the only Source of Life.

There is another meaning to “fruit” in Scripture. As I've said elsewhere, “Fruit, biblically-speaking, is any inner, invisible reality made outwardly visible.” To put it another way, “fruit” is the visible effect of the invisible cause. And the invisible causes we'll be talking about here are choices. Starting down a chosen path is an inner, invisible reality. Where the path comes out is the “fruit” of that choice.

All this does have relevance to today's faith-hero and his life (and death) story because we'll be seeing a whole lot of “fruit” today and this week. Just bear in mind that the “fruit” of choosing the path leading away from God and His way is always death.

If the two trees of Genesis 2-3 are iconic, I believe that the two offerings of Cain and Abel are also iconic. While I believe their offerings were literal, historical offerings, I also believe they had deeper, symbolic meaning. And they represent the same, two paths that the trees represent: the path leading to God and life and the path leading away from God toward death.

The vital difference between the two offerings can be found in the first two words of Hebrews 11:4.

From the first two words of Hebrews 11:4, what was the missing ingredient in Cain's offering?

But what is faith? Last week, I told you it was, “The sight that sees the unseen.” That's one definition. I'd like to give you another — this one taken from Hebrews 11:6.

What must the faith necessary to please God accept according to Hebrews 11:6?

The very first step of faith is believing that God is! That He is what? Well, obviously, that He is God. Faith must acknowledge that God is God, the only God, the One in control, the preeminent One, in fact.

Along those lines, taking Hebrews 11:6 in conjunction with our two, iconic trees, I like this definition of faith: “dependence on God.” If He is God — the One in control — recognizing that truth will unavoidably mean recognizing one's utter dependence on Him. Faith is letting God be God. My God.

Why was God pleased with Abel's offering and not Cain's? Quite simply, Abel's offering was offered through faith. Cain's was not. It's faith that pleases God. Whatever else made the difference between their two offerings, we know that Abel's offering was offered out of His recognition that God is God and out of a recognition of His dependence on God. There are two words (again with the alliteration) that I'd like to use for these two, iconic offerings. (These two words apply equally well to our two, iconic trees): “Faith” and “Flesh.” Faith (as previously defined) is dependence on God and seeing through eyes that see the invisible. “Flesh,” then, is attempted independence from God. Which usually results immediately in a dependence on that which is visible, on the merely material, or on the “flesh.”

We are told very little about Abel in Genesis 4. There is one, little fact we are told about his offering (besides its acceptability to God) in Genesis 4 that is alluded to in Hebrews 11:4. But this one, little fact demonstrates that his offering was an offering of faith. It is a fact that is noticeably not mentioned when Cain's offering is described. And now we come to this week's portrait of Christ.

How does Genesis 4:4 depict Abel's offering?

Isn't that interesting? Abel brought the fattest firstborn of his flock. In our low-fat-manic culture, we miss the significance of Abel bringing the fat of his flock, but in the Bible's culture, this verse is stating that Abel brought the best he had to offer. Fat=good, fattest=best. Notice, also, that he brought the firstborn. Abel brought his first and his best. In the words of Hebrews 11:4, he brought “a more excellent sacrifice.” Apparently, as far back as the time of the earliest humans, the firstborn was seen as preeminent. (Yes, that's our cue for today's Key Thought.)

Part I — The F____________ is p____________________...

But what does Abel's offering of his first and best tell us about his view of God? Very revealing, isn't it? His offering speaks volumes. It tells us that, for Abel, God was first and best. God had preeminence.

Why did God respect Abel's offering and not Cain's? Because Abel respected God. Cain didn't.

Where in Genesis 4:1-16 does Cain's lack of respect for God make itself blatant?

Of course, you may have chosen Cain's murder of his brother. That certainly demonstrates a lack of respect for the Source of all life. But I see Cain's lack of respect for God stated overtly in Genesis 4:9 in his answer to God's question to him: “Where is Abel, your brother?” And Cain snaps back offhandedly (in our vernacular), “How should I know? What am I, his babysitter?” Whoa! Do you see it? Cain not only lies to God; he sasses Him. Hugely. I've never been known for my respectful attitude toward my mother. (Unfortunately, some of my least respectful behaviour was immortalized on video when I was about eleven, so I know what kind of child I was!) But I don't think even my mother, who let me away with a lot, would have let me away with disrespect like Cain handed God.

Cain's answer to God shows me that Cain really had no idea who God is. Did he believe that God is? He knew that God existed, certainly, but not that He is — that He is who He is. Some proper understanding of the One True God is necessary in the faith that pleases Him. (Believing in any old, man-made or imaginary god is not behaviour that pleases the One True God.) In short, Cain's lack of respect for God demonstrated that he did not understand God's preeminence — His above-all-ness.

There's more to the Hebrews 11:6 faith-that-pleases-God than believing that He is, notice.

Finish the statement from Hebrews 11:6: “...he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and...”

He is a rewarder of those who seek Him diligently (or earnestly)? Doesn't He reward any kind of seeking? Doesn't He want to be found? Why must the seeking be diligent or earnest?

This was a faith-principle that Abel showed he understood when he gave his first and best. God requires that He be our first and our best. He requires that we have no other gods before Him. He, too, seeks. He seeks worshippers (John 4:23). Not half-hearted worshippers but worshippers to worship in spirit and truth. Worshippers who worship none other (Matt. 4:10). It's the only acceptable worship.

From your own observation, what are the results of worshipping anything or anyone other than God?

From my own observation, I have seen the destruction, devastation, and despair that follow the worship of any other god. We were created to worship, but worship wrongly directed turns diabolical. Whom we give preeminence — first place — in our lives is whom we worship. Self-worship lies at the root of all worship wrongly directed. It was self-worship that was first Satan's downfall and then man's.

I've called my two, iconic pathways “Faith” and “Flesh.” When the Bible speaks of “the flesh,” it usually means more than just the physical — the material and visible. It is usually referring to that bent in our fallen natures that gravitates toward self-worship like a duck to water.

Cain's offering was not an offering of faith — dependence on God, acknowledging God as the only, true God. Then, it must have been an offering of the flesh — dependence on self, self-worship. There are only the two pathways. And in fact, from Cain's reaction to Abel's offering being given preference over his, we can see that, for Cain, self was in first place. In that case, it becomes very obvious to me why his offering was not acceptable to God.

If you wonder why an offering growing out of an attitude of self-worship cannot be acceptable to God, let's think about the “fruit” of Cain's offering for a minute.

What was the “fruit” of Cain's fleshly, self-first life and offering? Where did that path come out?

Do you see why God must be first and best — the only God? The tree of “flesh” may look pretty, just as it looked, at first, as though Cain was doing a good thing by offering his offering to God. It may produce green leaves and sweet-smelling blossoms, but any “fruit” growing from the root of “flesh” can only be the poisonous fruit of death and destruction.

I have heard the teaching that Abel's offering was acceptable to God because it was a blood sacrifice, and Cain's was unacceptable because it was an offering of the “fruit of the ground.” If this is the case, we're not told in Scripture. While only blood offerings could be acceptable to God as sin offerings, grain offerings were also commanded in the law.

I can see, however, that, as part of the iconic-ness of the two offerings, those of us who have been educated in the truth that “...without shedding of blood is no remission...” (Heb. 9:22) can now look back on Abel's offering of faith and Cain's offering of the flesh and see the truth that our offerings of faith can only be acceptable to God because of a particular instance of the shedding of blood.

And this introduces the other reason, I believe, we are told that Abel offered his first and his best. His offering was iconic — it was a picture. A picture of the sacrifice that was truly a sacrifice of the First and the Best. God gave us His First and His Best. Hebrews 1:6 and 2:9-10 reveal the truth that God brought His preeminent Firstborn into the world for the purpose of suffering and dying. For us!

Given that fact, does God have the right to ask our offerings of our first and our best? The truth is faith costs. I can only learn the value of love by paying the cost of love. I've seen it to be true. The more I give of myself to the one I love, the deeper my love grows. Why wouldn't it work the same in our relationships with God? As He gave us His First and His Best from His unfathomable love for us, the more I give Him, the more I'll love Him.

This is a hard truth but very plain from Scripture: because of sin, the pathway of faith and life now lies through the valley of death. First, the death of God's Firstborn for us; but in response, our own deaths.

Abel's faith cost him not only the first and best of his flock; indirectly, his faith cost him his own life. Yes, faith costs. For some, it costs everything. Abel paid the ultimate price as a reflection of the ultimate price God's Firstborn paid. Though we may not be called to lay down our physical lives, faith does demand a death — the death of the flesh; the old, natural, self-first life. No other real life is possible.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 2: The Image & The Firstborn — Heb. 1-2

Week 2, Day 3: Enoch, Part I — Hebrews 11:5-6

Today's Readings: Hebrews 2:11, 11:5-6, Genesis 1:26, 4:17-26, 5:1-32, John 8:38-47, 1 John 3:1-12

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

Part II — The F____________ is the p____________________... (Heb. 11:5-6)

1 — ...because the F____________ is the S________ of Man and... (Heb. 2:11)

2 — ...because His people are IN His i____________. (Heb. 2:11, 11:5-6, Gen. 1:26, 5:1-3)

* * * * *

Today's lesson will be only an introduction to our next Hebrews 11 faith-hero, Enoch. We'll be introduced to him by way of being introduced to his family-line. It is an important introduction as his family-line was an important part of who Enoch was.

If you've been looking up the references after the Key Thoughts at the start of each lesson and trying to fill in the blanks from the passages listed, you will, no doubt, have been puzzled by the Hebrews 11:5-6 passage that (apparently) yields the answers, “The Firstborn is the prototype...” and “...because His people are IN His image.” (Go ahead and fill in today's blanks and then I'll continue with that thought.)

Part II — The F____________ is the p____________________...

1 — ...because the F____________ is the S________ of Man and...

2 — ...because His people are IN His i____________.

What on earth, you may have wondered, do the Hebrews 11 verses on Enoch pleasing God and faith pleasing God have to do with the Firstborn as the prototype and His people being in His image? Well, I'll tell you. One connection (we'll look at another one tomorrow) between Enoch pleasing God (and being “translated” or taken) and the Firstborn as the prototype is to be found in our introduction to Enoch — in his family-line. That connection is the catch phrase that I warned you you would need to remember: “Like father, Like son.” And that connection is the subject we'll be exploring today.

In order to do so, we need to return to Cain and do a little more thinking about him.

Who was the first “firstborn” born on the earth?

Remembering that, in an earthly sense, Cain was the firstborn — the first firstborn ever — gives me a new perspective on his personality and actions. Of course he was miffed to see God give Abel's offering preference over his. After all, Cain was the firstborn. Wasn't it his birthright to come in first before his brother? In everything? As we saw yesterday, the earliest humans seemed already to have grabbed hold of the idea of the preeminence of the firstborn.

Interestingly, Cain was not God's firstborn, however. He was not God's preeminent one, God's chosen heir. Today, we'll begin seeing hints of that principle I told you on our first day together this week we would see: Christ's rightful position of Firstborn has nothing to do with birth.

Although God commanded His people, in Exodus 13:2, to, “Sanctify unto me all the first-born, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine,” (likely, to teach His people the faith-requirement of our first and best to God) when it comes to the ones God chooses as His heirs, His firstborn, His disregard of birth order is so obvious it looks deliberate. We'll see it in the weeks to come. But it starts here with Cain and Abel, and then Cain and Seth.

I want you to notice an omission I find extremely significant.

Compare Genesis 1:26 + 5:1-3 to Genesis 4:1 + 4:17, and and point out a pair of words which are included in the account of Seth's birth and family line but are missing from the account of Cain's.

Every little word written in this grand Book we're studying has such meaning! Every little word was chosen so intentionally, I believe, by its divine Author. How many times has a tiny and seemingly-insignificant-or-coincidental word or phrase leaped off the page of the written word to turn into His spoken word to me. That was the case when I noticed the mention of Seth being begotten in the likeness and image of his father, Adam (who was created in the likeness and image of God), and then noticed that nowhere are those words used of Cain and his descendants.

The omission began to look terribly significant when I read to the end of Genesis 4 and did indeed notice a rather horrible “likeness and image” showing up there.

In Genesis 4:19-24, where do you see the principle, “Like father, like son”?

The last facts we learn about the descendants of Cain show us that his image had been magnified through his offspring. In Genesis 4:17, Cain proved himself rather a clever and “great” man (according to earthly ideas of greatness) with his building of an entire city. His descendants became “great” men (in an earthly kind of way) — the fathers of metallurgy, of systemized agriculture , and of music. (The sister of Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal-cain was Naamah whose name means “beautiful,” by the way. Apparently, Cain's female descendants were known for their physical attractiveness, as well.) But on the other hand is the stomach-turning boast of Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal-cain's father, Lamech, of his prowess in killing a man for wounding him. Look where Cain's self-first life-choices and resulting disrespect for God had led.

The meaning behind the omission of any mention of Cain being begotten in Adam's likeness and image (after the reminder of Adam being made in God's likeness and image) is made startlingly plain through the other required readings today. The main point of John 8:38-47 and 1 John 3:1-12 is...what?

In a phrase, what is the main point of John 8:38-47 and 1 John 3:1-12?

What bearing does that main point of, “Like father, like son,” have on Cain and his family line?

Ouch! Whom we grow to resemble proves our parentage. Jesus told the Jewish leaders with murder in their hearts that they were revealing themselves as descendants of the devil who was a murderer from the beginning. 1 John 3:12 tells us that Cain was “of the wicked one.” He bore the likeness and image of that father, not the likeness and image of God.

Oddly enough, I still manage to hold out hope that Cain did, in the end, repent. I see little hints of it in his dialogue with God after the murder of Abel. I see a hint of it in the name of Cain's firstborn (which became the name of Cain's life work — the city he built). “Enoch” means “dedicated.” (Cain's Enoch is not the Enoch of Hebrews 11:5, by the way, in case there is any confusion for you between the two.)

True, 1 John 3:12 informs us in no uncertain terms that Cain was “of the wicked one.” But the rest of the Bible informs us in no uncertain terms that so once were we all. All of us, very early on in our lives, chose our parentage and that parentage was “of the wicked one.” We all chose to listen to the wicked one and copy him in his choice of self over God. It is only God's amazing grace that makes 1 John 3:1 true, “...that we should be called the sons of God...” It is a two-sided adoption. Unlike other adoptions, the adoptees only become sons by their own choice. “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:” (John 1:12).

We all started off as sons of the wicked one, but we are all given chances to choose to repent and decide to become sons of God. Is it possible Cain made that choice?

I know where my hope comes from that Cain repented. It comes from the One who is, “...not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9). I see it in His gracious, gentle dealings with Cain. He states that hope of Cain's repentance outright in Genesis 4:7, “If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?” (Perhaps my dislike of the idea of any perishing reflects the image of the One whose “son” (daughter) I've chosen to become? I like to think so.)

At any rate, I can see this fact clearly: if Cain ever personally repented, his family-line did not end well. If Cain himself ever became “a son of God,” he was not God's “firstborn.” He was not God's chosen heir. That “firstborn” was Seth. It was through Seth's line that God continued His work in the world.

I've mentioned the “iconic-ness” (yes, I am fond of creating my own, homemade words whenever I can't find a handy, ready-made one) of the two trees of the garden of Eden. I've mentioned the “iconic-ness” of the two offerings of Cain and Abel. I also see an “iconic-ness” of the two family lines of Cain and Seth. Cain's line represented the pathway leading away from God. Seth's line represented the pathway leading toward God. That's not to say everyone in Seth's line turned out well. But Seth's line — begotten in the image and likeness of Adam (created in the image and likeness of God) — represents the line of faith — God's family-line. Cain's line represents the line of “the flesh” — the line of the earthly, the line of self-exaltation, and frighteningly, according to John 8 and 1 John 3, the family-line of “the wicked one.” It's true that the pathway of “the flesh” may often lead to earthly greatness. But it inevitably also leads to death and destruction. The pathway of faith may lead to earthly suffering (and it always leads through death — the death of the old, fleshly life). But it also leads to the only real life possible.

This has been a long introduction to Enoch without even getting around to the subject of Enoch, but this is where Enoch finally comes in. I told you that Enoch's family-line was important because Enoch's family-line was an important part of who Enoch was. When I made that statement, I was thinking not only of his earthly family-line. They were important, certainly. Likely, Enoch was a godly man partially because he came from a godly line and was raised by godly parents. (His name means “dedicated,” remember, which tells me something about his parents' mindset when he was born and named.) But I was really thinking of what Enoch's family-line represents: God's family-line — the line of faith. Enoch was born into that family-line only through his own, personal faith commended in Hebrews 11:5-6.

Whatever kind of earthly family-line we may come from, we are all offered the opportunity to join the same family-line that Enoch came from. All of us become “sons of God” only by personal choice. But once that choice is made, then, “Like Father, like son,” comes into play.

But I'll pick up that subject again tomorrow. For now, it's time to close with our two questions.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 2: The Image & The Firstborn — Heb. 1-2

Week 2, Day 4: Enoch, Part II — Hebrews 11:5-6

Today's Readings: Hebrews 2:11, 11:5-6, Genesis 5:21-24,

1 Corinthians 15:42-52, 2 Corinthians 3:18, 1 John 3:1-2

* * * * *

Key Thought:

2 — ...because His people are IN His i____________. (Heb. 2:11, 11:5-6, 2 Cor. 3:18)

* * * * *

Does the statement I closed with yesterday create any anxiety for you? I stated that when we become children of God, then, “Like Father, like son,” comes into play. I said yesterday, “Whom we grow to resemble proves our parentage.” Does that thought cause a tightening of the chest and spots before your eyes? Does 1 John 3:1-12 give you a cold chill all up and down your spine? I've experienced all those symptoms. I've come away from passages like 1 John 3:1-12 (which contains many difficult sayings that we're not going to deal with today) with the mentality of “work harder, do better.” I've entertained thoughts like, “If God is my Father and I'm supposed to resemble Him, what went wrong? If I'm going to prove my parentage, I'd better start doing this and this and that and that...”

That reaction and that mentality is not the one I want you to go away with. Rather, I want you to think about the principle of, “Like Father, like son,” in this encouraging way: once we've become children of God by receiving Him and believing in His name, then, “Like Father, like son,” will begin to come true in our lives. We don't have to panic. We don't have to fret ourselves sick about it. It's God's work. He's the Creator. He set in place the principle that children would resemble their parents. He'll be the one responsible for shaping us into His image and the image of His Son. Our work, mainly, is to accept His offer of joining His family. His work is to “katartizo” us— to frame us, to perfect, to restore, to mend.

Perhaps I should mention here that, in a general way, all humans were created in the image and likeness of God, and we all still bear that image — though it has become fractured and splintered by the fall, like a mirror thrown to the ground. But the point of yesterday's lesson was that God's own children will find the image of God (and His Firstborn) being restored in them. We will come to bear the likeness and image of the Father and the Firstborn in a special, not a general, way. But that work is His work in us.

All this is not to say that there is zero action on our part we need to take in becoming “conformed” to Christ's image. There is an action I've seen through Scripture that is required of us. However, it's not a panic-inducing, “work-harder-do-better” kind of an action at all. It's really quite a simple, even enjoyable, kind of action. We'll see it through today's readings and as we explore the life of Enoch.

Let's now finally jump into that exploration. There's not a great deal we're told about Enoch, really.

Putting together Genesis 5:21-24 and Hebrews 11:5-6, draw a character sketch of Enoch.

What's the first thing that strikes you in a comparison between the two passages? Is it the first thing that strikes me? The first thing that strikes me is that the words, “Enoch pleased God,” are never found in Genesis 5. Yet the author of Hebrews declares that Enoch received this testimony — that he pleased God. Genesis 5 does give us the testimony (twice, in fact) that Enoch walked with God. Putting together the pieces, then, I come to the conclusion that the author of Hebrews is telling us that walking with God and pleasing God are synonymous. It's walking with God that pleases Him.

Then, the author of Hebrews further goes on to inform us how he knows that Enoch was a man of faith. “It's quite simple,” he says (he says it if you read between the lines). “We know that Enoch was a man of faith because he pleased God (as demonstrated by his walking with God), and it is impossible to please God without faith.” Putting together all the pieces, then, it's the walk of faith that pleases God.

And again, what is the Hebrews 11:6 definition of faith?

Believing that God is God requires a little diligent seeking in order to discover who God really is. (Hang onto it! We'll be back for that thought in a minute.)

Can you see, from Enoch's life (and non-death), that pathway leading to God and life running through the iconic faith-family-line of Seth's line? Can you see the pathway leading away from God and toward death running through Cain's “fleshly” line? In tomorrow's lesson, boy, will we ever! Will we ever see the “fruit” of death where that pathway came out! But, boy, do we ever see the pathway of faith coming out in the “fruit” of life for Enoch! To such an extent that Enoch's path skipped over physical death altogether. He drew the, “Go directly to heaven; do not pass death; do not collect a coffin,” card. What did, in fact, happen to Enoch? The King James, in Hebrews 11:5, says he was, “translated.”

What does it mean to translate in the ordinary sense of the word? Describe the process.

Read 1 Corinthians 15:42-52 and explain why Enoch could be said to be “translated.”

I quite like the King James “translated” to explain what happened to Enoch. In the Greek, the word used is, “metatithemi.” You might recognize the “meta” part from another Greek word we “translated” into English (read: stole): “metamorphosis” (that's the English version of the word, anyway). “Meta” means “to change.” So Enoch was changed. He was “translated” from one form into another. But (and this is why I like the “translated” translation) something of Enoch remained. He didn't suddenly stop being Enoch when he was translated. He was a new Enoch, but He was still Enoch. Just as when we “translate” from the Greek to the English, the form of the words has changed, but the original idea (hopefully) still remains.

1 Corinthians 15:51-52 describes the exact occurrence (just occurring in a different time-frame) that happened to Enoch, I believe. It tells us that the kind of “translation” Enoch underwent will happen to all of God's own children living at a particular time in history. In Christian circles, we call it “the rapture” — the “catching-up.” It simply means that some will not have to die physically in order to be changed from this old, corruptible form into our new, incorruptible forms. Flesh and blood cannot live forever (1 Cor. 15:50). We have to be changed. We have to be “translated.”

From 1 Corinthians 15:47-49, into whose form will those who are “translated” be changed?

1 John 3:1-2 makes this fact even clearer. We will be “like Him.” It's His image and likeness we'll wear at that time in a way that we can't wear it now in our corruptible bodies of flesh and blood.

Enoch was (and others will be) “translated” without facing death, but all God's people will be “translated.” When Enoch was “translated,” it was Christ's image he was instantly changed into. We will all be changed, finally and completely, into Jesus' incorruptible image when we see Him face-to-face.

And that “seeing” opens up the topic of the action I told you about earlier — that simple, enjoyable action which is the means of conforming us to Christ's image. Let's see it through Enoch's example.

Besides his non-death, his age, and his family line, what is the only Genesis 5 information on Enoch?

And as we've seen, Enoch's walk was a walk of faith. Do you remember our definitions of faith that I've had you hanging onto? First was, “Faith is the _______________ that ______________ the ______________.”

Then, there was the Hebrews 11:6 definition: believing that God is God and that He rewards those who seek Him diligently. In some way, then, believing that God is God (and the rewarder of the diligent seeker) is the sight that sees the unseen. Well, it is, really, isn't it? A person must diligently seek in order to see the unseen or to understand who the invisible God really is.

So we know that Enoch's walk of faith was all about learning to see the unseen God. And, of course, when I use the word “see” in this context, I mean “know.” Not just factually but relationally. Yet again, I find that any studying I do on the all-relational God will, sooner or later, come around to the theme of relationship. What else could we expect from the all-relational One?

Enoch's walk of faith tells us about Enoch's relationship with God. Have you ever tried walking with someone with whom you have no relationship? Someone you don't know? Awkward! I've been in that situation when I've started out walking at the same time and at the same pace as a stranger starting from a place very near where I've started my walk. I soon either slow or quicken my pace to lose the stranger (and he or she is doing the same, I can tell). Walking together is all about relationship, believe me! And relationship is all about “seeing.” Getting to know. Getting to love. More and more.

From 2 Corinthians 3:18, what is the means through which we're, here-and-now, being transformed into Christ's image?

From 1 John 3:2, what is the means through which we will instantly and finally, then-and-there, be “translated” into Christ's image?

Now, let's get practical. I imagine if you've waded through this study to this point, you want to be an Enoch. You want to have a walk of faith. You want to please God. You want to grow in relationship with Him. You want to know Him more. You want to look more and more like Him and His Son. You want to see Him more clearly. Practically, for us, how can that happen?

You know what I'm going to say, don't you? Remember last week? If we want to see through faith-eyes, we must hear from God's Word (Rom. 10:17). It's His Word that makes the invisible visible to us. Yup, what you're doing right now is what I recommend for seeing more of Him. But don't just read my thoughts on His Word. My only goal in writing this study is to pass on my fascination with God's Book in the hope that someone may say to herself, “Hey! I can see God through the Bible. What a fascinating Book! I think I'd like to study it for myself. After all, if Connie Cook can do it, anyone can.”

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 2: The Image & The Firstborn — Heb. 1-2

Week 2, Day 5: Noah — Hebrews 11:7

Today's Readings: Hebrews 2:11, 11:7, Genesis 6, Luke 3:23, 3:36-38, 2 Peter 3:1-9

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

Part II — The F____________ is the p____________________... (Heb. 11:7)

1 — ...because the F____________ is the S________ of Man and... (Heb. 2:11)

2 — ...because His people are IN His i____________. (Heb. 2:11, 11:7)

* * * * *

Let's fill in the blanks on today's Key Thoughts right off the bat and all at once.

Part II — The F____________ is the p____________________...

1 — ...because the F____________ is the S________ of Man and...

2 — ...because His people are IN His i____________.

Are the answers still fresh in your mind? “The Firstborn is the prototype...because the Firstborn is the Son of Man and...because His people are IN His image.”

“But where,” you might be asking, “from Noah's story, can you possibly drag out or drag in the theme of the Firstborn as the prototype?” You might be surprised. (I might be, too. I often am.)

What I'd like us to do with today's lesson is go through Hebrews 11:7 bit by bit along with Genesis 6, comparing the two passages. The other required readings we'll plunk down wherever they'll fit.

First, I'd like you to notice the sound-and-sight reference from the first part of Hebrews 11:7. The author of Hebrews certainly seems to have in mind, here again, faith as the sight that sees the unseen.

“By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet...”

What was the means through which Noah believed in the unseen?

There it is again! The Romans 10:17 principle that faith-eyes can see the unseen only through hearing ears and ears can hear only because God is the God who speaks. God warned Noah. God's speaking was the foundation for Noah's faith and the reason he built his ark. God's word was the only thing that spared life on the earth of Noah's day (and ours) — God's word combined with Noah's faith.

To compare Hebrews 11:7 to the relevant piece of Genesis 6, this story of God's word combined with Noah's faith is the summary of all of Genesis 6. God spoke. Noah listened. And believed. And acted.

This is where 2 Peter 3:1-9 fits, so let's plunk it down here.

With what subject does 2 Peter 3 open (vv. 1-2)?

Bear in mind, then, we've been reminded that God has spoken. What will we do with His speaking?

To what events does Peter point (as seen from God's Word) to rebut the scoffings of the scoffers?

Noah was asked to believe in an unseen, future event. You and I are asked to believe in unseen, past events. But the basis for both beliefs is the same: God's Word.

There is an unseen, future event we're asked to believe in, as well. As Noah's world was once destroyed by water, so our world will be destroyed by fire. When the predictions of the time of the end of the earth and God's judgment are stated in Scripture, the flood of Noah's day is often mentioned as a kind of picture of that future event. And why hasn't that event happened yet? 2 Peter 3:9 tells us.

Copy out 2 Peter 3:9 and comment on the reason Jesus hasn't returned yet.

2 Peter 3:9 will fit into the lesson a little later, also, so I'll leave it there for now.

Okay, next piece of Hebrews 11:7: “...moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house...” It's the saving of Noah's “house” that I'd like you to see. First (here's a little preview of next week), we have to know that, in biblical language, a “house” meant so much more than the four walls and a roof which we think of as a “house.” Simply stated, a “house” was a family-line. What I'd like you to take away from this piece of Hebrews 11:7 is that Noah built an ark because God was building a “house.”

Where does Genesis 6 show us Noah's (and God's) “house”? How about in Genesis 6:1-13. Through Genesis 6:1-13, I see the contrast of the two, iconic family-lines, and through seeing that contrast, I see Noah's (and God's) “house” being emphasized.

In order to get to my point of Noah+God's “house,” I'm going to have to spend some time on Genesis 6:1-4 and a weird and disturbing interpretation I've heard for these verses. The weird and disturbing interpretation I've heard for the “sons of God” taking wives of or “going into” “the daughters of men” and having children by them (these children being giants in the earth — “mighty men...of renown”) is that the “sons of God” were angels, the “daughters of men” were human, and their offspring were a mixture. The weirdest and most disturbing part is the idea that the angels who “went into” the human women were, of course, fallen angels — demons. So the mixed race were really a half-demon/half-human blend. Hence the reason God needed to destroy most of humanity.

I would be the last person to say that anything weird and disturbing can't possibly be true (having seen too many weird, disturbing truths). In this instance, however, there are some biblical refutations, and there is, I believe, a much simpler (and much less weird and disturbing), alternate interpretation.

As to the biblical refutations, demons are never called the “sons of God.” If the “sons of God” were God's angels who became fallen angels through sexual temptation, we have Jesus' assurance in Matthew 22:30 that the angels of God in heaven don't marry. We're not told outright, but my presumption is that the angels don't marry because they can't; that they were not created with a capability for marriage (and all the rest that goes along with marriage — not to get too graphic!)

Then, angels are usually portrayed as God's servants; not sons (Job 38:7 may be an exception). The “sons of God” are generally...(we've seen it this week)...yup! You and I. (Notice, also, Luke 3:38.)

Now. When we remember that the “sons of God” are His people (not usually His angels), then Genesis 6:1-4 begins to take on meaning for me (of a less weird and disturbing kind). Although I believe there are some double meanings in Genesis 6:1-4, I think we are mainly being told simply that men and women began to populate the earth (the “sons of God” being men and the “daughters of men” being women), and we are told what that early population was like.

But as to the deeper, double meanings, remember the truth we started seeing on Day 3 of this week? God has a faith-family-line. Seth's line was iconic or symbolic of that line, and Cain's line was iconic of the fleshly and the earthly. What I see, then, through the two designations, “the sons of God” and “the daughters of men,” is a reminder that there are two family-lines — God's and man's; “faith” and “flesh.”

The “sons of God”; is this a reference to Seth's line? Are we being told in Genesis 6:1-4 that Seth's godly line began marrying into Cain's ungodly line? We know that Seth's line, while representative of God's faith-family-line, didn't stay the course. If only Noah and his family were found to be righteous in their generation, that means that all the rest of Seth's descendants had become corrupt.

There are two other subjects that Genesis 6:1-4 (in my view) hints at: it didn't take long for men to discard God's model for marriage (one man, one woman, one flesh). Men liked what they saw, and they took what they liked. I see Genesis 6:2 pointing out that sexual promiscuity quickly became the norm.

Then, too, before the flood there was something different about the earth and something different about the earth's population that made them “giants.” Mighty men of renown. From the fact that God decided to reduce a human life span down to a hundred and twenty years (from the standard eight-or-nine-hundred-plus years that was typical before the flood), we know that there was something different about the earth environmentally and earth's population genetically that enabled people to live long, long lives pre-flood. When humans were “hot off the press,” they hadn't degenerated genetically as we have. So humans lived long and were of great stature, energy, and ability. (There are other hints and other theories about how earth's environment changed through the flood that also took down life-span numbers, etc., but I won't go into them here.)

However, in Genesis 6:4-5, I mainly see the same contrast emphasized that I saw through Cain's descendants in Genesis 4. Following the “fleshly” pathway away from God may lead through earthly greatness, but it can only lead to death. Again, in Genesis 6:1-13, the two pathways are being contrasted. The fleshly-family-line (represented by Cain's) is held up against the faith-family-line (whose sole, surviving members in Noah's day were Noah and his family. Seth's other descendants had all joined the spiritual family-line of the flesh and the devil). The family-line of the flesh can only end in death.

From Genesis 6:11, paint a picture of life on earth during Noah's time before the flood.

The family-line of the flesh and the devil were all bent on destroying themselves. God only hastened the process a little. On the other hand, joining the faith-family-line meant life. God's way is life.

Whew! That was a long section on “...to the saving of his house...” There's more to be said on the subject, but we'd better move on for now.

Next in Hebrews 11:7 is “...by the which he condemned the world...”

In what way did Noah's faith and his building of the ark condemn the world?

Jesus stated in John 12:47 that He didn't come to judge the world but to save it. He went on to add in John 12:48 that His words would judge those who rejected them. In John 5:45-47, Jesus said that He didn't come to accuse. It was Moses who accused Jesus' listeners. Why? Because Jesus' listeners claimed to believe Moses (meaning, the words He wrote), but Moses wrote of Jesus, and in reality, those Jesus was addressing had rejected what Moses wrote by rejecting Jesus. If “faith comes by hearing,” then condemnation comes by stuffing one's fingers in one's ears. What condemns a person is his rejection of the truth he's already been given. What condemns a person is “knowing better” but “choosing worser.”

Where does Noah come in? 2 Peter 2:5 calls Noah “a preacher of righteousness.” 1 Peter 3:20 also talks about the longsuffering of God in waiting while the ark was being built. And longsuffering takes us back to 2 Peter 3:9.

According to 2 Peter 3:9, why does God wait to fulfill His promises of judgment?

In what way do I see Noah “condemning the world”? In this way: through Noah, God gave the people of Noah's day chance after chance to repent — warning after warning. But all were rejected.

Where do I find God's longsuffering-ness and His faithfulness to warn time and again in Genesis 6?

From Genesis 6:14-16, where do you see God's patience and His faithfulness to warn?

You may have found this the strangest question yet. Where in the dimensions of the ark do I see God's patience — His unwillingness for any to perish — and His faithfulness to warn? In this: there was no possibility of Noah keeping the ark a secret. We don't have to know anything about the length of a cubit to know that the ark was a huge undertaking and would have been extremely visible to the general public as it was being built. We also know it must have taken a very long time to build.

Genesis 6:6 speaks of God's grief. In other words, He suffered. But from Genesis 6:14-16, I know He long-suffered. And why is He willing to suffer long? Because He's not willing that any should perish.

Many read the Bible and come away from all the warnings of imminent judgment in it, saying, “Ha! Some God of love!” If they understood Him properly, they would see all the warnings He gives as acts of love. He warns of judgment because He doesn't want to judge. He desires to save. So He warns.

Okay, final thought: “...and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith...” (+ Genesis 6:17-22).

Here, at last, we'll be talking about the Firstborn as the prototype and getting back to God's “house.” Remember, I told you on Day 1 that, biblically, the Firstborn and the Heir are one and the same idea.

I keep assigning Hebrews 2:11 as required reading but then run out of time and space to mention it.

Where, in Hebrews 2:11, can you see God's people being made into the image of the Firstborn?

However your version of the Bible translates it, the “sanctification” or “making holy” of Hebrews 2:11 is referring to that process we've seen from other passages — that process of being transformed into Christ's image. In the words of Hebrew 11:7, we are all the “heirs” of the righteousness of faith.

Then, we see from Hebrews 2:11 that Christ is the Firstborn and the Prototype because He calls us His siblings. He's the eldest brother. God's building a “house,” a family-line, and Christ is the Firstborn.

Given the fact of Christ's deity, comment on the “full circle” of the family-line in Luke 3:23-38.

Through Noah, God was building His family-line. Noah was His heir, in that sense. And life on the earth continues today because of Noah. The human family continues because of him. But remember God's faith-family-line that we're privileged to join if we choose? Remember “Like Father, like Son”? If we're part of His faith-family-line, we'll begin to look like our Father and His Firstborn. (It's in Noah's/God's family-line that I see today's Key Thoughts, in case you're wondering where they tie in.)

Noah's faith bore some visible fruit — very visible. No hiding an ark! It was (at least partially) through that visible fruit that God did His work of warning but also of offering salvation. Faith bears visible fruit. Like “fruit,” images are visible. God's image stamped on us will become visible. Noah was God's heir, and God worked through Noah to build His “house.” We who are being made into the image of the true Heir — the Firstborn — are also heirs of His righteousness. And through our visible faith-fruit, God is still doing His work — warning, offering salvation, and just generally building His “house.”

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

WEEK 2 Group Study — Heb. 1-2, Heb. 11:4-7

Review Readings: Hebrews 1:3, 1:6, 2:11, 11:4-7, Genesis 1:26, 4:4, 5:1-3, 5:21-24, 6:9, 2 Corinthians 3:18, Colossians 1:15-19

* * * * *

Key Thoughts for Review:

Part I — The F____________ is p____________________... (Heb. 1:6, 11:4, Col. 1:15-19, Gen. 4:4)

1 — ...because the F____________ is the S________ of God and... (Heb. 1)

2 — ...because the F____________ IS the i____________ of God. (Heb. 1:3, Col. 1:15)

Part II — The F____________ is the p____________________... (Heb. 11:5-7, Col. 1:15, 18)

1 — ...because the F____________ is the S________ of Man and... (Heb. 2)

2 — ...because His people are IN His i____________. (Heb. 2:11, 11:5-7, Gen. 1:26, 5:1-3, 2 Cor. 3:18)

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: The Image & The Firstborn

1 — How do this week's Key Thoughts expand on this week's Hebrews Portraits of Christ? Review the Key Thoughts to share any new insights gained this week on Jesus as the Image and the Firstborn.

2 — What connections can you see between this week's two portraits: the Image and the Firstborn?

3 — Has any theme from this week's lessons emerged in a personal way for you? What has been your week's theme? In what way do the portraits of Christ as the Image and Firstborn speak to that theme?

4 — Discuss the commonalities between the lives of Abel, Enoch, and Noah. Was there anything about their lives you hadn't noticed before studying them through Hebrews 11? What's new-to-you this week?

5 — As the weeks go on, I hope you'll be more and more astonished to see why Jesus calls us His “brethren” and to see what that means to us. Share any truths that astonished you personally this week related to Jesus as the Prototype, the Son of Man, and the Image into whose image we're being made.

And finally, one last time for the week, please share any of your own discoveries this week about...

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 3: The Firstborn & The Builder — Heb. 3:1-6

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

Part I — The F____________ is the B____________. (Heb. 3:3, 6)

1 — The B____________ is building Himself a h____________. (1 Pet. 2:5)

2 — The B____________ is p_______________ over the h____________. (Heb. 3:3)

3 — The B____________ is God. (Heb. 3:4)

Part II — The F____________ is the H________. (Heb. 1:2)

1 — The F____________'s i_______________ is a h____________. (Heb. 3:6)

2 — His p____________ are His h____________ . (Heb. 3:6, 1 Pet. 2:5-10)

Part III — His p____________ are His h________s. (Heb. 11:8-9, Gen. 15:1-7)

1 — The B____________ is building His p____________ a h________ and a c________. (Heb. 11:10-16)

2 — His p____________'s i_______________ is the F____________. (Heb. 11:11-12, Gen. 15:1)

3 — The B____________ gave His F____________ for His p____________. (Heb. 11:17-19, John 3:16)

4 — The c________ is God dwelling with His p____________. (1 Pet. 2:5-10)

Key words: Firstborn, Builder, Heir, inheritance, preeminent, people, house, city

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 3: The Firstborn & The Builder — Heb. 3:1-6

Week 3, Day 1: The Firstborn and the Builder — Hebrews 3:1-6

Today's Readings: Hebrews 3:1-6, 1:2, 1 Peter 2:5-10

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

Part I — The F____________ is the B____________. (Heb. 3:3, 6)

1 — The B____________ is building Himself a h____________. (1 Pet. 2:5)

2 — The B____________ is p_______________ over the h____________. (Heb. 3:3)

3 — The B____________ is God. (Heb. 3:4)

Part II — The F____________ is the H________. (Heb. 1:2)

1 — The F____________'s i_______________ is a h____________. (Heb. 3:6)

2 — His p____________ are His h____________ . (Heb. 3:6, 1 Pet. 2:5-10)

* * * * *

For the next three weeks (counting this one), the portrait of Christ we'll be seeing is Christ as the Firstborn and the Builder. As previewed last week, a “house” in the Bible meant so much more than a “house” means to us. A “house” in Bible language could mean a building — a family-dwelling. But a “house” could also mean the family itself — not just the immediate family but a family-line.

With that, time for a Key Thought. Looks like we'll be working backwards through them today.

2 — His p____________ are His h____________ .

When Hebrews 3:1-6 speaks about a “house,” the “builder” of the “house,” and the “son” over the “house,” the “house” is meant to be understood as people — a family-line. The author of Hebrews carries over his themes of Jesus as the Heir and the Firstborn from Hebrews 1-2 into Hebrews 3 by expanding on the theme of the family-line. But we learn some new information about that family-line from Hebrews 3:1-6.

We see Jesus as the Son over the house (in other words, the Firstborn — the Heir) in Hebrews 3:6. And what does He inherit? What do heirs normally inherit?

Part II — The F____________ is the H________.

1 — The F____________'s i_______________ is a h____________.

Yes, from Hebrews 3:6, His inheritance is a house. We're told that the house is His. And what is the house of Hebrews 3:6? Right! Us! “...whose house we are...”

Hebrews 3:1-6 adds this other, new information: Jesus is not only the Son over His house; He's its Builder. Hebrews 3:3 gives us this piece of new information for our collection.

How does Hebrews 3:3 show us Christ as the builder of His house?

Let's slip in two, relevant Key Thoughts here.

Part I — The F____________ is the B____________.

1 — The B____________ is building Himself a h____________.

As you may have noticed, our key thoughts this week are all about heirs and houses. It's those key ideas that bring together our portraits of the Firstborn and the Builder. And the Builder is the Heir for a very good reason. Shouldn't He inherit what He built in the first place?

We've already seen that the meaning behind the term “the firstborn” in the Bible is the idea of preeminence. In the culture of the Bible, the son who made the first trip down the birth canal was the preeminent son. God, however, has little interest in birth order. He's not bound by our cultural traditions. We'll see it again this week; we'll see it even more clearly next week. “Firstborn” in the sense He uses the word has almost nothing to do with birth order. However, He does use the word “Firstborn” for His Firstborn to emphasize His only begotten Son's preeminence.

So the Firstborn is preeminent. And the Firstborn is the Builder. Connecting the two ideas gives us our next Key Thought.

2 — The B____________ is p_______________ over the h____________.

Simple, “If a, then b,” logic would tell us that if the Firstborn is preeminent and the Firstborn is the Builder, then the Builder is preeminent.

It's Hebrews 3:3 again that tells us what the Builder takes preeminence over. Any builder takes preeminence over the house he builds; that's only reasonable. There's obviously more honour in actively doing the building than in passively being built.

And again from Hebrews 3:6 and 1 Peter 2:5-10, who is the Firstborn's “house”?

With some of the truths we'll be seeing from this study regarding how God sees His people and the privileged positions He has for them, we cannot overemphasize it. Christ has preeminence. With our natural tendencies toward self-worship, it is vital to get a good, firm grasp on Christ's preeminence.

Hebrews 3:4 adds another piece of vital information for us to know. This verse gives us yet another reason the Firstborn and Builder is preeminent (or, rather, it's not another reason. It is the reason.)

What does Hebrews 3:4 tell us about the Builder?

3 — The B____________ is God.

Using simple, “If a, then b,” logic, if Christ is the Builder and the Builder of all things is God, what does Hebrews 3:3-4 tell us about Jesus?

“Jesus is God,” is another truth it would be hard to overemphasize. The doctrine of Christ's deity (and the doctrine of His humanity) have undergone attacks through centuries of history. Church council after church council got together to answer the attacks, and always came back to the same, old position: “Christ is 100% God and 100% man; any attempts to solve the mystery of it are futile; any denials of it are heresy.” It's a position that still needs reiterating again and again because it's a position still under attack.

As vital as the truth of Jesus' 100% deity and 100% humanity is to our faith, no wonder it's a truth the enemy has concentrated much of his energy toward combating. I hope you can see that, biblically, it is a truth.

Because the Key Thoughts are a little scattered and disorderly today, I'll run through them one more time for you. Hopefully, they'll begin to make sense. “Part I — The Firstborn is the Builder. The Builder is building Himself a house. The Builder is preeminent over the house. The Builder is God. Part II — The Firstborn is the Heir. The Firstborn's inheritance is a house. His people are His house.”

When we're looking at the Firstborn as the Builder in our next few weeks together, we'll be looking at one, particular nation as the “house” He built. A nation is, of course, a very, very large family-line (at any rate, nations in the Bible began as family-lines).

We'll be looking in two directions for the next few weeks as we look at “the Builder.” In one direction, we'll be looking at the building of the nation Israel — moving from the time of its original, founding member, Abraham, to the time when Israel became a recognizable nation in its own homeland. Under the subject of the building of the nation, we'll look at the beginning of the promises, and we'll look at their fulfillment.

In the second direction, we'll be looking at the founding and building of a spiritual nation. Paul tells us in Galatians 3:7 that the true children of Abraham are the people of faith (see also John 8:39). Remember our two, iconic pathways that turned into two, iconic family-lines: “faith” and “flesh”? We'll be seeing our two pathways again this week. This time, the two, iconic family-lines will turn into iconic nations. You, like me, may be a Gentile in the flesh, but there is a “spiritual Israel” we can be a part of by faith.

Copy out any phrases from 1 Peter 2:5-10 which equate God's “house” with a spiritual “nation.”

This is not to downplay the importance of the literal, historical nation of Israel. The role they played (and have yet to play) in God's plan for the world is huge. They will always have a special place in God's heart as His “chosen people.” But the larger application of this week's (and the next few weeks') lessons will be about the building of God's “house” as inclusive of all His people — all His Hebrews 11:6 faith-heroes. All those come to Him in faith, willing to seek Him diligently, believing that He is who He is.

And that was my last thought-of-the-day. It's time for you to record some of yours.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 3: The Firstborn & The Builder — Heb. 3:1-6

Week 3, Day 2: Abraham, Part I — Hebrews 11:8

Today's Readings: Hebrews 3:1-6, 11:8, Gen. 11:26-32, 12:1-7, Psalm 127

* * * * *

Key Thought:

Part III — His p____________ are His h________s. (Heb. 11:8)

* * * * *

After the flood of Noah's day, the next big event in the history of the world as told by Genesis is a happening called “the tower of Babel.” We'll need to touch down on this story before we can land on Abraham's because the story of the tower of Babel sets the stage for the story of the beginning of the nation of Israel (which story was the story of Abraham's life). The tower of Babel comes in at the start of Genesis 11, right before Abraham comes in.

The “tower of Babel” was more than a tower. It was a city and a tower (Gen. 11:4-5). That's an important fact to know because the reincarnation of the city of “Babel” becomes very important again later on in biblical history. In fact, it becomes iconic. (Yes, you're going to hear a lot of that word.)

Quote the words of Genesis 11:4 which reveal the two, primary motives behind the building of Babel.

The people of Babel desired to build a tower “whose top may reach unto heaven” in order, a) to make a name for themselves and in order, b) to keep from being “scattered” all over the earth.

Funny thing! As to their second motive, God had commanded them to scatter. He issued this command to Noah and his descendants in Genesis 9:1: “Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth.” Humanity was meant to spread out and fill the earth. Pretty hard to fill the earth if all of earth's population has decided to cluster in one spot and to build a city large enough for that purpose.

Genesis 11:8 comments that God “scattered” the people abroad over the face of the whole earth. When humanity disobeyed His command to fill the earth, He made sure they “scattered” one way or another. We'll discuss His means of “scattering” briefly in a moment.

It's the a) motive I'd like us to concentrate most of our attention on today. The builders of Babel wanted to make a name for themselves. In other words, they were interested in self-glorification.

When I was much younger and learning this story in Sunday School, I had the idea that the goal of the builders was to build a tower tall enough to reach heaven — as in, God's perfect home. Even as a child, I thought it was a ridiculous idea. (I suppose I'd had a little education on the immensity of outer space.) Wherever God's heaven happens to be, no one could build a tower that tall, I reasoned.

Reading the story as an adult, I now have a better understanding of the “heaven” in Genesis 11:4. It's an old English word which simply means “sky” in this context. The builders of Babel wanted to build the first skyscraper. In their tower-building, they weren't thinking about God and His heaven at all.

The motives behind the building of Babel were ones of self-glorification and disobedience. The motives behind Babel were the same motives behind eating the fruit of the tree that became the tree of death. That fruit was the fruit of independence from God. Self-first. The fruit of the tree of life was the fruit of dependence on God. Faith. And here, in Genesis 11:1-9, is humanity, galloping down the same, old, well-trodden pathway of “flesh.”

Because of the motives for its building, Babel became a Scriptural icon of the way of the “flesh.” It became iconic as the city, the nation, and the people of pride. Self-worship. Independence from God. The city of Babel was eventually reborn as the city and nation of Babylon.

Can you think of anywhere in the Bible that Babylon appears as a symbol of the way of pride?

My thoughts turned instantly to Isaiah 14 — a passage descriptive of Satan's fall through pride and self-glorification. Isaiah 14 is addressed to “the king of Babylon” (v. 4). That title as applied to Satan makes good sense when we understand what Babylon came to represent in the Bible.

My thoughts also simultaneously turned to the book of Revelation and “Babylon the Great” (at least, “Babylon” thought it was) (Rev. 17-18). Again, I believe a major reason the name “Babylon” is given to the city and regime of the “man of sin” is because of Babylon's representation of the pathway of pride.

When it comes to the city/tower of Babel as iconic of spiritual truth, I was not far off the mark in my childhood understanding, thinking the builders of Babel were attempting to reach heaven all on their own. Contrary to the desire to build a tower to God's heaven, though, I believe the desire behind the tower of Babel was the desire for total independence from God. Humanity thought it could be its own god and make its own heaven. That is the still the direction most take who attempt towers of Babel. There are still those (astonishingly! Given the facts of human history!) who believe that we can create our own utopias on earth; that being our own gods will make a utopia of this earth. Like Satan learned, that kind of effort is only building a skyscraper to hell. Any striving to unseat God from His throne would turn into the foulest nightmare if it could be realized. Thank God it never can! He proved it in Genesis 11.

There are fewer and fewer who believe in God's heaven at all, but there are still some, believing in God's heaven, who take the route of thinking they can make it to God's heaven by their own efforts of goodness. This is another form of the tower of Babel. We have to understand that any attempt to reach heaven that exalts self, thereby debasing God, can never lead to heaven.

Can you see the foolishness of trying to reach God while ignoring what He has to say on the subject of how He can be reached? In fact, He does want to be reached. But He can only be reached on His own initiative. Unless heaven reached down to us, we could never reach up to heaven.

Back to the literal Babel, if God had let humanity go on in its natural course, the world would shortly have found its way back to the state it was in in the days of Noah. With their unity of language, God saw that, “...nothing will be restrained from them...” (Gen. 11:6). Whatever they chose to do they would do. But God had promised Noah never to destroy the earth again (by water). At Babel, God found a gentler, less extreme, but equally effective method of stopping humanity in its wayward tracks.

Remember that He divides to create? From Genesis 11:7, it seems that God created the seeds of all the nations of the world by creating the seeds of all the different languages. Then, He supernaturally separated people into language groups and so “scattered” them, dividing them through language.

The next thing we see from Genesis is God, busy doing His creating work of separating out for Himself a special nation; calling one of those nations created at the tower of Babel to be His own people. And that nation (as we saw yesterday) would also be iconic — iconic of the people of faith.

And...Part III — His p____________ are His h________s.

He had (and has) an inheritance for that nation, Hebrews 11:8 and Genesis 12:1-7 tell us. But that inheritance is claimed only through faith. We'll see more of it a little later on.

I've had you read the end of Genesis 11 which may look like verse after verse of irrelevant detail. Not so! Not only does it provide our introduction to Abraham (then, Abram), it introduces us to his family-line. Seeing this week's lessons revolve around the building of family-lines which are built into nations, we need to know a little something about Abram's family-line.

Who were Terah, Nahor, Haran, Lot, and Sarai in relation to Abram? Name each family relationship.

Each one of these members of Abram's family plays a significant role in his story.

Regarding brother Nahor, for now notice only that he stayed back in “Ur of the Chaldees.” He, for reasons unknown to us, didn't bother to set out on the travels of Terah with the rest of the clan.

Haran, Abram's other brother, is mainly important to our story as the father of Lot (and as the one to lend his name to the city where the little band of travellers stalled out en route to Canaan — the city where Terah died. We'll see more of Terah tomorrow.).

What I'd like us to notice today from the reading in Genesis 11 is something that struck me just recently — the method God used to guide Abram. A method He often employs in His guidance of me.

Quote the last line of Hebrews 11:8. Does Genesis 11:31 give you new insight into the method God used to guide Abram to the land He promised to give him as an inheritance?

When I first noticed Genesis 11:31 — really noticed it, possibly for the first time ever — I recognized God's method of guidance instantly from my own experience. God led Abram without telling him exactly where he was going. Hebrews 11:8 is very clear on that point. Boy, do I recognize that method!

The meaning I find in Genesis 11:31 is this: Abram and his family were already on their way to Canaan. We're not told why. But it was the direction in which they had been moving. In Genesis 12:1-3, when God spoke to Abram to call him to a land that He would show him, Abram's family had already been travelling toward it. Putting together Genesis 11:31 with Hebrews 11:8 and the information that Abram had no idea where he was going when he set out gives me this picture of God's guidance:

God: “Abram, get moving, and I'll bring you to a land I'm going to give you.” Abram: “Uh, okay. Which way?” God: (silence). Abram: “Hmm! Well, Dad was taking us off to Canaan. The only thing I know is that I'm not supposed to go back to Ur. Canaan's in the opposite direction. Uh, God? Should I just keep moving forward in the direction of Canaan, then?” God: (silence).

I suppose I visualize Abram's calling in this way, having experienced this method of God's guidance so regularly myself. Here's a little sampling of the way God often guides me:

Me: “Lord, You know I want to do Your will in this situation. Just not sure what it is. Any thoughts on the matter?” God: (silence). Me: “Okay, then. Well, I was thinking of doing such-and-such. It was kind of the direction I was heading already. Any thoughts on the matter?” God: (silence). Me: “Okay, Lord. I guess I'll go ahead with such-and-such, then. You'll stop me if it's the wrong way, right?” God: (silence).

He is the God who speaks. It's one of the first characteristics of His that we need to know. All the same, He doesn't talk just to fill airtime. He speaks when He has something to say that we need to hear.

Terah was already leading Abram and co. off to Canaan-land. God had already been guiding Terah, probably unbeknownst to Terah. (We'll see Terah's lack of relationship with the One True God tomorrow.) All God needed to do was get Abram on the hoof. He didn't need to change his direction.

In Genesis 12:6-7, we read of God speaking to Abram again — this time in Shechem in Canaan. God says (in effect), “Look around! This is it! You're here.” I looked up Shechem on a map. It's pretty much right smack-dab in the middle of the land of Israel. How long had Abram been wandering around in his promised inheritance before God let him know he was in the right place? Probably for some little time.

To finish off my scenario of God's guidance in my life, I'll sometimes find myself in a situation that resulted from a decision made weeks, months, or years earlier, after seeking God's leading and hearing only His silence. But in the middle of the later situation, then I'll hear God's voice. “Look around! This is it! You're here. I didn't need to speak to you earlier. I knew you'd go the way I had planned all along. Whether you can see it or not, I will always guide the one seeking to go My way.”

Can you give an example of God's guidance in your life when you “...went out, not knowing whither [you] went...” hearing nothing very clearly from Him on the subject? How did the story end?

Why does God seem to delight in leading us through the midst of uncertainty and silence? I think there can only be one answer: He leads us on the pathway of faith. And what is faith?

Faith is the s____________ that s___________ the u______________. Faith is believing that God is who He is and that He rewards the d_________________ s_______________. Faith is d___________________ on God.

Could you remember all the definitions I've given you? “Faith is the sight that sees the unseen; faith is believing that God is who He is and that He rewards the diligent seeker; faith is dependence on God.”

It's that last definition particularly that I see through God's method of guidance in Abram's life (and mine). He delights in leading us through uncertainty, in the midst of silence, because He delights in growing our faith. It is of vital importance to Him that we learn total dependence on Him. (“For we walk by faith, not sight,” (2 Cor. 5:7) is a verse we're going to see a lot of this study.)

I told you that faith in God is never blind faith. It's the lack of faith that is blindness. Yet there is certainly an aspect to the walk of faith that feels to us as though we're stumbling along blindly. Faith is not blind, but the walk of faith often leads us through dark places. We can't see where we're going; all we can see is the One leading us, step-by-step. And He often seems to be veiled in a thick fog.

Now. I want to tie God's leading in Abram's life back into the city/tower of Babel. We walk by faith, not sight. We walk by the sight that sees the unseen. The way of faith is the way of dependence on God. Conversely, then, the way of the flesh is the way of dependence on the visible and dependence on self. Israel started off as a tiny, invisible nation. Very invisible. The people of Babel were all about the visible. The very visible. The children of Abraham go out, not seeing where they're going. The Babel-ites build cities so they don't have to go anywhere. Certainly not anywhere they can't see or understand.

When God started forming His little, fledgling nation — iconic of the faith-pathway — He began with Abram “...not knowing whither he went...” Perhaps it was the only way God could start off a faith-nation. All this has great relevance to us. We must know that God's people will and must encounter a whole lot of walking by faith, not sight. God's leading will often mean a great deal of uncertainty that teaches us dependence on Him. Remember: the only way to claim our inheritance is by faith. Not sight.

One more thought, and then we're done. I've had you read Psalm 127 because it seemed to me that, “Except the LORD build the house, they labor in vain that build it...” had to fit in somewhere in a week of lessons on the Father and His Firstborn as Builders. The lesson on the tower of Babel looked like the obvious fit. True enough! If God doesn't want a house (or tower) built, it just, plain doesn't get built. (God is the Builder of everything, as we learn from Hebrews 3:4.) If God doesn't keep a city, the watchmen can't keep it. But if God does build a house, it stays built. Even the gates of hell have no power against it (Matthew 16:18). Hasn't the little nation of Israel proven the truth of it time and again? The way of the flesh and the visible looks safe and sound. The way of faith looks scary and uncertain. But the visible gives poor security for our deposit. Faith is the only way of safety and security.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 3: The Firstborn & The Builder — Heb. 3:1-6

Week 3, Day 3: Abraham, Part II — Hebrews 11:9-10, 11:13-16

Today's Readings: Hebrews 3:1-6, 11:9-10, 11:13-16, Genesis 12:1-7, 15:1-7, John 14:2, 2 Corinthians 5:1-7

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

Part III — His p____________ are His h________s. (Heb. 11:9, Gen. 15:1-7)

1 — The B____________ is building His p____________ a h________ and a c________. (Heb. 11:10, 13-16)

* * * * *

Let's jump right in today with a pop quiz. Let's do a little review on Abram's family-line.

Look back to the names of Abram's family members mentioned yesterday, and record them here.

What does Abram's family have to do with anything? Time for a Key Thought, and then I'll tell you.

Part III — His p____________ are His h________s.

We saw it yesterday; not only is God's Firstborn His Heir, His people are also His heirs. Under the second Key Thought for today, we'll take on the subject of the inheritance in greater detail, but from Genesis 12:7, 15:7, and Hebrews 11:8-9 we can see one part of the promised inheritance.

What was the promised inheritance of Genesis 12:7, 15:7, and Hebrews 11:8-9?

Which of Abram's family members listed above entered the Promised Land? Which ones didn't?

Let's take each family member individually to learn what we can about each one. First among those who crossed into the Promised Land with Abram, we'll just brush past Sarai/Sarah, Abram's closest relative — his wife. We'll get a better look at her in her own right tomorrow as one of the two faith-heroines listed in Hebrews 11. (Both are unlikely faith-heroines, I might add.)

Lot, Abram's nephew, also entered the Promised Land. If you've never read Lot's part of the story, please do so. You can find Lot's story in Genesis 13, 14, 18:16-33, and 19. I think you'll find that Lot looks like an unlikely faith-hero, as well. (I particularly want you to know his story because it will surface again in the very distant future when we get around to another unlikely Hebrews 11 faith-hero, Jephthah. From that lesson, we'll see the inheritance that God gave to Lot and his descendants.) Unlikely faith-hero or not, 2 Peter 2:7-8 tells us that Lot was a righteous man in God's sight. Three times in that passage he's called righteous or just. (That fact should make us jump for joy. Amazing grace!)

Three entered the Promised Land (including Abram). Three (of the names I listed for you) didn't. What do we know about Terah, Haran, and Nahor, Abram's father and brothers? About Haran — very little. He died back in “Ur of the Chaldees.” Then, the place where Terah died (near Canaan but not in it) was (presumably) named after this son (Gen. 11:28, 32). Beyond that, we'll leave Haran alone.

We know a little more about Nahor. This is seriously skipping ahead, but when Abraham's son, Isaac, married, he married his (I suppose) first-cousin-once-removed, Nahor's granddaughter, Rebekah (Gen. 24:15). This is even more seriously skipping ahead, but when Isaac's son Jacob married, he married his cousins — Rebekah's brother, Laban's, (Nahor's grandson's) daughters (Gen. 28:2). So Jacob's second cousin, Laban, was also his uncle who became his father-in-law (on two counts). Crystal clear?

The reason I mention these relationships is to point out Genesis 31:53, the striking of an uneasy truce to end a dispute between Jacob and Laban. Laban said to Jacob, “The God of Abraham, and the God of Nahor, the God of their father, judge betwixt us.” I suppose the first hundred times or so that I'd read this verse, I assumed that the God of Abraham and the God of Nahor (and the God of their father) was all one and the same God. I've come to see this verse differently for two reasons. For one, Laban was an idol-worshipper. The falling-out between Jacob and Laban happened in part because Jacob's wife, Rachel, had stolen her father, Laban's, household gods (his idols) and Laban blamed Jacob (Gen. 31:30).

When Laban called on the God of Abraham (Jacob's grandfather) and the god of Nahor (his grandfather) to judge between the two disputants, he was calling on two different Gods. He reminded Jacob that the god of Nahor was also the god of Terah — Nahor and Abraham's father. It's almost as if to say, “Pah! Who is this upstart, third-generation-only God you claim as yours? No one had ever heard of Him before your grandfather, Abraham. Your God can look out for you. I'll call on the god of my grandfather, Nahor, and the god of our ancestors to look out for me.” Laban was referring to two different Gods in Genesis 31:53 because he identifies the god of Nahor as the god of Nahor's father (and Abraham's father), Terah. It's the second reason I have for my new understanding of Genesis 31:53.

This is what Joshua 24:2 says (speaking about the “fathers” of the nation Israel who had dwelt on the other side of “the River”): “...Your fathers...even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor...served other gods.” For some more skipping ahead, Joshua 24:14 then commands the young nation of Israel, just on the verge of claiming Abraham's promised inheritance in the Promised Land, to “...put away the gods which your fathers served...” on the other side of “the River.” Joshua 24:15 is the famous, “...choose you this day whom ye will serve...” Joshua lays out the choice for the people as a choice between the gods their fathers served on the other side of “the River,” the gods of the people in whose land they dwelt, or the One True God. As for himself and his house, they would serve the LORD.

What's with all the references to “the River”? I'd always believed it to be the river Jordan — the border marker of Israel. However, the margin notes in my Bible assure me that “the River” is the Euphrates. It doesn't matter if “the River” is the Jordan or the Euphrates. The point remains the same.

What is the name of the land from which God said that He brought Abram out (Genesis 15:7)?

Terah, Nahor, Haran, Abram, Lot, and Sarai all hailed from Ur of the Chaldeans, apparently on the “other” side of the Euphrates. Ur would also have been well on the “other” side of the Jordan.

Do you know an alternate name for the nation of the Chaldeans in the Bible?

If biblical history is not your cup of tea, you may not have known that “the Chaldeans” are also called “the Babylonians” later in Scripture. From yesterday, do you remember what the city and nation of Babylon came to represent in the Bible? Are you seeing our two, iconic pathways and nations again?

In Genesis 12:1, God made Himself very plain to Abram on the point that Abram's receiving his inheritance of a Promised Land would involve a leaving-behind.

From Genesis 12:1, name the three things Abram was called to leave behind.

Curiouser and curiouser! Abram had already left Ur of the Chaldeans, his country. He took all his “kin” with him that would go. His father had already died and probably lived in a tent while alive. Why was Abram called to leave his country, his kin, and his “father's house”? It makes no sense until we remember that, in the Bible, a house often means a family-line and family-lines are often iconic.

I can understand the leaving-behind Abram was called to only when I remember that his nation and family-line were worshippers of “other” gods. In other words, I believe Abram, in Genesis 12:1, was being called to the leaving-behind of Exodus 20:3. “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

None of Abram's family who remained worshippers of false gods (we don't know positively that Haran worshipped other gods, but it's a fairly safe assumption) made it into the Promised Land. Abram, Sarah, and Lot all chose the One True God as their God, and all inherited Abram's promise from that God. The others all died on the “other” side of “the River.” The implication looks clear to me. A person can only cross “the River” into the Promised Land by recognizing who is the One True God.

Joshua 24:15 (“...choose you this day...”) informs us that the One True God can only be served freely by choice, but Deuteronomy 28:48-64 (among a long, long chapter of other terrible results) adds the information that choosing to serve the wrong god would result in the people of Israel not being allowed to remain in their Promised Land. They would be taken as captives and exiles by the people of the false gods they chose to serve. This promise/warning came very true.

What was the name of the nation which took God's nation captive after they chose the wrong gods?

Did you answer, “The Chaldeans,” or, “Babylon”? Both are correct. Oh yes, I'm seeing those two, iconic pathways loudly and clearly through Abram's story. The nation of Israel began in Babylon. It was called out of Babylon. When it went back to Babylon in its heart, God allowed it to return to Babylon bodily, as well. Choosing the gods of Babylon did not turn out to be a good choice for Israel.

What I can see clearly through this discussion is the principle that Promised Lands can only be entered and lived in by recognizing the One True God as one's own God.

Do you remember yesterday's principle that God's inheritances for His people can only be claimed by faith? Time for another pop quiz. Let's review one of the faith definitions I've given you.

Faith is believing that God is who He is and that He rewards the d_________________ s_______________.

Yesterday, we saw the faith that claims inheritances as the faith that learns dependence on God. It's not a far cry from the faith that believes God is who He is. Who is He? He is the One True God!

Today, I hope you're seeing that the faith which claims inheritances is the faith which recognizes God as the only One True God and the only God for me! (And you!)

And now, it's high time to talk about our other Key Thought and take a closer look at that inheritance which we can only claim by faith.

1 — The B____________ is building His p____________ a h________ and a c________.

Hebrews 11:9 tells us that the heirs of the Promised Land were all tent-dwellers. They lived in their Promised Land like nomads and foreigners. Why? Hebrews 11:10 and 13-16 tell us that these heirs looked to a different kind of country and city than an earthly one as their real inheritance. Hebrews 11:10 and 16 tell us that the Builder is building His people a city. John 14:2 and 2 Corinthians 5:1-7 also tell us that the Builder is building His people a house.

What are the “tents” of 2 Corinthians 5:1-7? What do “tents” symbolize in this passage (v. 6)?

Interesting that a verse as highly relevant to our study as 2 Corinthians 5:7, “For we walk by faith, not by sight,” is placed in the context of a passage contrasting “tents” with “houses.” The “tents” belong to the realm of the visible. They are visible but very impermanent. The “houses” are permanent.

If the “tents” of 2 Corinthians 5:1-7 are our earthly bodies, what are the “houses” of verse one?

Does this lend any new meaning for you to John 14:2 where Jesus said that His father's “house” held many “mansions” and that He was going away to build a place for His people?

I imagine John 14:2 contains more than one meaning, but when I compare it to 2 Corinthians 5:1-7, I realize that it may contain the meaning that the “mansions” mentioned in it are bodies. Not bodies like our earthly bodies but heavenly, spiritual bodies (1 Cor. 15:35-54). They will be mansions!

A “house” can be a family-line, but in 2 Corinthians 5:1-7, a “house” is a heavenly body — a lasting, permanent dwelling-place for the “real me.” The two meanings combined present this interpretation of John 14:2 to my mind. “In my Father's house [family-line] are many mansions [lasting, permanent (and glorious) dwelling-places for lasting, permanent (and glorious) members of God's family]...”

I'm only forty (“Only,” she says!) but my old “tent” is giving me grief already. Some days, I can hardly wait to see my new “mansion,” made anew into the image of the Firstborn and the Builder.

Abram and his fellow heirs lived in tents in their Promised Land. So do we. They lived like foreigners and nomads. So do we. We don't belong here forever. We know the impermanence of these “tents.”

Have you ever witnessed a worshipper of the visible, treating his or her “tent” as though he or she could turn it into a permanent dwelling? Give an example. Comment on the futility of such an exercise.

Those who don't look toward a city whose Builder and Maker is God have no other option. They look to the visible for their sense of permanence. But there is no permanence to be found there.

The builders of Babel attempted to reach heaven on their own. They tried to build themselves a visible, permanent city. But Babylon can never be the city of everlasting life. The city or nation of the flesh can only end in death because it lies on the pathway that leads to death.

Our inheritance that can only be claimed by faith is not just a Promised Land in this life. It's an eternal Promised Land in an eternal life. And that inheritance can only be claimed by faith, as well. We enter eternal life only be recognizing who is the One True God and claiming Him as our God.

Our as-yet-invisible houses and city in our true Promised Land have “foundations.” Their Builder and Maker is God. They will never crumble because He builds to last!

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 3: The Firstborn & The Builder — Heb. 3:1-6

Week 3, Day 4: Abraham and Sarah — Hebrews 11:11-12

Today's Readings: Hebrews 3:1-6, 11:11-12, Genesis 15:1-7, 16:1-6, 17:1-5, 17:15-19, 18:1-2, 18:9-15, 21:1-13, Psalm 127

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

1 — The B____________ is building His p____________ a h________ and a c________. (Heb. 11:11-12)

2 — His p____________'s i_______________ is the F____________. (Heb. 11:11-12, Gen. 15:1)

* * * * *

The gigantic faith of Abraham stuns me! I stagger back in awe, mouth agape, as I watch this pagan son of a pagan father of a very pagan culture coming out of his paganism to worship the One True God unreservedly, seemingly unquestioningly. I can't imagine he didn't have them, but we read very little of his doubts, his struggles, his agonies. The picture we're given of Abraham is a picture of a man —the only man at first — who heard the voice of a God that the rest of the world had tuned out. He heard; he listened; he believed; he obeyed. That's Abraham.

The mustard-seed faith of Sarah, on the other hand, makes me chuckle. I chuckle to find her included in Hebrews 11 as a faith-heroine. That chuckle is one of pure glee, however. If Sarah was faith-heroine material, there's hope for me yet.

I also chuckle over the divine sense of humour I can't help but notice in the pairing of a giant of the faith like Abraham with a “helpmeet” like Sarah.

If you have a problem thinking of God as having a sense of humour, you may want to skip out this lesson altogether. I'm planning on laughing my way through our lesson today. Not laughing at God, of course. Laughing with Him. Does God make jokes? You'll see!

First, let's look together at what makes me chuckle about Sarah. If you have a problem with the idea of Bible people, especially faith-heroes and heroines, having failings and flaws, you may also want to skip this lesson altogether. And the rest of this study. Faith-heroes were never meant to be captured-for-posterity in stained glass with beatific expressions on their faces and halos around their heads. They were real people in whom we can see ourselves. Their humanness gives me great encouragement.

I think any married, Christian woman attempting to live a life of obedience to God can breathe a sigh of relief over 1 Peter 3:6 where Sarah is held up as the model for Christian wives of submissive obedience to their husbands. I think I might almost be able to attain Sarah's level of submission.

From our introduction to Sarah in Genesis 16:1-6, paint a picture of Sarah: her personality and her relationship with her husband.

A note on Genesis 16 — its cultural background and its end result: this is more skipping ahead, but from the accounts of Jacob and his two wives and their two maids (Gen. 30), the cultural idea at the time seemed to be that any children which a maid bore (at least bore to the master) belonged to her mistress. This culturally-correct solution was not God's plan for Abraham and Sarah, however. But Abraham and Sarah didn't bother to ask God's opinion on the subject. They plunged ahead with what looked, according to their day and culture, to be the next logical step.

Abraham was the father of many nations as God promised (Gen. 17:4). But some of those were born "...of the will of man..." (John 1:13) not as a result of acting in obedience to God. There are many nations today which draw their lineage back to Abraham's firstborn son (according to the flesh), Ishmael. And these are the nations which are at war today with the descendants of Isaac.

Abraham and Sarah didn't bother to seek God's will before the fact of Hagar's pregnancy, but only God can create life. God created Ishmael. God created the nations that came from Ishmael. God loved Hagar and Ishmael. God loves the nations that came from them. Though I haven't added it to today's readings, God's tender care for the slave girl and her spurned offspring shows up later in Genesis 16.

God works through and does amazing things through the messes that we create by not bothering to seek Him in our decision-making processes. Still, if it's all the same, I'd rather remember to ask for His input in all of my decisions and try to do as I'm told. It's always nice to avoid messes whenever possible.

But back to Sarah. I can't help laughing as I read about this little firecracker and her reaction in Genesis 16:5 to the mess she'd created. Her plan succeeded, and Sarah learned the bitter lesson that the successes of our plans are sometimes much harder to bear than their failures.

I love the fact that Sarah, in the New Testament, is used as an example of faith and sweet submission while, at the same time, being so entirely, completely, absolutely normal (and even unreasonably, emotionally, hormonally reactionary). I don't know about you, but I'm encouraged.

Sarah's response to God's promise that she would bear a child looks no more exemplary than her attempts to make God's promises to Abraham come true through purely human means.

From today's Genesis 18 readings, retell Sarah's encounter with God.

I can picture Sarah, snickering under her breath to herself in (what she believes to be) the privacy of her own tent. Then, her alarm in realizing she has no secrets from the One addressing her. And then, the quick (and pointless) denial, “I didn't laugh!” Like the child with a smear of chocolate on her cheek and crumbs on her lips, "Cookies? I haven't been eating any cookies."

Here is a woman who took things into her own hands; bossed her husband; then, abused him for listening to her; led them both into a situation with major repercussions; laughed at God's promises; told fibs to her Creator; and still somehow, ended up in the Hall of Faith chapter as a heroine of the faith. I have only one thing to say about that: Hallelujah! I love seeing God's grace in action.

I know all translations don't reflect this interpretation, but Hebrews 11:11 clues the reader of the Bible in to a fact that he or she wouldn't have known otherwise. Hebrews 11:11 states by implication that Sarah, like Abraham, believed God and His promises and her belief was accounted to her as righteousness. Hebrews 11:11 also states by implication that Sarah believed God and His promises before they began to come true. Pretty pointless to talk about a person's “faith” in God's promise that she will conceive and bear a child after her belly is already swollen and she's experiencing morning sickness. Plainly, Sarah, somewhere along the way, learned to believe that God would do what He said before He began to do it. In fact, Hebrews 11:11 even implies that Sarah's pregnancy took place only as a result of her faith. “Through faith also Sarah herself received strength to conceive seed...” Almost looks as though God waited for Sarah's response of faith before doing that work in her.

Maybe it was the encounter of Genesis 18 that turned her into a woman of faith. “...for she was afraid...” (v. 15). The Knower of all secrets knew her secrets, and it scared her. The visitor she had believed to be just a man turned out to know all that was in her heart and then promised her the main desire she hid in her heart, proving the visitor was not just a man. Perhaps it was this experience, possibly her first person-to-person encounter with Abraham's God, that changed her from an entirely, completely, absolutely normal woman into a heroine of the faith. Encounters with God can do that.

There are other features of the story of Sarah and her encounter with God (besides her complete normalcy) that I love. I love God's interactions with her. “Where is Sarah thy wife?” He asked Abraham. Why? Didn't He know where Sarah was? Why would the Knower of all secrets, who could hear Sarah's private chuckles, have to ask where she was when she was standing only a few feet from Him?

I like to think it was because Sarah was standing only a few feet from Him. She was meant to hear Him. I imagine it was against all cultural norms for a guest to ask after the wife of the house (tent).

The point is, God was asking for her. It was the same kind of asking He did when Adam and Eve hid themselves from Him in the garden after their sin had broken the perfect relationship between God and man. He came looking for them. He called to them, "Where are you?" (Gen. 3:9) certainly not because He didn't know where they were but because He wanted them to know He was looking for them. His asking for Sarah was in the same order. He was looking for her. He came calling for her.

His calling for her gave her the chance to respond. When God called for Adam and Eve in the garden, He was not only letting them know that He still sought them; His calling let them know they had to respond. If they'd kept on hiding themselves from Him, what would have happened? We can answer that from other examples. Anyone who chooses can keep on hiding from God. He lets them.

And He asked after Sarah, giving her the chance to come out of hiding. Where was she? She was hiding behind the tent door. It was the only culturally-appropriate place for her to be while “the men” discussed business outside. Her place was in the tent.

Yet this “Man” (who was really God, the text reveals clearly) asked for her. He's not interested in hanging onto culturally-appropriate behaviour that keeps anyone hidden from Him.

I notice that until Sarah was willing to defy tradition and come out from behind the tent door, God kept right on addressing Abraham, though the message was clearly intended for Sarah's ears.

I love the fact that God asked for Sarah. Yet He waited for her to come to Him. So like Him! He is the God who is all-relational. And relationship is nothing if it is forced.

Then, I love the fact that He asked for her by name. And not her old name, either. God saw her in the reality of her new identity, though that identity had not changed visibly.

In Genesis 17:5 and 15-16, what names were Abram and Sarai given and for what stated reasons?

Abram: “high father.” Abraham: “father of a great multitude.” Sarai: “my princess.” Sarah: “princess of the multitude.” The tiny exhale of breath added to each name — the “ha” or “ah”— adds the meaning of “the multitude.” In other words, that little exhale signified God breathing life into the lifeless.

The little nation God would choose as His own began life from a man and woman entirely dead as to reproductive possibilities (Heb. 11:12). Only God can breathe life into the dead (Rom. 4:17).

Interestingly, in Genesis 17:17-19, Abraham greeted God's words regarding Sarai's name change by falling on his face (in reverence, presumably) while laughing. And here God revealed that the son Sarah would have should be given the name Isaac: “Laughter”!

And this is another thing I love about the facts as revealed in Genesis 18 with Sarah's encounter with God at her tent door. She wasn't scolded for laughing. If she was scolded, it was for her doubt in God's abilities. But I know laughter was the appropriate response to the situation because of Genesis 21.

Where do you see from Genesis 21:3, 6, and 7 that God does indeed make jokes?

By God telling Abraham to name his son Isaac, He seemed to be in on the joke. In fact, He was the Teller of the joke. He not only got it, He made it. Laughter is the proper response to a centenarian and his ninety-year-old wife producing a baby. Laughter is the right response to the fantastic, enormous, ridiculous miracle God performed in these two lives. All who hear this story should laugh (Gen. 21:6).

There will be laughter in heaven. I have it on good, Scriptural authority. Matthew 8:11 says straight out that Isaac — “Laughter” — will be in heaven.

The treatment of the story of Isaac's birth — and in fact, of all things Scriptural — in sepulchral tones with unnaturally long, “spiritual” faces is not somehow more pleasing to God than enjoying the jokes He makes. I don't ever want to forget that the God who created the eagle nebula and the milky way galaxy is also the God who created the proboscis monkeys and the baboons with the bright red bottoms. The God of the sublime and the ridiculous! He is the God who fills the spectrum of all good things.

And I love the fact that the God who created Abraham, that spiritual giant who rightly astonishes by his unwavering faith, gave him a wife like Sarah — so entirely, completely, absolutely normal. There's a place in God's heart for people on all different positions on the spectrum of faith.

On the topic of “Laughter” (that “ha” that God breathed into Abraham's and Sarah's lives), let's finish off today by tying in our Key Thoughts to the birth of Isaac.

1 — The B____________ is building His p____________ a h________ and a c________.

What is one definition I've given you of a biblical “house”? Pull together the first and last halves of Psalm 127 with that definition.

Without the understanding that a biblical “house” is often a family-line, Psalm 127 is puzzling. Why would it open by talking about God as the only true Builder of all houses and close by talking about the blessings of children that only God can give? After this week of study, I'm sure you know the answer.

Point out the building of a “house” as part of Abraham and Sarah's inheritance found in Hebrews 11.

Hebrews 11:10 and 13-16 are the pieces of our Hebrews 11 reading this week that yield the answer, “The Builder is building His people...a city.” We'll talk more about that city tomorrow.

It's in Hebrews 11:11-12 I see God building His people a house. And with that, the next Key Thought.

2 — His p____________'s i_______________ is the F____________.

Can you see that part of Abraham's and Sarah's promised inheritance was an heir — a firstborn?

Notice again from Genesis 21:8-13 that God's “firstborn” is the preeminent one — the heir — regardless of birth order. Ishmael was first, but he was not the heir of Abraham's (and God's) family-line.

Where in Genesis 15 does God promise Abram an heir? What was Abram's response?

And then we learn from Hebrews 11:11 that it was also Sarah's faith — even entirely, completely, absolutely normal Sarah — which enabled Abraham and Sarah to gain this part of their inheritance: their little “Laughter.” Oh yes, God's people do not get to claim their inheritance except by faith.

Genesis 15:1 cracks wide open a whole new meaning of, “His people's inheritance is the Firstborn.” We'll see it tomorrow. Just notice that God promised Himself to Abram as part of Abram's inheritance.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 3: The Firstborn & The Builder — Heb. 3:1-6

Week 3, Day 5: Abraham and Isaac — Hebrews 11:17-19

Today's Readings: Hebrews 3:1-6; 11:17-19; Genesis 22:1-18; Isaiah 53:10; John 3:16; 1 Peter 2:5-10; Revelation 21:1-3, 9-10

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

3 — The B____________ gave His F____________ for His p____________. (Heb. 11:17-19, John 3:16)

4 — The c________ is God dwelling with His p____________. (1 Pet. 2:5-10)

* * * * *

Today's glimpse into Abraham's life has to be the most astonishing one of all. It's astonishing not only as an example of the astonishing calibre of the astonishing faith Abraham possessed. It's astonishing as an astonishingly prophetic picture of a very astonishing fact.

A prophetic picture of what? Of today's first Key Thought. Of the Builder of a house who gave His Firstborn for the people of the house He's building.

3 — The B____________ gave His F____________ for His p____________.

Without wasting any time today, let's examine first Hebrews 11:17-19 and then Genesis 22:1-18, piece-by-piece, to see that prophetic picture unfold.

What is the evidence from Hebrews 11:17-19 that, in these verses, the writer had God's Son in mind?

Such turns of phrase as “...his only begotten son...” or “...his one and only son...” (compare to John 3:16) and “...God was able to raise him up, even from the dead...” show that the one who wrote these words, ostensibly about Abraham and Isaac, was really thinking about the fulfillment of the prophecy Abraham and Isaac prefigured on a mountain in Moriah (“Bitterness of the LORD”).

Go through Genesis 22:1-18 and pull out any facts that strike you as prophetic pictures.

I'll tell you some of the ones that are quite new to me, only recently noticed or discovered.

First, the duration of travel in Genesis 22:4. It was a three-day journey from starting point to destination. I can't imagine living through those three days. I can't imagine, putting one foot in front of the other, trudging ever onward to the place where I knew I would have to tie my son to an altar, plunge a knife into him, and set his body on fire. And going through three days of it.

And yet in Abraham's words to the men who had travelled with them, I see the hint of resurrection that the author of Hebrews highlights. “...I and the lad will...come again to you,” (Gen. 22:5) he said as he prepared to set off to the place where he fully expected to kill his son. Did he also expect to return with Isaac, then? He believed he was going to offer him. Yet he also believed he would return with him.

He knew Isaac was the son of promise through whom would be fulfilled all God's words to him about becoming a great nation. He'd seen God bring life from death already. Whatever God said, he believed. Resurrection from the dead, then, must have been the only logical solution for him. Yet though Abraham knew he'd receive his son back from the dead, Isaac was as good as dead for three days in Abraham's mind. Abraham didn't offer his son all in a moment. He offered him for three, long days while he was already dead to his father. Three days of death before a resurrection! Hmm! Any foreshadowing there?

Now, here's something I never would have noticed just from my English Bible. In English, we have the word “tree,” and we have the word “wood,” and though we know the two are obviously related, we understand the difference. I've learned that in the Hebrew, “wood” and “tree” are the same word. It's the context that determines which word is meant: “wood” or “tree.” So the Hebrew leaves room for Genesis 22:6 to say that Abraham took the tree and laid it on his son, and the two of them went together. Also, in verse nine, the translation could read, “...and laid him on the altar upon the tree.”

Logic (and Genesis 22:3) tell us that the translators have it right. Abraham placed wood (cut and split — Gen. 22:3) on Isaac to carry; then laid the wood on the altar and Isaac on top of it.

But what a prophetic picture this paints! It paints a picture of a loving Father, placing a tree on His only begotten Son for the Son to carry. And together and alone they walked the road up the hill to the place of “the bitterness of the LORD.” Then, the Father placed the Son on the tree.

We'll talk about how the Romans crucified Jesus or how His own people crucified Him or how the whole world crucified Him, seeing He died for the sins of the world. And all are true. On one hand, God's enemy instigated the crucifixion. And humans performed the deed. But there's another side to it.

According to Isaiah 53:10 and John 3:16, who was responsible for the sacrifice of God's Firstborn?

What reasons do Isaiah 53:10 and John 3:16 give for the Father's action in offering His Firstborn?

It pleased the Lord to bruise Him? How could that be? What kind of loving Father could be pleased to bruise the Son He loves? What kind of Father? A Father with the end in mind. A Father focused on offering the Son He loves because of a different love. A Father (and a Son) who refuse to think only of self, even only of each other. For Abraham, in his relationship with God, it was a question of, "Who do you love more? Are you willing to love Me more than even your beloved son?" For God (Father and Son), it was a question of loving the world. “...it pleased the LORD to bruise Him...” because “...he shall see his seed...” He had the end in mind. “For God so loved the world...”

Up to the halfway mark, this is the story we're told: the story of a Father offering His beloved Son for the sake of another love. But at the midway point, the object lesson changes. In verse twelve, we learn that God had never intended for Abraham to kill his son. He only intended Abraham to offer his son.

God would go all the way and “...make his soul an offering for sin...” But Isaac never could have been an offering for sin, belonging to the fallen race of Adam and being in the same, sinking boat as all the rest of us. Not to mention that God abhorred human sacrifice (as in, the slaying of humans as sacrifices). No, Abraham was meant to offer Isaac, as God had commanded, but God knew that He would never let Abraham go ahead with the slaying of Isaac.

The offering was complete when Abraham bound his son on the altar and poised the knife over him. Abraham had solved the problem to his (and God's) satisfaction of who would be first in his life. The relationship between Abraham and Isaac would never need to turn monstrous or disastrous. God had first place in their relationship. Abraham's “leaving-behind” of any other gods was total.

But there was a need for another sacrifice. There must be an exchange made. There can be no “remission” without the shedding of blood. And as Abraham said prophetically, “My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering.” He must have remembered those prophetic words when he named the place of the offering, Jehovah-jireh: “The-LORD-Will-Provide.” Apparently, it became an expression amongst the Hebrew people. In the Mount of the Lord it will be provided.

As I was reading this account through in preparation for writing this study, I wondered to myself if it was possible that the site of this particular mount in the “land of Moriah” could have been Calvary — Golgotha. Don't people talk about “Mount Calvary”? “Calvary's mountain”? “A hill called Calvary”?

If Abraham travelled three days to reach Moriah and he started in Beersheba (Gen. 21:33), it looks to me like three days' travel would have put him in the general vicinity of the area around Jerusalem. But it was my helpful concordance that led me to 2 Chronicles 3:1. “Then Solomon began to build the house of the LORD at Jerusalem in mount Moriah...” How fitting that Mount Moriah is connected (according to 2 Chronicles 3:1) to Jerusalem, the city where God's house was built and the city where Jesus died. Moriah, the land of the bitterness of the Lord. But in that land, God's Firstborn was offered, and the Lord began to build a house for Himself. And on that mount, it was provided.

I must say a few words about the ram that was caught by its horns. The prophetic picture of Genesis 22 is a dual one. On the one hand, Abraham's sacrifice of his son was a clear picture of a different Father and the sacrifice of His Son. On the other hand, there was a substitute sacrifice that God provided for the one under the death sentence. There was the ram.

Compare Genesis 22:13 to Psalm 118:27. Record any insights.

I'm beginning to think that there are no insignificant details in this astonishing Book. I was astonished by the mention of “three days” and the prophetic implications. I was astonished by my discovery of the Hebrew word for “tree” and “wood” being the same and that implication. I was astonished by the land of “the bitterness of the Lord” and the reference to that spot in 2 Chronicles 3:1. As to the ram and his horns, I was also astonished to remember Psalm 118:27b. which I'd discovered earlier in some of my grazing through the Bible. It got me thinking about the meaning of the ram and his horns that bound him. “...bind the sacrifice with cords, even unto the horns of the altar” (Ps. 118:27b.).

I did a little research and learned that when this Psalm was written the altar where animals were sacrificed had four horns, one on each corner (Ex. 27:1-2). The reason for the horns (from Psalm 118:27, at least) seemed to be for binding the sacrifice to the altar. But why horns? This got me thinking.

“Horns,” biblically, represent strength. The animals on the altar would have been horned animals: sheep, goats, cattle. Were the horns of the altar to which the animals were bound simply a cruel reminder that the animal was helpless and had lost its strength? Were the horns of the altar meant to represent that a superior strength had triumphed — that of man over beast?

When I think about the ram caught in the thicket by his horns, I begin to have a slightly different understanding of the horns on the altar by which the animal sacrifices were bound. To the ram in the thicket, his horns were his strength. All of his power and might were to be found in his horns. Yet it was those horns — it was his strength — that held him fast in the thicket. Then, it was the horns of the altar, those symbols of an animal's strength, that bound them to the altar.

In the fulfillment of all the prophetic pictures we're looking at today, it was the strength of the Sacrifice that held Him fast on the tree which was His altar. It was the strength of his love. Nails could never have held Him there if love wasn't enough to keep Him bound.

And that is what I see through the picture of Abraham and Isaac on Mount Moriah. As I come away from looking at this astonishing picture, all I can see is astonishing, astonishing love.

It was the Father who laid the Son on the tree. It was the Sacrificial Offering's strength that held Him there. It was the Father's love, not just for His Firstborn but a different love for different sons, that caused Him to do as He did. It was the love of God's One True Sacrifice, not just for His Father but for His people, that kept Him on the cross. Why would He love us like that? Why would He do as He did?

The answer is just as astonishing as every other astonishing piece of this astonishing account.

He did it for us; because we were under the knife and He couldn't see us go the way of death without providing us an out. But He did it for Himself, as well. This is the part I find truly astonishing. There's something He got out of the whole experience. Remember Isaiah 53:10? “...he shall see his seed...” Or His offspring. Or in the terminology of this week's lessons, His “house.”

And that brings us to our final Key Thought of the week.

4 — The c________ is God dwelling with His p____________.

It tells us the reason He gave His Firstborn for His people. It's because He's building Himself a house. And His house is His people. He's building His people a city. Why? So He can live among us, right in our midst. He really wants to be with us and to have us be with Him. Isn't it astonishing?

Remember the fact we saw yesterday very briefly from Genesis 15:1? The inheritance of God's people is God! The Father and His Firstborn. The Father gave His Firstborn for and to His people in two senses: He gave His Firstborn for His people to die for His people. But He also gave His Firstborn to His people to live with His people. The first makes the second possible.

Let's look at our final required readings for today to see the Key Thought that the city God is building is God Himself. And His Firstborn (who is God). But the city is also His people. In fact, the city is God and His people — dwelling together, just as close as they can be.

1 Peter 2:5-10 has been one of our key passages for the week. You may not have noticed before how it shows us that the city God is building for His people is God dwelling with His people. Here's how:

If you know, explain what the “Zion,” mentioned in 1 Peter 2:6, is.

If you didn't know, “Zion” is a city. It's often identified with the city of Jerusalem. It's usually identified, however, with Jerusalem as an iconic city. We've seen that Babylon is an iconic city in the Bible. So is Jerusalem. The earthly Jerusalem is iconic of a different Jerusalem that we see in Revelation.

Notice from 1 Peter 2:5 that God's people are “living stones” being built into a house. 1 Peter 2:6 and the mention of “Zion” also tell us that we, as living stones, are being built into a city.

In 1 Peter 2:6-8, who is the “chief cornerstone” on whom the house and city is built?

Do you see it? The cornerstone is the Firstborn. He's the foundation, but He's built into the house and city, right alongside His people, right in their midst. Revelation 21:1-3, 9-10 makes it even clearer.

What is “New Jerusalem” compared to in Revelation 21:2 and called in 21:9-10? Who is the bride?

Do you see from Revelation 21:2 and 9-10 that the city is the bride? The city is God's people. But Revelation 21:3 adds the vital information that the city is also God in the midst of His people.

He gets us, but we get Him! Obviously, we get the better end of the bargain. But He wants us. It's the reason He's building Himself a house and His people a city. It's the reason He gave us His Firstborn.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

WEEK 3 Group Study — Heb. 3:1-6, Heb. 11:8-19

Review Readings: Heb. 3:1-6, 11:8-19, Gen. 15:1-7, 1 Pet. 2:5-10

* * * * *

Key Thoughts for Review:

Part I — The F____________ is the B____________. (Heb. 3:3, 6)

1 — The B____________ is building Himself a h____________. (1 Pet. 2:5)

2 — The B____________ is p_______________ over the h____________. (Heb. 3:3)

3 — The B____________ is God. (Heb. 3:4)

Part II — The F____________ is the H________. (Heb. 1:2)

1 — The F____________'s i_______________ is a h____________. (Heb. 3:6)

2 — His p____________ are His h____________ . (Heb. 3:6, 1 Pet. 2:5-10)

Part III — His p____________ are His h________s. (Heb. 11:8-9, Gen. 15:1-7)

1 — The B____________ is building His p____________ a h________ and a c________. (Heb. 11:10-16)

2 — His p____________'s i_______________ is the F____________. (Heb. 11:11-12, Gen. 15:1)

3 — The B____________ gave His F____________ for His p____________. (Heb. 11:17-19, John 3:16)

4 — The c________ is God dwelling with His p____________. (1 Pet. 2:5-10)

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: The Firstborn & The Builder

1 — How do this week's Key Thoughts expand on this week's Hebrews Portraits of Christ? Review the Key Thoughts to share any new insights gained this week on Jesus as the Firstborn and the Builder.

2 — What connections can you see between this week's two portraits: the Firstborn and the Builder?

3 — Has any theme from this week's lessons emerged in a personal way for you?

4 — Using Abraham's story, elaborate on Jesus' statement that He came to fulfill the Law and Prophets.

5 — How does Key Thought Part III, # 4 tie together Key Thoughts Part II, # 1 & 2 and Part III, # 1 & 2? How does # 4 tie together all the Key Thoughts on the Firstborn and the Builder?

And finally, one last time for the week, please share any of your own discoveries this week about...

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 4: The Firstborn & The Builder (Part 2) Heb. 1-2, 3:1-6

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

Part I — The F____________ is p_______________. (Heb. 1:6, 11:20-21)

1 — ______________ is God's f____________. (Heb. 11:20, Gen. 25:23, 27:29, Ex. 4:22)

2 — _______________ is God's f____________. (Heb. 11:21, Gen. 48:14, Jer. 31:9)

Part II — The F____________ is the p_______________. (Heb. 2:16-17)

1 — God's S________ is God's F____________. (Heb. 1:2, 6)

2 — God's p____________ are God's f____________. (Heb. 11:20-21, Ex. 4:22, Jer. 31:9)

Part III — Because the F____________ is the p_______________ p_______________, His p____________ share His p_______________: (Heb. 1:6, 2:16-17, 2:5-11, 11:22)

1 — His inheritance... (Heb. 1:2, Gen. 25:33-34, Rom. 8:17)

2 — ...at the right hand of Power... (Heb. 1:3, 13; Gen. 48:14; Ps. 16:11; Eph. 2:6)

3 — ...because we are His house, His body, and His bride. (Eph. 2:19-22, 5:30-32)

Key words: Firstborn, Son, preeminent, prototype, people, position, Israel, Ephraim

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 4: The Firstborn & The Builder (Part 2) — Heb. 1-2, 3:1-6

Week 4, Day 1: The Firstborn and the Builder — Hebrews 1-2, 3:1-6

Today's Readings: Hebrews 1-2, 3:1-6, Psalm 16, Romans 8:17, Ephesians 1:20-23, 2:6, Colossians 3:1-3

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

Part I — The F____________ is p_______________. (Heb. 1:6)

Part II — The F____________ is the p_______________. (Heb. 2:16-17)

1 — God's S________ is God's F____________. (Heb. 1:2, 6)

Part III — Because the F____________ is the p_______________ p_______________, His p____________ share His p_______________: (Heb. 1:6, 2:16-17, 2:5-11)

1 — His inheritance... (Heb. 1:2, Rom. 8:17)

2 — ...at the right hand of Power... (Heb. 1:3, 13; Ps. 16:11; Eph. 2:6)

* * * * *

This week, we'll be looking again at Jesus as the Firstborn and the Builder. We'll see the Builder's next layer of “living stones” in His “house” and His nation. We'll be looking at the lives of the patriarchs (fathers) of the nation Israel which came after Abraham — Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph.

Through the three, short incidents recorded in Hebrews 11 from their three, long lives, I can see that the writer of Hebrews had the building of the nation Israel in mind. All three incidents happened at the end (or near the end) of the lives of Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. All three incidents were made remarkable only by what took place in the future of the nation Israel, and all three incidents were a looking-ahead to that future. Looking ahead with that sight that sees the unseen is the common thread.

However, our Key Thoughts this week are all about the Firstborn and His preeminent position because those are the Key Thoughts that stand out prominently from the life-stories of this week's Hebrews 11 faith-heroes. You can keep the Builder in mind, though, through everything we'll be learning about the Firstborn this week. It all relates.

As usual, we'll dive headfirst into our Hebrews-11-faith-hero portraits on Days 2-5, but today, we'll start by taking a look at our portraits of Christ as seen elsewhere in Hebrews. I feel a need to point out certain verses from Hebrews 1-2 which we'll be seeing a lot of in our Key Thoughts this week. Let's look at today's Key Thoughts along with those verses.

Two of the Key Thoughts may give you a sense of deja vu. You should know the answers to these two:

Part I — The F____________ is p_______________. (Heb. 1:6)

Part II — The F____________ is the p_______________. (Heb. 2:16-17)

How does Hebrews 1:6 show us the preeminence of God's Firstborn?

How does Hebrews 2:16-17 show us God's Firstborn as the prototype?

Under “The Firstborn is preeminent,” we'll see it again this week: in God's vocabulary, “the Firstborn” has nothing whatsoever to do with birth or birth order. It's all about preeminence. It's all about whom God chooses for His top spots. This fact makes itself so plain this week it rules out the possibility of coincidence. God's preeminent ones in His family-line are seldom literal firstborns. It begins to look very intentional. It begins to look as though God is highlighting and underlining and bold-typing the principle that He's not terribly interested in birth order when it comes to His firstborns.

Under “The Firstborn is the prototype,” I particularly like Hebrews 2:16-17. We're looking at the building of the nation Israel (Abraham being its first patriarch). Hebrews 2:16-17 reminds us that Jesus made Himself of “the seed of Abraham.”

God, of course, is the true “Patriarch” of the nation Israel. He alone is its real Father.

I love remembering that the true Father (both of Abraham and of the nation that came from him) became one of the sons of Abraham. We didn't get time to hit it heavily last week (I had too much else to say), but one of my favourite promises that God gave to Abraham is the promise that through Abraham and his seed, “shall all families of the earth be blessed” (Gen. 12:3). There can be little doubt that this promise refers to one of the family of Abraham named Jesus through whom all families of the earth are indeed blessed. That time in history when God would become man was one of His primary aims in building Himself a house and a nation through which He would come to earth. It lends new meaning to the sacrifice of Abraham's son to remember that the True Sacrifice was also Abraham's Son.

That Son, however, had this to say about Himself. “...Before Abraham was, I am...” (John 8:58, italics added). His listening audience understood what Jesus meant by His use of God's name, I AM, as applied to Himself. They didn't believe Jesus' claim to be God, but they understood it, all right (John 8:59).

By His statement in John 8:58, I'm reminded not only of Jesus' deity (and preeminence) but of His prototype-ness. He was first. He came before Abraham. He was “made like unto His brethren,” the children of Abraham, but properly speaking, His brethren were “made like unto” Him. He came first.

This next Key Thought should be a no-brainer. We've seen it all along. The Firstborn is not only Abraham's Son (and his prototype). Whose Son is He, really?

1 — God's S________ is God's F____________. (Heb. 1:2, 6)

How do Hebrews 1:2 and 6 show us God's Son as His Firstborn?

If it's a no-brainer that God's Son is God's Firstborn, this next one should be a brain-exploder.

Part III — Because the F____________ is the p_______________ p_______________, His p____________ share His p_______________: (Heb. 1:6, 2:16-17, 2:5-11)

I'd better give you the answers to this one. This Key Thought is so outrageous, I wouldn't dare to make this statement if Scripture didn't say it loudly and clearly first. It sounds like the height of heresy (considering the preeminence of the Firstborn over His house), but here are the answers:

“Because the Firstborn is the preeminent prototype, His people share His position.”

That statement is going to need some explanation and some Scriptural backing-up.

Hebrews 1:6 and 2:16-17 don't tell us anything about God's people sharing the preeminent prototype's position. They were chosen to show the Firstborn as the preeminent prototype. I also chose Hebrews 2:5-11 for Key Thought Part III, but if those verses were my only Scriptural defense for my outrageous Key Thought I'd hesitate to use them. Their interpretation is debatable.

There are other Scriptures, however, that have led me to the conclusion that, “Because the Firstborn is the preeminent prototype, His people share His position.” As we go through this week, we'll see that Key Thought brought out by our faith-heroes' stories. But there are other, even clearer passages.

To get to them, let's dig deeper into the Firstborn's position that His people share (so we're told).

1 — His inheritance... (Heb. 1:2, Rom. 8:17)

2 — ...at the right hand of Power... (Heb. 1:3, 13; Ps. 16:11; Eph. 2:6)

Hebrews 1:2 and 1:3 and 13 only tell us a little more about the Firstborn's position. That position (and two aspects of it: the Firstborn's inheritance and His place at the right hand of Power) will occupy a good chunk of our time and attention this week, so let's see that Firstborn's position from Hebrews 1-2.

From Hebrews 1:2, what is the Firstborn's inheritance?

From Hebrews 1:3 and 13, where is the Firstborn's place?

We've already done some thinking about the Firstborn's inheritance. Notice that, from Hebrews 1:2, He inherits “all things.” That's quite the inheritance! The Firstborn's placement at the right hand of God might need a little exploring, however.

What does the Bible mean by “at the right hand of...”? Why do you think “the right hand” would be the position of power?

The second part of the question answered the first part. “At the right hand,” biblically, is the position of power. It indicates (like, “Firstborn” — except normally in relation to a ruler rather than a father) top spot; first place; preeminence. A king or ruler would show publicly who was his #1 man by placing that man on his right-hand side — for instance, in the throne room or at the banqueting table.

When we read about James and John pushing their mother forward to plead for her sons to sit at Jesus' right-and-left-hand positions, we can understand why the other disciples were disgruntled (Matt. 20:20-24, Mark 10:35-41). James and John were asking for the #1 and #2 spots in Christ's coming kingdom. The other disciples had no reason to be indignant. It was the same, old argument in which they all regularly partook: who would be the greatest in the coming kingdom? (Matt. 18:1, Mark 9:33-34). Only James and John were honest enough to come out in the open with their bids for the top spots.

Jesus told James and John that those top spots weren't His to promise them. They belonged to those for whom the Father was preparing them (Matt. 20:23, Mark 10:40). Though I won't claim to know exactly what Jesus meant, I hope your brain will explode with the truths we'll begin to see today about those top spots and those for whom they've been prepared.

As to the second part of the question I asked you a moment ago, it's easy to imagine why it was “the right hand” that became synonymous with the #1 position. Most people are right-handed. The right hand is typically the hand of strength. It's by reason of the right hand being the hand of strength or power that “at the right hand” came to be understood as a position of power and authority. In Matthew 26:64, Jesus speaks of being at God's right hand as “...sitting on the right hand of power...” And that's where Jesus is, Hebrews 1:3 and 13 inform us. Jesus sits at the right hand of “...the Majesty on high...” until His enemies are His footstool — completely under His feet.

Hebrews 1:13 quotes from Psalm 110 which psalm I'd like to examine further. Psalm 110:1 speaks of “my Lord” (the Messiah) being seated by the LORD at the right hand of the LORD. (The all-capitals in most translations tell us that the original uses God's personal name in the verse.) But Psalm 110:5 says, “The LORD [all-capitals] at thy right hand...” (The “thy” is the Messiah).

The picture is this: the Father has seated His Son at His right hand. Yet the Son has also put the Father at His right hand. In other words, they've given each other the #1 spot.

But how can both be “at the right hand” of the other? Only one way: they can both be “at the right hand” of the other if they're facing each other. (More on the subject in a moment.)

Let's look at today's readings in Ephesians 1 and Colossians 3 to confirm that yes, Jesus is very definitely seated at the right hand of power — at God's right hand.

Note from Ephesians 1:20 and Colossians 3:1 where Christ is seated. Where in Ephesians 1:20-23 can you see that “at the right hand” is the #1 position of ruling power and authority?

Now. Are you ready for a little brain-explosion? Here's where we begin to learn about “those” for whom the Father prepared the coveted top spots mentioned in Matthew 20 and Mark 10.

Combine Ephesians 1:20-23 and Colossians 3:1 with Ephesians 2:6 and Colossians 3:1-3 and state the inescapable conclusion.

Was that the sound of a brain exploding I just heard? It might have been mine. These passages still have that effect on me, even though I've been mulling this week of lessons for some time now. It's clear from Scripture: Jesus shares His position at the right hand of the Power on high with His people! All His people. We are seated together with Him in the heavenly places! And He's seated at God's right hand.

If you want an even more explosive statement, you can check out Revelation 3:21 where Jesus promises those who “overcome” that they will sit down with Him on His throne, just as He sat down with His Father on His throne. I'm not making this stuff up! He is preeminent; there's no doubt about it. But because He is also the prototype, His people will share His position at the right hand of the Father.

I want you to notice from Psalm 16 the same turnabout of positioning that Psalm 110 showed us.

Where in Psalm 16 does David state God is at His right hand? Where does he state he'll be at God's?

It's the same idea as Psalm 110. David had put God in his #1 spot. As a result, God had done the same for him. And if they are both “at the right hand” of each other, there's only one way that works.

We need quickly to look at Romans 8:17 and the Firstborn as the heir. Romans 8:17 lays it out clearly. We are co-heirs or joint heirs with Jesus. Remember that His inheritance is “all things” (Heb. 1:2). I can't begin to fathom what it means to us, but in Romans 8:32, Paul writes that, with His Son, God will freely give us “all things.” And then there's Revelation 21:7: “He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son” (emphasis added). I have only one thing to add. POW!

Maybe that's enough of you hearing my brain explode today. Your turn.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 4: The Firstborn & The Builder (Part 2) — Heb. 1-2, 3:1-6

Week 4, Day 2: Isaac — Hebrews 11:20

Today's Readings: Hebrews 1:2, 6; 11:20; Genesis 25:19-34; Genesis 27; Exodus 4:22

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

Part I — The F____________ is p_______________. (Heb. 1:6, 11:20)

1 — ______________ is God's f____________. (Heb. 11:20, Gen. 25:23, 27:29, Ex. 4:22)

2 — God's p____________ are God's f____________. (Heb. 11:20, Ex. 4:22)

1 — His inheritance... (Heb. 1:2, Gen. 25:33-34)

* * * * *

More mind-blowing stuff today! We've seen it all along, so it should come as no surprise that God's Son is God's Firstborn. The surprise we'll see today (at least, I still find it surprising — even mind-blowing) is one of today's Key Thoughts.

2 — God's p____________ are God's f____________.

If God's Son is God's Firstborn, how can it be true that God's people are also God's firstborn? I have no answer to that. Well, perhaps the first, faint glimmerings of an answer. We won't get to it till Day 5.

For now, let's see the Scriptural support I have for saying that, in addition to God's Son, God's people are God's firstborn. I didn't say it! Or I didn't say it first. God did. See for yourself!

Read Exodus 4:22 and fill in the blanks.

1 — ______________ is God's f____________.

In context, the “Israel” which is spoken of in Exodus 4:22 as God's firstborn is the nation of Israel — God's people. Today, we'll take a look at another “Israel” who was also God's firstborn — His chosen one, His preeminent one. And I believe God's use of his name in Exodus 4:22 is highly intentional. I believe, with His statement in Exodus 4:22, God is (as I've said) “highlighting and underlining and bold-typing” the principle that, for Him, the word “firstborn” has very little to do with birth and birth order. (Tomorrow's lesson will highlight, underline, and bold-type that principle even more.) So what does God mean when He speaks of His “firstborn”? You know it by now.

Part I — The F____________ is p_______________.

I believe there is a double meaning to God's laying claim to “Israel” as His “firstborn son.” But remember that the primary meaning is this Key Thought: “God's people are God's firstborn.” Are you seeing, yet again, God's first Firstborn sharing His preeminent position with His people? I am.

Let's jump right in now to examining the life of the “Israel” whom, I believe, God claimed as His firstborn. Who was not a literal firstborn. Which fact appeared to have been the dominating feature on the landscape of his early life. (At least, in his mind.)

If you didn't know it already, you might have guessed from today's readings that the “Israel” I'm speaking of was also known as Jacob — “heel” or “he grasps the heel.” Jacob was the name he was given at birth. It's a name that makes reference to his wrestlings for preeminence over his brother (which, as you'll notice from today's readings, began in the womb).

How did God explain Rebekah's uncomfortable pregnancy to her (Gen. 25:23)?

Before he was born, who had already chosen Jacob for preeminence (Gen. 25:23, Rom. 9:10-13)?

Why was Jacob called Jacob (Gen. 25:26)? Of what would his name remind Jacob all his life?

It wasn't until an event which was the culmination of his life-long wrestlings that Jacob was given the name “Israel” in Genesis 32. (I haven't included the chapter among today's readings, but if you don't know the story of Jacob's wrestling match with God, please read it.) There is no universal agreement on what the name “Israel” means. I've heard it both as “prince with God” and “he struggles with God.”

Quite different meanings? Not necessarily. Those who wrestle with God often end up as His princes — His firstborn. Those who can take Him or leave Him alone (but mostly leave Him alone) do not. He leaves them alone. I've seen it often from Scripture: our treatment of Him is His treatment of us. His treatment of us is our treatment of Him. If we choose Him as Father, He chooses us as sons. If we give Him top spot, He gives us top spot. I don't want to declare dogmatically which is cause and which is effect — our treatment of Him or His treatment of us. Scripture portrays both or either as cause and as effect. It's too much subject for today's lesson, so I'll leave it alone at what I've observed in Scripture, and what I've observed is that there is a reciprocality — a two-way street — in our relationships with God.

I see that two-way street running between Jacob and God. Jacob wrestled with God. But in the end, he gave God top spot in his life. (We'll see it later this week.) God wrestled with Jacob. But He also gave Jacob top spot. If you'll remember the outcome of the wrestling match, God let Jacob win! (But he did lame him for life. Does that look as though Jacob won? All I know is, God said he did — Gen. 32:28).

Unavoidably, we've been focusing on Jacob so far this lesson. Although today's faith-hero is Isaac, we can't understand the incident from Hebrews 11:20 — Isaac's blessing of Jacob and Esau — without knowing a little about Jacob and Esau.

Before we can tackle the subject of that blessing, let's look at the birthright which was related to the blessing. The birthright gives us a glimpse into Esau's character. And here's comes our last Key Thought.

1 — His inheritance...

State your understanding of the birthright of Genesis 25:33-34.

My understanding of birthrights in the culture of the patriarchs is that a birthright, simply stated, was an inheritance. As far as I've learned, the birthright of the eldest son was a double portion of any inheritance a father had to give. The eldest got twice what any younger son received.

I daresay that Jacob was thinking largely about the material benefits of the firstborn's birthright when he bargained for it. (We don't have time for a complete character study on Jacob, but from what I know of him, it seems likely.) There was, however, a much more important benefit to the inheritance Isaac inherited from his father, Abraham, which would be inherited by Isaac's heir.

From Genesis 12:1-7, what was Abraham's inheritance which was passed down to Isaac?

To sum up Genesis 12:1-7, Isaac inherited God's promises to Abraham of a Promised Land and the role of progenitor of God's family-line. The birthright of the patriarchs conferred a blessing on the inheritor far beyond material blessings. But it was an invisible and distant-future kind of a blessing. In the sad commentary of Genesis 25:34, “...thus Esau despised his birthright.” To understand why it's a sad commentary, we have to realize what it was he “despised.” His inheritance carried huge spiritual implications.

Hebrews 12:16 calls Esau a “profane” or godless person for selling his birthright for a bit of food. Esau was essentially a materialist. The visible and the here-and-now consumed his attention. And Hebrews 12:17 implies that Esau's blessing also was taken away from him as a result of his lack of desire for his birthright. And his lack of desire for his birthright resulted from his lack of faith — his blindness to the invisible.

Jacob was not a spiritual giant in the beginning, but God saw something in him. He saw him as the right man to carry on His family-line. He saw a heart that could be melted and molded into a heart for God. Was it Jacob's grasping nature that gave him preeminence over Esau? Was Jacob's dissatisfaction with his lot in life a hopeful sign from God's point of view? How often does He use unfulfilled desires (or even more often, fulfilled desires which we soon learn can't live up to their promises) to draw us to Himself? Esau, in his self-satisfaction, was not drawn. Jacob, the grasper, was. Esau could take his birthright or leave it alone. Hebrews 12:16 lets us know that Esau's attitude toward his birthright reflected his attitude toward his father's God. He could take Him or leave Him alone. But mostly, leave Him alone. And God left Esau alone. Instead, He chose Jacob — Israel — as His firstborn.

With that background, let's (finally) get back to Hebrews 11:20 and Isaac's act of faith.

In light of the account of Isaac's blessing of Jacob and Esau in Genesis 27, is there anything that strikes you as out-of-place or odd about Hebrews 11:20?

Don't you find it strange that Isaac would be commended for his faith in blessing Jacob and Esau when Isaac had no idea what he was doing while he was doing it? He was tricked. His wife and younger son deceived him. Where does faith enter into the picture? What do you think?

How did Isaac's blessing of Jacob and Esau reveal his faith in God?

First of all, I think we need to realize that, however wrong the means used to attain the end, God had ordained the end of Rebekah and Jacob's deceit. God had told Rebekah his future plans for her two boys in Genesis 25:23. He had already picked Jacob out for the preeminent position. Israel would be His firstborn. He'd chosen Jacob. Rebekah and Jacob had no need to resort to trickery. God's purposes would have stood without their “help.” But we find that God's purposes came about through their wrongs. Through manipulation and deceit, Jacob received the birthright and the blessing that had always been intended for him. If God ordains the ends, does that mean He ordains the means? Not always. Not when the means are wrong. But even what He hasn't ordained He can use. And He did.

But why would Isaac's faith be commended from the scene in Genesis 27? Where was his faith shown? I think, in two different ways. First, I can clearly see the belief that the father's blessings, spoken before he died, were God-given. They were a kind of a prophecy that couldn't be reversed. The words spoken through the mouth of the father on the occasion of his final blessings to his sons were regarded as absolute. Isaac saw them as such. He believed that God would carry out the words he had spoken to Jacob in Genesis 27:29, making Jacob the preeminent son and passing on to him the inheritance of Abraham's blessing, because he believed God had given them to him.

On a deeper level, though, Isaac believed that God would carry out his plan for the world even through the deceit that had been enacted on him. This takes a very mature level of faith. This is the kind of faith the Apostle Paul exercised when he wrote, “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose” (Rom. 8:28).

Where in Genesis 27 can you see Isaac's mature level of faith in accepting God's will as his own? Contrast Isaac's acceptance with Esau's reaction.

In Isaac's understanding that God would work out His plan and His purpose, though not in the way Isaac had hoped God would work out his plan and his purpose, he showed an astonishing faith. This is a faith that forgives a wrong done because the injured party believes that God will somehow work out good through that injury. It's a faith that acknowledges that two of those closest to him had deceived him and cheated his favoured son and yet a faith that refused to withdraw his blessing, knowing that God would make it come true and God's will would prevail. It's a faith which recognizes that God is still in control of His world — no matter how it looks.

When I really start to think about it, there's quite a faith shown in the way Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau “...concerning things to come.” It was because his blessing concerned “things to come” that he could rest his faith in the One who held the “things to come” in the palm of His hand. Isaac, too, had his sights set on more than can be seen by the naked eye. He saw the “things to come” through the eyes of faith and knew that God would work it all out.

And God did. He had chosen Israel for His firstborn before Jacob ever made an appearance in the world, striving to come out ahead, grasping for dear life onto his moments-older-brother's heel. It was a grasping that set the pattern for his life. But a grasping that would, in the end, lead him to grasp after God with the same kind of tenacity. And God rewards the diligent seeker who catches hold of Him and won't let go.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 4: The Firstborn & The Builder (Part 2) — Heb. 1-2, 3:1-6

Week 4, Day 3: Jacob — Hebrews 11:21

Today's Readings: Hebrews 1:3, 6, 13; 11:21; Genesis 47:28-31; Genesis 48; Jeremiah 31:9

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

Part I — The F____________ is p_______________. (Heb. 1:6, 11:21)

2 — _______________ is God's f____________. (Heb. 11:21, Gen. 48:14, Jer. 31:9)

2 — God's p____________ are God's f____________. (Heb. 11:21, Jer. 31:9)

2 — ...at the right hand of Power... (Heb. 1:3, 13, Gen. 48:14)

* * * * *

We'll take our theme verse, Hebrews 11:21, in two parts today: first, Jacob's blessing of Joseph's sons.

Hebrews 11:21 skips over most of Jacob's life to arrive at his touching, deathbed scene.

Compare and contrast Isaac's blessings to his sons with Jacob's blessings to Joseph's sons.

In many ways, the set-up is the same: an old man, nearing death, his eyes dim with age, gives a blessing to his offspring. Against the father's wishes, the younger receives the firstborn's blessing. The main difference between the two situations lies in the intention of the one doing the blessing.

What did Jacob do to signify that Ephraim, the younger son, was being given the firstborn's blessing?

And that's our cue for a Key Thought.

2 — ...at the right hand of Power...

Here again we see “at the right hand” as the position of power and preeminence.

Jacob wasn't the only one who intentionally gave the younger brother preeminence over the elder, however. There was another party involved who chose Ephraim as His firstborn. And that's another cue.

Read Jeremiah 31:9 and fill in the blanks.

2 — _______________ is God's f____________.

Can you see why I say God highlighted, underlined, and bold-typed the principle that His idea of “firstborn” has little to do with birth and birth order? What is God's idea of “firstborn”?

Part I — The F____________ is p_______________.

Can it be coincidence that God made two statements in His Word, using the names of two younger brothers who are both famous primarily for being younger brothers (in fact, we know very little about Ephraim except his younger-brother-turned-”firstborn”-status), claiming both as His firstborns?

In Jeremiah 31:9, where God declares that Ephraim is His firstborn, I believe He's making two points: He's letting us know that when Jacob decided to reverse the expected order by putting Ephraim on his right and Manasseh on his left, whatever Jacob's motives, it was really God's decision first.

Jacob prophesied that Ephraim would become greater than his brother and his descendants more numerous and powerful, and it was true prophecy. It happened. God, for reasons of His own, did choose the tribe of Ephraim to become greater, more numerous and powerful, than the the tribe of Manasseh.

It was the fulfillment of Jacob's blessing that made possible God's second point in Jeremiah 31:9.

2 — God's p____________ are God's f____________.

In context, Jeremiah 31:9 is stating that God's people — His nation Israel (though remember, there's a broader application to that nation that covers all of God's people) — are His firstborn. Because the tribe of Ephraim became one of the largest and most powerful tribes of Israel, the name “Ephraim” is often used synonymously in the Bible with “Israel” to mean the nation of God's people.

I said that God, for reasons of His own, chose to give Ephraim preeminence over his brother. In the case of Jacob and Esau, we can see at least one reason God chose Jacob — because Jacob chose God. Esau could take or leave Him. In the case of Ephraim and Manasseh, we're told nothing about the characters of the two brothers. I don't know God's reasons for choosing Ephraim for preeminence, of course, but I can imagine at least one. I believe God was highlighting, underlining (etc.) the principle that the ones He chooses as His firstborns are seldom “firstborns” according to the flesh. I mean to say that He roots for underdogs. God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble (James 4:6). The Lord raises those who are bowed down (Ps. 146:8).

In Jacob's, Joseph's, and Ephraim's culture, the firstborn-of-the-flesh would take all the first prizes. He would expect (and receive) special treatment on all fronts. After all, he was the firstborn!

Can you imagine Manasseh's dismay to see Granddad Israel putting him second to his younger brother? If Joseph was displeased, what must Manasseh have felt? But through that act, God was giving Manasseh a special blessing — a blessing with which Ephraim (like all younger brothers) was likely very familiar: the blessing of not coming in first. The blessing of not winning.

If God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble, if God raises up those who are bowed down, being bowed down is one of the greatest blessings God can grant to us. It's just not a blessing we like.

How did Jacob's blessings spoken over Ephraim and Manasseh demonstrate his faith? Plainly, Jacob understood that his God was bigger than his culture. God's way is not often man's way. Man's first place is not often God's first place. Jacob had seen the fact from his own life. And he passed on that truth.

It's time, now, to look into the second part of Hebrews 11:21. When he was dying, Jacob worshipped, leaning on his staff. Where, in the accounts of Jacob's life, do we read of this occurrence?

I didn't know until I read Genesis 47:28-31 in a different version of the Bible than the version I normally read. Depending on your version, you may have already noticed Jacob worshipping, leaning on his staff in Genesis 47:31. Or you may have seen him there bowing himself at the head of his bed. Either alternate translations are possible for Genesis 47:31 or some “ancient manuscripts” describe Jacob worshipping, leaning on his staff while others describe Jacob bowing himself at the head of his bed.

Regardless of manuscript or translation differences, we have it on good authority that Jacob, nearing death, worshipped, leaning on his staff. Hebrews 11:21 tells us he did. Why is it a fact we need to know?

To answer that, I think we need to fill in some of Jacob's back story that Hebrews 11:21 skips over.

Let's back up to the place we left Jacob yesterday — at the end of Genesis 27.

Esau, as you've read, was murderously furious with Jacob after the events of Genesis 27. He threatened to kill Jacob, and Rebekah quickly hustled her favoured son out-of-country. On the first night which saw Jacob fleeing for his life, he camped at a place called Luz and dreamed a dream in which God appeared to him to reiterate to Jacob the promises He'd made to Abraham and Isaac. Plus more.

In the morning, Jacob set up a pillar of remembrance and renamed Luz as Bethel — “house of God.” But then he made a most astonishing vow. He vowed that the One True God of Abraham and Isaac would be his God...if God met all of Jacob's conditions. He'd give God a shot; see how He worked out.

It's fascinating to watch the old, self-serving, cheating, lying, asking-God-to-prove-Himself Jacob (aptly named “heel”) turn into Israel — that prince with God. The changes came about, in part, through getting a taste of his own medicine — through his dealings with Uncle Laban where the deceiver was deceived and the cheater got cheated. Gradually, through his years of serving Laban for his two daughters who became Jacob's wives, I see Jacob coming to a fuller understanding of who God is.

After he'd left Laban and was returning back home to Canaan, on the eve of his first re-encounter with Esau, this process of learning to know God blossomed and bore fruit when Jacob wrestled with Him.

There, he encountered God first-hand. There, he became Israel. And also, there, he was given a souvenir of his first-hand encounter with God — a hip made lame by a single touch. It was God's touch that told Jacob with whom he'd been wrestling, I believe (Gen. 32:25-30).

In Hebrews 11:21, of what are we reminded by learning that Jacob, at the end of his life, worshipped, leaning on his staff?

Of course, Jacob may have used a staff because of his great age, whether God's touch on his thigh had left him limping for the rest of his life or not. But where some “ancient manuscripts” or translations place the mention of Jacob worshipping and leaning on his staff — in Genesis 47:28-31 — we can see another remnant of God's touch.

Genesis 32:32 records an odd custom: “to this day,” the children of Israel refuse to eat meat that comes from the hollow of the thigh because their ancestor received God's touch upon that spot. Genesis 47:29 may record another custom that resulted from God's touch upon Jacob's thigh.

For what reason did Jacob ask Joseph to place his hand “under his thigh” in Genesis 47:29-31?

It appears that Joseph's placing of his hand under his father's thigh was a sign of a binding promise. I don't know enough about the customs of Jacob's time to know if this was the case before God's touch on Jacob's thigh, thereby signifying that God was making a binding promise to Jacob, or if Jacob was asking Joseph, in making a sacred promise, to perform a very sacred act by touching Jacob on or near the spot God had touched. Either way, I believe the Genesis 47:29 custom, like the meat the Israelites wouldn't eat, points us back to the time when God left Jacob with a bodily reminder of their wrestling match. God may have let Jacob win, but Jacob was the one who went away limping (Gen. 32:31).

In pondering why God saw fit to bless Jacob in this peculiar way, I couldn't help but think of a time when the apostle Paul had an encounter with God and came away with a bodily souvenir, as well. In 2 Corinthians 12, he writes about “a thorn in the flesh” (the body) that was given to him after being caught up “to paradise.” The “thorn” was intended to keep him from being “exalted above measure” (2 Cor. 12:7). Three times he asked God to remove the “thorn” and was given the answer, “My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness” (2 Cor. 12:9). Paul went on to say that he took pleasure in “infirmities” and all other kinds of apparent nastiness because, “...when I am weak, then am I strong” (2 Cor. 12:10). He embraced his thorn as a blessing through which God bowed him down to raise him up. Keeping him in a state of constant dependence on Himself was God's blessing to Paul.

Bodily souvenirs (as any wounded veteran could tell us) are souvenirs unlike any others. They never get lost; they never get shoved to the back of a drawer and forgotten; they never end up in the garbage. They are constant, daily, present reminders of past histories.

You need to know what happened next after Jacob's face-to-face encounter with God. These are events that will need to be remembered for Day 5's lesson.

After his encounter with God and his meeting with Esau (on the “other side” of the Jordan, according to my map), Jacob returned to Canaan (from Uncle Laban's in Haran). The next thing we find Jacob doing is purchasing a parcel of land in Canaan. This land was in Shechem (Gen. 33:18-20). Remember Shechem? It was the place where God spoke to Abram to tell him that he'd arrived in the Promised Land (Gen. 12:7). Immediately upon learning the news, Abram built an altar to God, an act which officially declared which God Abram now worshipped. After his purchase of the land in Shechem, Jacob did the same. He built an altar on his land and called it “El-Elohe-Israel.” It means, “God, the God of Israel.”

Then, in Genesis 34, Jacob's sons, in a long story I won't bother to retell, managed to make themselves odious to the inhabitants of the country around Shechem. God told Jacob to move on, back to Bethel — the place where God had appeared to Jacob in a dream and Jacob had made his vow.

Before heading for Bethel, Jacob had one final use for his land in Shechem. Do you remember Rachel, Jacob's favourite wife, stealing her father's household gods? Jacob told his household, in Genesis 35:2, to get rid of their “strange gods.” Then, he buried them under an oak in Shechem (Gen. 35:4).

Shechem, then, was the site of Abraham's first altar to God, Jacob's altar named, “God, the God of Israel,” and the burial place of the false gods of Jacob's household. (Highlight these three for Day 5.)

After Jacob and his family left Shechem, Jacob came full-circle back to Bethel where he kept his earlier vow to give his father and grandfather's God a try. God had kept His promises to Jacob. He had also met and surpassed the conditions Jacob had set out for Him. But I imagine there was a little more humility in his tone when Jacob, in Shechem and Bethel, claimed the One True God as his own God.

Through these incidents, are you again seeing the principle we saw last week that living in the Promised Land involves acknowledging the One True God as the One True God?

Jacob didn't spend the rest of his life in the Promised Land, however. Not because of a return to his false gods but because of God's plan for the world (which we'll see more of tomorrow), Jacob saw out his days in Egypt. Still, we know that at the end of his life, Jacob worshipped, leaning on his staff.

From Genesis 47:29, how does Jacob worshipping, leaning on his staff, tie in to his return to Canaan?

The promise Jacob extracted from his son, Joseph, was all about a return to the Promised Land. That return did, in fact, take place — the return and burial of his body (Gen. 50). And till the end of his life, Jacob remained a worshipper of the One True God. I imagine the bodily souvenir God had given him helped remind Jacob who was really God. His bodily weakness reminded him of God's strength.

In a small way, I've even seen it in my own life. Those “staffs” He leaves us with become reasons for worship. He turns our scars into stars — His strength made perfect through our weaknesses.

If God resists the proud but raises up the humble, we need to be bowed down before we can be raised up. If no one gets to live in the Promised Land with a false god in his luggage, the same applies to becoming God's firstborn. To be one of God's firstborn, the first false god that must be buried is pride.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 4: The Firstborn & The Builder (Part 2) — Heb. 1-2, 3:1-6

Week 4, Day 4: Joseph, Part I — Hebrews 11:22

Today's Readings: Hebrews 1:2-3, 6, 13; 2:5-11, 2:16-17; 11:22; Genesis 37; Genesis 41:14-44, Luke 15:11-32

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

Part III — Because the F____________ is the p_______________ p_______________, His p____________ share His p_______________: (Heb. 1:6, 2:16-17, 2:5-11, 11:22)

1 — His inheritance... (Heb. 1:2)

2 — ...at the right hand of Power... (Heb. 1:3, 13)

* * * * *

Again, Hebrews 11:22 skips over most of Joseph's life story to arrive at the end of it. If we're going to find any meaning in Joseph's death and burial, however, we need to know a little about his life.

If you've never read the complete story of Joseph from Genesis 37-50, it's a read well worth your effort. You'll have to do it on your own time, however. I'll only assign you bits and pieces of Joseph's story and leave you to fill in the gaps yourself (if there are gaps in your knowledge of Joseph's story).

Before we jump into Joseph's story beginning in Genesis 37, you need to know how Bible scholars view Joseph. Joseph is what is called (in Bible-scholar language) a “type” of Christ. A “type” simply means (in the language of this study) a portrait. Joseph's life painted a prophetic picture of Jesus' life.

With that said, now we can jump into the study of Joseph's life.

From Genesis 37 and 41, what stands out to you from Joseph's life as a “type” of Christ's?

To answer my own question, I came up with: he was rejected and betrayed by his brothers (Isa. 53:3, John 1:11). He was stripped of his clothing (Ps. 22:18, John 19:23-24). He was sold for silver by a Judah (Judas is a form of the name Judah) (Zech. 11:12, Matt. 27:3). Granted, Joseph was sold for twenty pieces of silver, and Jesus was sold for thirty, but we have to take into account the rate of inflation. (Yes, that is a joke.) His suffering was not on his own account but because of other's wrongdoing (Isa. 53:4-6, 1 Pet. 3:18). (We could argue that Joseph had no business in tattle-tale-ing on his brothers or in telling them his dreams of preeminence. I don't know about that. I do know that Joseph, as a member of Adam's fallen race, was fallen himself. I don't know the rights and wrongs of his tattling on his brothers or telling them his dreams. I do, however, know beyond doubt the rights and wrongs of his brothers hating him, wanting to kill him, and selling him into slavery.) He was exiled from his father's side and his rightful place (Phil. 2:6-8). He was falsely accused (Isa. 53:9, Matt. 26:59). (This incident falls in one of the gaps I left out of today's reading. If you don't know how Joseph ended up going from slavery to prison, I'll tell you quickly that it was indirectly because of his integrity and directly because of a false accusation.) He was taken from prison (Isa. 53:8, Matt. 27:15) for the sake of saving many lives (John 3:17) and then seated “at the right hand of power” (Heb. 1:3, 13). That's a cue if I've ever heard one.

2 — ...at the right hand of Power...

Where in Joseph's story do you see him “at the right hand of power”?

The words aren't used in Genesis 41, but when we remember what “at the right hand” signifies, the concept is very clearly found in that chapter. Joseph was made Pharaoh's right-hand man — put in the #1 spot, the position of power and authority — given second command (Gen. 41:40-44).

Let's rewind the film a little to see another of today's Key Thoughts from the life of Joseph.

1 — His inheritance...

We won't see Joseph as Jacob's preeminent heir from today's readings alone, but we do see him as the preeminent son.

How did Joseph's brothers rightly interpret Joseph's special clothing from his father (Gen. 37:3-4)?

Whatever else the robe Jacob gave Joseph signified, it certainly signified preeminence.

We can jump all over Jacob for favouring one son above the others and thereby helping create the tragedy that followed, but we have to remember the time and culture he lived in. The brothers would have thought nothing of one son being made preeminent. They would have expected it. The firstborn was normally treated with preeminence. It was a younger son being given firstborn status that grated.

From yesterday's reading, we can see that Jacob did, in fact, give Joseph the firstborn's birthright — the double-portion inheritance. After Jacob blessed Joseph's sons, he said to Joseph that he was to receive “one portion” above his brothers in regards to land Jacob had conquered (Gen. 48:22). The other brothers were to receive a portion, but Joseph was to receive two. This came true through the two half-tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh which came from Joseph. They were treated as full tribes when it came to land distribution after the Israelites returned to the Promised Land (Joshua 14:2-4).

So Joseph was his father's preeminent heir and his ruler's right-hand man.

I want to spend a fair portion of today's lesson on two articles that play small-but-important roles in Joseph's story: a robe and a ring. This is me reading into Scripture, but I'd like to use the robe as a symbol of the firstborn's inheritance and the ring as a symbol of the position “at the right hand of power.”

From today's readings, where does a robe play a role in Joseph's story (name two instances)?

Can you find other passages of Scripture where a certain kind of robe denotes a privileged position?

Besides the robes Joseph received from his father and then from Pharaoh, I thought of Daniel being given a robe by Belshazzar (Dan. 5:7, 29) as a sign of his position of third-in-command in the kingdom (that being the highest position Belshazzar had to offer him. History tells us Belshazzar was only second-in-command himself). I also thought of Haman, hinting to be clothed in the king's robe as a sign of his preeminence (Esther 6:7-8). But the tables were turned. Haman's enemy, Mordecai, was clothed in robes that denoted a privileged position (Esther 6:10-11, 8:15), and Mordecai did, in fact, rise to position of second-in-command — prime minister to the king of the Medes and Persians (Esther 10:3).

Finally, there were the robes of scarlet or purple that the soldiers mockingly (though rightly, if they had only known) clothed Jesus in before His crucifixion (Matt. 27:28-29, Mark 15:17-18). They were intended to poke fun at Jesus as the King of the Jews. Purple or scarlet robes spoke of royalty.

From these examples, you can see that a particular kind of robe was not always indicative of an inheritance. But it was indicative of a privileged position. And when Jacob gave Joseph the rich robe he gave him, it was indicative of Joseph's preeminence and of his birthright — his inheritance.

Where in Joseph's story do you see a ring playing a role?

Likely, it was Pharaoh's signet ring that was lent to Joseph in Genesis 41:42 — a sign of the king's own power and authority. Giving Joseph his signet ring would be, in our terms, giving him a rubber stamp of the king's signature. It would be giving him carte blanche to make decisions in the king's name.

Again from Esther's story, Haman, at one point, was given the king's signet ring to do as he wished with regard to wiping out all Jews (Esth. 3:9-11). But again, the tables turned, and Mordecai ended up with the king's ring and the authority to do what he could to reverse the decrees of Haman (Esth. 8:8).

Likely, you're already seeing why I chose the signet ring to represent the position of “at the right hand of power.” Now, keeping Joseph's story in mind, let's think about our last Key Thought for today.

Part III — Because the F____________ is the p_______________ p_______________, His p____________ share His p_______________:

I'd like us to look at this Key Thought — “Because the Firstborn is the preeminent prototype, His people share His position” — through the lenses of our last required reading for the day: Luke 15:11-32.

Compare and contrast Joseph's and the prodigal son's stories. What's the same? What's different?

There are many similarities, aren't there? Just the causes behind the similarities are different — vastly different. Both Joseph and the prodigal son were younger sons who were made heirs, but not by Joseph's asking; not so in the case of the prodigal son. Both were estranged from their fathers, but the cause of Joseph's estrangement was not his doing. Not so for the prodigal son. Both ended up undergoing hardship and famine. Not Joseph's fault, but again, not so for the prodigal son. As a result of the famine (though we didn't get to see it today from Joseph's story) both met their fathers again with much celebration on the part of the fathers. But Joseph helped to save his father from famine. The prodigal son came back to be saved from the famine by his father. And then there's the robe and the ring. Joseph, through his integrity and through paying the dues of years of suffering, earned the right to a royal robe and the king's ring of authority. The prodigal son, creeping back like a runaway cur with his tail between his legs, was given a robe and a ring from his father for...well, no discernible reason. Rather, I suppose the reason is discernible. Just not terribly fathomable. The prodigal son received the treatment he received because of his father's unswerving, unbending, unbreakable love for him.

Are you seeing what I'm seeing? Remember that Joseph is a “type” of Christ. His story ends well with robes and rings — inheritances and seats “at the right hand of power.” In the case of Christ, they are all rightly His. He didn't need to earn them. But if He had needed to earn them, He couldn't have done more than He did. He couldn't have suffered more than He suffered. Innocently.

On the other hand, there's a younger son who bought and paid for all the suffering he brought on himself. What he didn't earn in the least was his father's treatment of him. Right from the start of the story, the younger son received the same inheritance the firstborn did (Luke 15:12). The Father gave him half of all he had. The Father shared with him the inheritance of His Firstborn. Then, after proving himself completely undeserving, the prodigal was welcomed back to his Father's house and greeted with a robe and a ring and a fatted calf. And there can be no doubt about it: the prodigal is a “type” of us!

Now, please understand: the elder son in the Luke 15 parable is not a “type” of Christ. He's a “type” of the self-righteous who didn't realize that, in reality, we are all in the position of the prodigal.

But Joseph is a “type” of Christ. His portrait is a rather good likeness, even. And the startling truth we see when we compare the two stories is that they end the same. The undeserving prodigal ends up in a position similar to that of the very deserving Joseph.

I need to say a word or two (or paragraph or two) about the closing note in yesterday's lesson. I wrote (and I quote), “If God resists the proud but raises up the humble, we need to be bowed down before we can be raised up. If no one gets to live in the Promised Land with a false god in his luggage, the same applies to becoming God's firstborn. To be one of God's firstborn, the first false god that must be buried is pride.” There was more, a great deal more, I could have said. But it fits better into today's lesson. That “great deal more” to be said is all about the prodigal son, Joseph as a “type” of Christ, Hebrews 2:5-11, 16-17, and our preeminent prototype plus His position which His people share.

In Hebrews 2:9, how is Jesus our prototype? What makes our sharing of His position possible?

How is Jesus our prototype? What makes our sharing of His position possible? One word: death! First His; then ours. Remember that the pathway of faith often leads through suffering and always lies through death. Because of sin, because of our fallen, self-worshipping natures, the pathway of faith must always first run through a little death — the death of the old, self-first life. Of pride. Faith will always lead us first through the valley of humility where we are finally able to acknowledge that we cannot be our own gods. That there is only One True God. Humility feels like a little death because it is!

That death is called “repentance.” It's the first step in the faith that claims inheritances and enters Promised Lands. In the case of the prodigal son, it took the form of turning around and going home, rehearsing a little speech about how he was wrong after all and he couldn't quite manage life on his own, how he was no good to anyone, but could he please be taken back into his Father's house as a servant? It's often our own self-made suffering and famines which make us willing to endure the pain of the death of repentance. But there's no denying it. Death is painful. Even the slaying of pride which is repentance. Pride has a very tender skin. It shrinks away from the slightest prick.

But repentance is a necessary death to experience the bliss of the homecoming, the Father's tears of joy, the robe, the ring, and the fatted calf. In the end, there's no comparison between the rewards of the repentance and the short-lived pain of it.

Now. From today's faith-hero story, why was Joseph, that “type” of Christ, required to suffer? Why was he required to undergo humiliation in slavery and prison? For the saving of his “house” and world.

Hebrews 2:5-11 and 16-17 (and Philippians 2:5-9) give us a picture of a prototype who endured all we, because of sin, must endure. Though He has no sin and didn't need to be bowed down in order to be raised up, He did it as our prototype. He played fair. He asks nothing of us He wasn't first willing to do Himself. But because He suffered our humiliation and death, we now share His preeminent position.

There's only one way this makes sense. No, not makes sense. But there's only one thing that keeps this truth from being the rankest heresy. And that will be the subject of tomorrow's lesson.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 4: The Firstborn & The Builder (Part 2) — Heb. 1-2, 3:1-6

Week 4, Day 5: Joseph, Part II — Hebrews 11:22

Today's Readings: Heb. 2:5-11; 11:22; Gen. 33:18-20; 35:1-4; 50; Joshua 24:14-33; Acts 7:8-16; Ephesians 2:19-22; 5:30-32

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

Part III — Because the F____________ is the p_______________ p_______________, His p____________ share His p_______________: (Heb. 2:5-11,11:22)

3 — ...because we are His house, His body, and His bride. (Eph. 2:19-22, 5:30-32)

* * * * *

After our quick look at the life of Joseph, it's time for Hebrews 11:22 and Joseph's death and burial.

Does it surprise you, from what you know about the life of Joseph, that the writer of Hebrews would choose the last three verses of Genesis to represent all of Joseph's extraordinary, faith-filled life? Why not choose an incident like Joseph's amazing speech to his brothers in Genesis 50:19-21? Hebrews 11:22 surprises me. Especially when I consider Joseph's adopted culture and their views on the afterlife.

Briefly state your knowledge of the ancient Egyptian ideas about the afterlife.

It seemed the ancient Egyptians believed that, for a successful afterlife, everything hung on the burial. So the wealthy were buried with their wealth; the poor were buried with anything of value they possessed; bodies were preserved so that the soul would have some sort of a “house” to call home in the afterlife. Their thinking was, “You really can take it with you. And if you don't take it with you, you're going to be in trouble when you get there.” The invisible was dependent upon the visible.

Our modern culture takes it a step farther and refuses to believe in the invisible at all.

One way or the other, the worshippers of the visible have to pin all their hopes for permanence on the visible. Like the ancient Egyptians, our own culture seeks to preserve this bit of dust we call a body at all costs. Not only is a person's worth determined by what the “tent” looks like, but in all the elaborate rituals we undergo to keep it from wearing out (or from showing wear), we are only a step behind ancient Egypt. (I've seen women so well-preserved they were halfway to mummified already.)

By “we,” I don't exactly mean me (and I hope I don't mean you). I mean the culture of which I am unavoidably a part. No one is immune to their culture. And that cultural non-immunity is what I can't help seeing in Joseph's request that his body be carried back to Canaan. There is the unmistakable flavour of ancient Egypt all throughout Genesis 50...to the point that passersby, watching the proceedings in Jacob's burial said, “Oh, look! The Egyptians are here mourning their dead” (Gen. 50:11).

Had Joseph, in his last request, been imbibing his adopted culture's views of the afterlife? What difference did it make where his “tent” was parked? God was building him a “house.” He'd never need his “tent” again once his spirit left it. The invisible is not dependent on the visible.

It would hardly be surprising if Joseph accepted the Egyptian views of the afterlife. Throughout the Old Testament, the revelation of the truth about the afterlife is faintly seen. It's not until the last “Revelation” in the Bible that we receive the fullest revelation of it.

Whatever Joseph got wrong in his thinking, however, it was what he got right that is commended as faith in Hebrews 11:22. And what he got right was to know that his God was a Builder. God was building a house and a nation, and He had promised them a land of their own — the land of Canaan. It was Joseph's firm grasp on the truth of God's promises that was reflected in his final request.

There's something else I see in Joseph's last request that speaks to me of his priorities and his faith.

In doing a little studying on this subject, I unearthed some facts I find fascinating. Let's review.

Look back to Week 4, Day 3 (if needed) to record three events which happened in Shechem.

I should have said four events, I suppose, counting Jacob buying land in Shechem. In addition to Jacob's land purchase, there was Abraham building his first altar, Jacob building the altar named, “God, the God of Israel,” and the burial of Jacob's household's false gods which all happened in Shechem. I don't know that Abraham's altar and Jacob's altar were on the same site, but likely Jacob's altar and the burial place of the false gods were in the same area — the patch of land Jacob had bought.

In Joshua 24:14-33, what also happened in Shechem after the nation of Israel returned from Egypt?

Fascinating, isn't it? Shechem appears to have been, sort of, the place of decision: “Israel, which God will you serve?” It was, simultaneously, the site of altars to the One True God and the burial place of the false gods. In Shechem, Joshua told the people to put away their false gods and serve the One True God. They agreed, and a stone was erected as a witness to that decision. (I was interested to see the mention of “the oak” in Shechem in both Genesis 35:4 and Joshua 24:26. The same site, perhaps?)

Are you getting the idea that our inheritance — dwelling in the Promised Land (even being buried there) — involves a little faith; a proper understanding of who God really is and who is really God?

More fascinating stuff: then we learn from Joshua 24:32 that the land Jacob purchased where he erected his altar and buried his false gods also ended up as Joseph's burial place.

From Genesis 50:13, where was Jacob buried?

In Genesis 50:13, we learn that Jacob was buried with his fathers, Abraham and Isaac, in Hebron, in the cave of the field of Machpelah that Abraham had purchased as a burial place (Genesis 23, 25:9, 35:27-29). It's the only piece of land in Canaan that we have record of Abraham buying and owning.

Why wasn't Joseph buried with his fathers in the same spot? After all the trouble he went to to ensure his body made it back to Canaan, presumably to “rest” with his “fathers,” why didn't he “rest” with them? And why didn't Joseph, like Jacob, have his body carted back to Canaan immediately upon his death? Why was Joseph content to have his “bones” remain in Egypt for nearly four hundred years?

The answer I find to those questions from Joshua 24 is one and the same.

Whose inheritance did Shechem become according to Joshua 24:32?

From Joshua 24:29-30 and 33, why were Joshua and Eleazar buried where they were buried?

Bodies went with inheritances. And inheritances went to “houses” — family-lines. Then, logically, bodies went with “houses.” Abraham was buried where he was buried because it was the only land — the only inheritance — he owned. Isaac and Jacob were buried with their father because they were of his “house” and inheritance. Joseph allowed his body to remain in Egypt for four hundred years because, at that time, most of his “house” was in Egypt. It was vitally important to him to stay with his “house.” His “house” was in Egypt, but some of his “house” was buried in Canaan. He knew, from God's promises, that his whole “house” — his ancestors and his descendants — would be reunited in the land of Canaan. So he asked for his body to be taken back, too.

However, when Israel returned to Canaan, Joseph's “house” claimed its own inheritance, and in that inheritance, Joseph remained. Putting together all the pieces, Joseph's body, buried in his inheritance, was somehow a link between his fathers and his descendants — his whole “house.”

And here's what I see about Joseph's priorities in his final request that speaks to me of his faith — of his sight that saw the unseen. The ancient Egyptians were buried with what was of vital importance to them: the visible — gold, silver, jewels. As we know, King Tut was buried with his unimaginable wealth.

Joseph may have imbibed his culture's views on the necessity of being buried with what was of vital importance, but rather than the visible, false gods of gold, silver, and jewels, what was of vital importance to Joseph? The invisible. Relationship. It was (as I've said) vitally important to Joseph that his remains remain with his “house” —his family-line; both his fathers and his sons.

In his concern with what happened to his “tent,” Joseph may have been imbibing his culture's priorities. No matter. What really counted was his concern about his “house” — his family relationships. There, Joseph had been imbibing God's priorities. Joseph's God was (and is) all-relational.

I was put onto this train of thought in a very odd way — through Acts 7:8-16.

Point out the seeming-contradictions between Acts 7:15-16, Genesis 33:18-19, and Genesis 50:13.

When I discovered Acts 7:16 while studying for this lesson, I was mystified. Acts 7 is the first martyr's, Stephen's, speech before the Sanhedrin. Stephen was a man who knew the Word. Why the apparent slip-up, then? He stated that Abraham had purchased land in Shechem from the sons of Hamor, father of Shechem. Genesis 33:18-19 is clear. Jacob purchased the land. And why did Stephen seem to say that Jacob and all his sons were buried in Shechem when only Joseph was? Jacob was buried in Hebron.

I believe the answer lies in a peculiarly Hebrew way of looking at father/son relationships. I believe if we could ask Stephen our questions, he would look at us blankly, shrug his shoulders and say (something to the effect of), “Abraham, Jacob, his sons — what's the difference? Father and sons, they're all one.”

Why did Jacob choose land in Shechem to buy? Was it because it was the place where God had spoken to Abraham and Abraham had built his altar? In that case, Abraham's influence caused the purchase of Jacob's land. Can you begin to see why Stephen might have, indirectly, ascribed the purchase of the land to Abraham though we know the purchase happened through Jacob directly?

Perhaps the same thinking applies to Stephen's statement about the burial in Shechem. Joseph's body was the link between his fathers buried in Hebron and his own “house” in Shechem. In some way I can grasp only dimly, through Joseph and his body, fathers and sons were all “one” in their burials.

In Stephen's mind, having imbibed his culture's view of father/son relationships, what the father did, his sons did through him and vice versa. The plain, biological fact is that, at one point in time, fathers and sons are very literally one. All sons start off in the bodies of their father. The same flesh and blood. (See Hebrews 7:9-10 and 1 Corinthians 15:22 to see more of this peculiarly Hebrew viewpoint.)

I've said it was a peculiarly Hebrew viewpoint, but it's not a viewpoint peculiar only to the Hebrews. In fact, it's probably not a peculiar viewpoint at all. Our culture's individualistic viewpoint, from which you and I have been imbibing (probably, you don't much like the idea of being “one” with your parents), may be the peculiar one. I believe the Hebrews had somehow imbibed God's perspective on the matter.

I also believe that the Hebrews had been imbibing God's cultural perspective on father/son relationships because God was preparing them as a nation. God was preparing them for the time when God's Son would also become Man's Son and take on a human body — an earthly “tent.” He would form the perfect link between God and man. Between the Father and the “house” He was building.

From the “peculiar” Hebrew perspective, when Jesus called God His Father, His culture around Him said, “A-ha! He's calling Himself God's equal — one with God” (John 5:18). It was what they were meant to think. It was the truth. Jesus Himself said He was one with the Father (John 10:30, 17:11, 22). He was in the Father, and the Father was in Him (John 17:21).

But the astounding truth is that Jesus taught His followers to call His Father their Father. He said that His Father loved His followers — His adopted sons — with the love He had for His only begotten (John 17:23). As the Father was in the Son, so the Son would be in His people (John 17:23).

In fact, the three representations He gave to His followers to illustrate for them His relationship with them were representations of oneness. And here comes a Key Thought.

3 — ...because we are His house, His body, and His bride.

We've seen it through Joseph's story: bodies go with houses. We've seen it through 2 Corinthians 5:1-7 (last week): bodies are houses (or tents — impermanent houses). A “house” in the Bible can mean a family-line or it can mean a body — a dwelling-place for the spirit. As God's people, we're both kinds.

In Ephesians 2:19-22, point out how God's people are both kinds of His “house.”

So of the three representations Jesus gave us, His body and His house end up being the same.

From Ephesians 5:30-32, how do the “body” and the “bride” also end up as the same representation?

Fathers and sons (“houses”) were seen from the Hebrew viewpoint (and God's) to be the same flesh and blood. But husbands and wives were viewed as one body, one flesh and blood, also.

We've also seen from Joseph's story that bodies go with inheritances; inheritances go to “houses.”

Part III — Because the F____________ is the p_______________ p_______________, His p____________ share His p_______________:

I've said that there's only one thing that keeps the thought from being rank heresy. It is this: Jesus calls us His flesh and blood: His “house,” His body, His bride. This “oneness,” however, is not like His oneness with His Father. It is rank heresy to think we will ever be equal to God. He is preeminent. He is the Head. The “oneness” we share with the Father and Son is the “oneness” not of equality but of relationship. In His representations of Himself and His people, He chose three which allow for no easy separation. His desire is to erase all distance between us. Yes, Joseph's God (and ours) is all-relational.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

WEEK 4 Group Study — Heb. 1,-2, 3:1-6, Heb. 11:20-22

Review Readings: Heb. 1:2-3, 6, 13; 2:5-11; 2:16-17; 3:1-6; 11:20-22; Gen. 25:23, 33-34; 27:29; 48:14; 50:24-26; Ex.4:22; Jer. 31:9; Psalm 16:11; Rom. 8:17; Eph. 2:6; 2:19-22; 5:30-32

* * * * *

Key Thoughts for Review:

Part I — The F____________ is p_______________. (Heb. 1:6, 11:20-21)

1 — ______________ is God's f____________. (Heb. 11:20, Gen. 25:23, 27:29, Ex. 4:22)

2 — _______________ is God's f____________. (Heb. 11:21, Gen. 48:14, Jer. 31:9)

Part II — The F____________ is the p_______________. (Heb. 2:16-17)

1 — God's S________ is God's F____________. (Heb. 1:2, 6)

2 — God's p____________ are God's f____________. (Heb. 11:20-21, Ex. 4:22, Jer. 31:9)

Part III — Because the F____________ is the p_______________ p_______________, His p____________ share His p_______________: (Heb. 1:6, 2:16-17, 2:5-11, 11:22)

1 — His inheritance... (Heb. 1:2, Gen. 25:33-34, Rom. 8:17)

2 — ...at the right hand of Power... (Heb. 1:3, 13; Gen. 48:14; Ps. 16:11; Eph. 2:6)

3 — ...because we are His house, His body, and His bride. (Eph. 2:19-22, 5:30-32)

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: The Firstborn & The Builder

1 — Review the Key Thoughts to share any new insights from this week on the Firstborn and the Builder.

2 — Has any theme from this week's lessons emerged in a personal way for you?

3 — Why did God call both Israel and Ephraim His “firstborn son”?

4 — Explain why the Bible states that both God's Son and His people are His “firstborn.”

5 — What did this week's “firstborn” faith-heroes have in common with God's first “firstborn”?

And finally, one last time for the week, please share any of your own discoveries this week about...

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 5: The Firstborn & The Builder (Part 3) — Heb. 2:11-18, 3:1-6

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

1 — The F____________ became f________. (Heb. 2:11-14, 11:23-26)

2 — The F____________ bears f________. (Heb. 2:13, 11:23, Isa. 8:17-18)

3 — The F____________ beat the f_____. (Heb. 2:14, 17-18, 11:23, 27-28)

4 — The F____________ brings f____________. (Heb. 2:14-18, 11:28)

5 — The B___________ has a f___________ s___________ and a f___________ S________. (Heb. 3:1-6)

Key words: Firstborn, flesh, fruit, foe, freedom, faithful, Builder, servant, Son

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 5: The Firstborn & The Builder (Part 3) — Heb. 2:11-18, 3:1-6

Week 5, Day 1: The Firstborn and the Builder — Hebrews 2:11-18, 3:1-6

Today's Readings: Hebrews 2:11-18, 3:1-6, Isaiah 8:17-18

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

1 — The F____________ became f________. (Heb. 2:11-14)

2 — The F____________ bears f________. (Heb. 2:13, Isa. 8:17-18)

3 — The F____________ beat the f_____. (Heb. 2:14, 17-18)

4 — The F____________ brings f____________. (Heb. 2:14-18)

5 — The B___________ has a f___________ s___________ and a f___________ S________. (Heb. 3:1-6)

* * * * *

So far this study, you may think I've been harping on certain subjects. And it may seem as though my harp has only two strings. I mean, there are two prominent themes that seem to arise over and over. The two strings on my harp (in case you happen to be tone deaf and didn't notice my harping) are: a) our all-relational God and b) having no other gods before Him. I see an interweaving of the two strings. Because His people are in a covenant relationship (that He compares to a marriage) with the all-relational God, He requires our first love — no other gods before Him. He is “jealous” because He is love (1 John 4:8). Because of His great, great love for His people, He asks for our first love. It's how covenant relationships (like marriages) work. It's the only way they work. Don't expect my tune to change this week. More than ever, I find the theme, “God is love,” coming out in this week's lessons.

I hear occasionally from some Christians that some other Christians talk too much about God's love. I disagree. I think some may have a false, one-sided view of His love. Some may fall into the error of preaching God's love as a sweet and sticky, soft and squishy sort of substance that doesn't include His jealousy and His holiness — even His wrath and vengeance. (Yes, those traits are all wrapped up in His love, but that discussion would take the rest of this lesson, and I have too much else to say.) Yet if God is love — through and through, nothing in Him that isn't love — saying we talk too much about His love is like saying we talk too much about God! Can't be done!

I believe we cannot hear too much about God's love because an understanding and experience of that love is the root out of which grows every other necessity of the Christian life. A bold statement?

When asked what was the greatest commandment — what is the most important thing God wants from His people — Jesus answered that the first and greatest commandment is to love God with everything in us (Matt. 22:37-40). (There's my second string — no other gods; giving God our first love.) The second greatest commandment, loving others the way we love ourselves, springs from that first and greatest commandment. And those two encompass every other good thing God wants from us. So the first and greatest is the starting square for living the life God has for us.

But there's another starting square that starts us off on that starting square. 1 John 4:19 informs us that the only reason and the only way we can love God is because He loved us first. However, if I know nothing of that love, it will have no effect on me. I have to know and experience His love for it to do me any experiential good. The more we grow in an understanding of how God feels about His people, the more we'll grow in our love for Him. And the more we grow in love with Him, the closer we'll be to living the life we're meant to live. It's my defense for harping on the string I'll be playing a lot of this week.

I hope you've been astounded so far to see how God feels about His people — to see the relational “oneness” He yearns for with us. This week, we'll see the lengths He went to to make it happen.

We'll do so by looking at the life of Moses. We've seen several “types” of Christ so far this study, and this week will be no exception. We'll see, over and over, how Moses' life painted a picture of Christ's.

We've had two weeks already of Hebrews 3:1-6, and so far, I've sidestepped the second main character in the passage. The reason being, I was waiting to catch up to him in Hebrews 11.

To the average Jewish person, living during the time Hebrews was written, no one was greater than Moses, the Law-giver. Because he wrote much of the Law and Prophets, the name “Moses” came to be used synonymously with the Law. Remember the theme of Hebrews: Christ's superiority to the old ways? Hebrews 3:1-6 hits that theme hard. I like to add, “Christ is superior because He's the fulfillment of the old ways.” He perfectly fulfilled the Law and the Prophets. This week, I hope we'll see that He perfectly fulfilled the prophetic pictures of the life of the one who wrote a great deal of the Law and the Prophets.

What I'd like to do today is work through this week's Key Thoughts on the Firstborn and the Builder, seeing them unfold from Hebrews 2:11-18 and 3:1-6. Then, as the week progresses, we'll see those Key Thoughts and the life of the Firstborn unfold from Hebrews 11:23-28 and the life of Moses.

“The last shall be first” as # 5 is the summary of the week's lessons. It deals with the comparison of Moses to Christ in Hebrews 3:1-6. Both were faithful. Moses was a faithful servant. But Jesus was the only begotten, faithful Son. Moses was a “type” or a portrait. Jesus was the model for the portrait.

5 — The B___________ has a f___________ s___________ and a f___________ S________. (Heb. 3:1-6)

And now, we can take the Key Thoughts in order.

1 — The F____________ became f________. (Heb. 2:11-14)

I hope you've been able to guess from Hebrews 2:11-14 that this Key Thought is, “The Firstborn became flesh.” In author-time (as opposed to reader-time), Christmas has come around close enough to touch. Maybe it's the reason the traditional Christmastime passages keep finding their way into this study this week. We'll see the New Testament Christmas story on Days 2 and 3, but today's lesson brushes up against two prophetic advent passages from Isaiah. They fall under the next Key Thought.

2 — The F____________ bears f________. (Heb. 2:13)

By process of elimination when I gave you the Key Words that go with the Key Thoughts, you might already have deduced that this Key Thought is, “The Firstborn bears fruit.” What you might not have been able to deduce is where exactly in Hebrews 2:13 I find this Key Thought. Let me show you.

Copy out Isaiah 8:17-18. Underline the words that are quoted in Hebrews 2:13.

Like all chapter eights, chapter eight of Isaiah falls between chapter seven and chapter nine.

Glance back through Isaiah 7 and ahead through Isaiah 9 to pick out the traditional advent verses.

There's a running theme of sons or children in the three chapters. In Isaiah 7:14, the virgin would conceive and would bear a son, and his name would be called “Immanuel” (which means, “God with us”). In Isaiah 9:6, unto us a child is born and a Son is given, and His name (reading between the lines) would also be “God with us.” He would be called the Wonderful Counsellor (the all-wise One), the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, and the Prince of Peace. Pretty hard to escape the fact of this Son and Prince being the Almighty Father and the One, True King. Back to Key Thought # 1, God became flesh.

But where do I see the Firstborn bearing fruit? In Isaiah 8. We wouldn't know it if we didn't have Hebrews 2:13 to act as Cliff's Notes for us, but Isaiah, in Isaiah 8:17-18, was just quoting God's thoughts (even if he thought they were his own). Hebrews 2:13 tells us that it's the Firstborn who is being quoted in Isaiah 8:17-18. Likely, Isaiah thought he was speaking for himself when he stated in Isaiah 8:17 that he would wait on the Lord or put his trust in Him, and he doubtless thought he was speaking of himself and his own children when, in 8:18, he said that he and the children God had given him were for signs and wonders in Israel. But Hebrews 2:13 informs us that Isaiah was only quoting God's Son.

We know from their New Testament fulfillments that Isaiah was speaking of God's Firstborn in Isaiah 7:14 and 9:6. From Hebrews 2:13, we know that Isaiah 8:17-18 is speaking of God's people. Of us.

Oh right! You might still be wondering what Isaiah 8:17-18 has to do with the Firstborn bearing fruit. Fruit, like houses, in the Bible had more than one meaning. Fruit could mean any outward, visible result of an inward, invisible condition. Or fruit, like houses, could mean offspring — children.

This is getting confusing. How can the Firstborn — the Son — be the Father? Aren't they two different pictures of two different Persons? On the one hand, yes. On the other, remember the oneness of Father and Son? Remember Isaiah 9:6 — the Child, the Son, would be called the everlasting Father?

Isaiah 8:17-18, the prophecy that God's Firstborn will bear fruit, is flanked by Isaiah 7:14 and Isaiah 9— the prophecies that the Firstborn will become flesh. I believe He became flesh in order to bear fruit.

So tomorrow, we'll be exploring the fruit-bearing of the Firstborn as seen from Hebrews 2:13. He is the Builder, and the Builder is building Himself a house. Why? Because He is the all-relational One.

Okay, next Key Thought.

3 — The F____________ beat the f_____. (Heb. 2:14, 17-18)

Yes, I did have to do some scraping to keep my alliteration going. But however you'd like to phrase it, Hebrews 2:14, 17-18 is clear. The Firstborn became flesh to beat the foe so that He could bear fruit.

Remember that the reason for the writing of the book of Hebrews was to encourage the suffering Hebrew Christians not to turn back — to hang on to Christ. All suffering ones need to know that Christ became one of us. He was our merciful and faithful High Priest — the perfect intermediary between God and man because He was God and man. He played fair. He doesn't ask anything of us He wasn't willing to do Himself. But all suffering ones also need to know who wins! The enemy has been defeated.

4 — The F____________ brings f____________. (Heb. 2:14-18)

His was not the powerless, purposeless suffering we may often feel we endure. His suffering worked a powerful purpose. And that powerful purpose was our freedom. From sin and all its consequences.

When we see all these facts about the Firstborn come together this week, I hope you will be even more astounded to see how they all tell us in some new way of His astounding, astounding love. For us.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 5: The Firstborn & The Builder (Part 3) — Heb. 2:11-18, 3:1-6

Week 5, Day 2: Moses, Part I — Hebrews 11:23

Today's Readings: Hebrews 2:11-14, 11:23, Genesis 3:14-20, 35:10-11, 35:16-19, Exodus 1, 2:1-10, Matthew 1-2

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

1 — The F____________ became f________. (Heb. 2:11-14, 11:23)

2 — The F____________ bears f________. (Heb. 2:13, 11:23)

3 — The F____________ beat the f_____. (Heb. 2:14, 11:23)

* * * * *

I'd like to start by matching up the prophecies Matthew tells us were fulfilled by the birth of Jesus and the other accounts you've read today. It will mean a little extra reading, but I hope you won't mind.

Match up the Matthew quote with the original source of the quote:

_____ 1 — Isaiah 7:14

_____ 2 — Isaiah 9:1-7

_____ 3 — Jeremiah 31:1-16

_____ 4 — Hosea 11:1-4

_____ 5 — Micah 5:1-2

a — Matthew 1:22-23

b — Matthew 2:5-6

c — Matthew 2:15

d — Matthew 2:17-18

e — Matthew 2:22-23

Even the people who wrote the margin notes in my Bible couldn't find the source for Matthew's, “He shall be called a Nazarene” quote, so I chose Isaiah 9 which opens by speaking about “Galilee of the Gentiles.” Don't blame yourself if you couldn't follow my reasoning on that one. It was a little obscure.

You may have had a hard time finding some of the other quotes, as well, seeing I embedded them in their contexts. There are reasons for the contexts I included. We'll see them later.

You'll have to use some imagination for the next part of the exercise, but do your best.

Match up the prophecy with today's reading. (One of the a, b, c, or d passages will be used twice.)

_____ 1 — Isaiah 7:14

_____ 2 — Isaiah 9:1-7

_____ 3 — Jeremiah 31:1-16

_____ 4 — Hosea 11:1-4

_____ 5 — Micah 5:1-2

a — Genesis 3:14-20

b — Genesis 35:10-11, 16-19

c — Exodus 1, 2:1-10

d — Matthew 1, 2

If your imagination works the way mine does, maybe these were your answers 1 — a, 2 — d, 3 — b, 4 — c, 5 — b. If your imagination doesn't work the way mine does, I'll explain my answers as we go on.

Let's start with Isaiah 7:14 and the virgin who would conceive and give birth to “God with us.”

1 — The F____________ became f________.

In Isaiah 7:14, I see the “seed” of the woman (notice, not the seed of the man — a hint toward the virgin birth perhaps?) who would crush the enemy's head. But only through His own pain and suffering.

3 — The F____________ beat the f_____.

Genesis 3:15 is the very first Messianic prophecy. As soon as the problem entered the world, God began giving out hints about His solution. Intriguingly, I find that same hint all throughout Genesis 3.

According to Genesis 3:16, in, through, or with what would the woman give birth to children?

Of what is God speaking in His last words to the man in Genesis 3:19?

To the woman, God spoke of suffering. To the man, God spoke of death — not only his own but the death of the earth. The sign of that death was the thorns and thistles the earth would produce. It was a sign of (what I call in a non-technical sense) the second law of thermodynamics; the downhill tendency of the earth and everything on the earth that can only end in one end — death.

Yet to the woman, God also spoke of new life. From that time on, new life could only come about through pain and suffering. Not the pain of the new life being brought into the world but the suffering of the one bringing the new life into the world. Do you see that hint of God's solution? Do you see God's image stamped on woman in a very specific way through the pain of childbirth?

To the man, God also spoke of new life — the life that springs from the ground. Fruit. Yet that new life only comes about through the pain of hard, onerous toil. And through death. The dust from which the man was formed returns to the dust. Yet from that return to dust comes new life. You might not instantly see this hint of God's solution unless you happen to be a gardener, but as one who likes to get her hands dirty, I understand the concept of new life from death. The only nutrients we can put back into the soil are the remains of that which was once alive. And from those nutrients grows new life.

2 — The F____________ bears f________.

Genesis 3 talks about fruit — both the human kind and the, well, the fruit kind. You may not have thought of it before, but the human kind continues only through the death of the fruit kind. Every time I put a bite of food in my mouth, something died — an apple, a grape, a grain of wheat — to give me life.

Did you notice two common threads running through all of today's required readings: 1) childbirth and 2) suffering+death? It's in the intertwining of those two threads that I find the two points of today's lesson: 1) because of sin, new life only comes about through suffering and death. And 2) through suffering and death also comes the triumph of the Conqueror. In other words, the Firstborn became flesh in order to bear fruit and beat the foe. But it took His suffering and death.

I need to say a few words on the foe. Repeatedly, Jesus called Satan “the prince” or “ruler of this world” (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11). Genesis 3 also shows us the power exchange that put Satan in that position. Genesis 1:28 records the coronation of the first rulers of the earth. Not its ultimate rulers but its governors. God put the earth under the “dominion” or governance of the first humans.

Romans 6:16 tells us that whoever we obey we make our master. When the first humans chose to obey Satan and join him in rebellion against God, they inadvertently made him their master, thereby giving him governance of the earth. Satan became “the prince of this world.” But there is only one King.

Through that hint of the triumph of the Conqueror in Genesis 3:15, then, I see that through suffering and death comes the triumph of the true King over the foe — the prince of this world.

Bearing in mind that we're talking about the King and His triumph over the ruling powers of this world as well as His fruitfulness, let's look at Genesis 35 with Micah 5:1-2 and Jeremiah 31.

Where in Genesis 35 do you see hints of the King? Fruitfulness? Suffering and death?

Are you seeing it? Immediately before Rachel's death in childbirth, God gave Jacob some big promises: promises about fruitfulness and the triumph of the King.

Match Micah 5:1-2 and Jeremiah 31:1-16 respectively with the themes of kingship and fruitfulness.

In Micah 5:2, the theme of kingship or rulership is obvious. Interestingly, when seen in its context of verse one, Micah 5:2 also hints toward the suffering of the Ruler to come from Bethlehem Ephratah.

From the piece of Jeremiah 31 quoted in Matthew 2, the suffering is made obvious. What you won't see just from the quote in Matthew is that the context of the entire passage is fruitfulness.

Likely, you're able to see why I linked Jeremiah 31 with Genesis 35 and the story of Rachel's death in childbirth. In Jeremiah 31:15, it's Rachel who is weeping for her children. The immediate historical context was a promise of the return of God's people from their exile in Babylon. The future historical context was Herod's slaughter of the baby boys around Bethlehem. The past historical context of Jeremiah 31:15 was Rachel and her overwhelming desire for children. When her first, Joseph, was born she named him, “May he add,” (Gen. 30:24), even in the birth of her firstborn thinking of the other children she longed for. When her second son was born, she named him “son of my sorrow.” His father renamed him “son of my right hand.” (Remember that right-hand position of power and authority? Notice the intertwining of suffering and kingship. Fact: Israel's first king came from the line of this son.)

Rachel's great longing for children, in the end, cost her her life. Childbirth was risky business back in a day. But women went on having children. Why? Because of a God-given instinct to bring about new life, even at the cost of suffering and the risk of death. The God-given maternal instinct, even in the animal world, seems to be much stronger than the instinct for survival. What mother wouldn't give her life for her child? Again, I see God's invisible characteristics all over His visible creation.

I can see why God used Rachel's name in Jeremiah 31:15. We're being reminded of a parent-love so strong it overpowers every other instinct. And we're being reminded of Another who loves in that way.

But the strange truth about Jeremiah 31:15 and the “Rachels” who refuse to be comforted over the loss of their children is Jeremiah 31:16: fruitfulness. “Rachel's” labour will be rewarded.

You may not have been able to see why I decided that Micah 5:1-2 related to Genesis 35; it's because of two names used in both passages. And here you need to know more name meanings.

Ephrath or Ephratah, the original name of Bethlehem, means “bearing fruit.” Bethlehem is “house of bread.” The area in which Rachel gave birth to Benjamin was a fruitful region. Other fact: Israel's second king (and also Israel's true King) came from Bethlehem. In a sense, then, all the ruling lines of Israel originated in Bethlehem, house of bread. In another sense, from Micah 5:2, Israel's true Ruler had no beginning. When He came to the “house of bread,” He came down as bread from heaven (John 6:58).

Through the story of Benjamin's birth and Rachel's death, I see the converging of suffering and death with fruitfulness and kingship. Through suffering and death came new life and the triumph of a king.

And now we're heading for Egypt and the piece of Moses' life that Hebrews 11:23 tells. Hosea 11:1-4 reminds us that God brought His son, Israel (or Ephraim — “fruitful”) out of slavery, suffering, and death in Egypt. In Exodus 1 and 2:1-10, we see the beginning of that story — the birth of a deliverer.

Like Rachel, I see in Moses' mother (and father) an instinct for the protection of one's offspring so strong it overrides the instinct for one's own survival. The king of Egypt had issued the edict that all baby boys were to be thrown into the river. Disobeying the king meant certain death if discovered.

We're told in Exodus 2:2 and Hebrews 11:23 that there was something about the way Moses looked that prompted his parents to spare his life. Really? Was Moses an exceptionally beautiful baby? What if he'd been red, wrinkly, and puffy? Would his mother have said, “Oh well. Into the Nile with him, then”?

Of course we're not being given some kind of objective statement about Moses' looks in Exodus 2:2 and Hebrews 11:23. We're being given a purely subjective statement about the way Moses' mother felt when she looked at her son. Some may call it natural maternal instinct. I call it instinct, too, but I call it a God-given instinct, meant to reveal through His creation a little more of who He is.

Hebrews 11:23 tells us that Moses' parents were not “afraid” of the king's command. Were Moses' parents an anomaly of nature? Were they missing the basic survival instinct of normal people (in the same class as those who bungee jump and sky dive)? Of course, in Hebrews 11:23, we're not being given an objective statement about a lack of natural, instinctual fear. There was a stronger instinct at work in Moses' parents that overruled their fear. (I believe this instinct was also at work in Pharaoh's daughter.) And Hebrews 11:23, in the case of Moses' parents, calls the obedience to that God-given instinct faith.

At the end of the three months that were Moses' first three months, I see in his mother's desperate act the desperation that a desperate faith, with no imaginable plans for the future, sometimes calls for.

I can imagine Moses' mother, coating her basket in tar and pitch and saying to herself, “All right, Pharaoh-me-fine-laddie. 'Throw him in the river,' you say. So that's exactly what I'm going to do. No one will be able to say I haven't followed orders to the letter.” And Moses was sent to the place of death.

But he was “drawn out” again. He was “drawn out” of the place of suffering and death into a new life and raised up to be a prince. To jump ahead, Moses, “prince of Egypt,” became the deliverer of Israel. Through Moses (and his God), Pharaoh met his death. As did Pharaoh's firstborn.

Out of suffering and death came a new life and the triumph of a deliverer over the ruler of Egypt.

When I read in Matthew that God's Son was “called out” of Egypt, I'm reminded that in order for God to call His Son out of the place that had come to represent slavery, suffering, and death, He was first sent there. I'm reminded of Hebrews 2:11-14 and the Firstborn becoming flesh — taking on our suffering and death — in order to beat the foe and bear fruit.

And finally, let's look at Matthew 1-2 and the life of the One whom all these hints point toward.

There is a strong emphasis in Matthew's gospel of Jesus as the King of the Jews. It's the reason I chose Isaiah 9:1-7, a prophecy about the Prince of peace who sits on David's throne, to correspond with Matthew 1-2. It's a prophecy with no historical fulfillments other than through the life of the true King.

“The King of the Jews” shows up plainly in Matthew 1-2. Matthew starts by delineating Jesus' pedigree as the Son of David and Abraham. Then, he devotes his second chapter to the reactions of other “kings” to the true “King of the Jews”: the worship of “we three kings” and the treachery of Herod.

As with Moses, the “ruler of this world” sensed a threat to his dominion and acted ruthlessly, working through another ruler who sensed a threat to his dominion. And again, there is the sad link between childbirth and suffering and death. “Rachel” wept inconsolably in Bethlehem after the birth of the King.

But we know how the story ends, don't we? One Son of Bethlehem was saved to grow up and say these words of Himself, “Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit” (John 12:24). And these words on the eve of his death: “A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world” (John 16:21). Through suffering and death came new life and the triumph of the King, the Deliverer, and the Conqueror over the ruler of this world. The Firstborn became flesh, He beat the foe, and we are His fruit.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 5: The Firstborn & The Builder (Part 3) — Heb. 2:11-18, 3:1-6

Week 5, Day 3: Moses, Part II — Hebrews 11:24-26

Today's Readings: Hebrews 2:11-14, 3:1-6, 11:24-26, Genesis 46:31-34, Exodus 2:11-25, 3:1, Numbers 12:3-8,

Luke 2:1-20, Philippians 2:3-11

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

1 — The F____________ became f________. (Heb. 2:11-14, 11:24-26)

5 — The B___________ has a f___________ s___________ and a f___________ S________. (Heb. 3:1-6)

* * * * *

If Matthew's emphasis in his gospel is Jesus as the King of the Jews, Luke's is Jesus as the Son of Man.

1 — The F____________ became f________.

Luke delights in Jesus' humanity. Not just His humanity, but as seen from Luke 2, His humility.

If you're an observant type, you may have noticed the theme of humility running through today's readings. You may also have noticed the theme of shepherds. They are related themes.

Genesis 46:34 is relevant cultural background information necessary to today's exploration of the life of Moses from Hebrews 11:24-26 and Exodus 2-3.

From Genesis 46:34, what was the Egyptian feeling toward shepherds?

Joseph explained to his family, after their move to Egypt, that they should present themselves to Pharaoh as shepherds only under the auspices of shepherding being an ancient family trade. He was banking on the Egyptians' respect for family tradition outweighing their disrespect for shepherds.

How enlightening it is for us to know, however, the dim view Egyptians took of shepherds. Joseph's family had been nomadic shepherds certainly from the time of Abraham, and it seems they continued on shepherding even after their settlement in Egypt. Doubtless, they were still shepherding in Moses' time (when they weren't building Pharaoh's storehouses for him, that is). I don't imagine Egyptian prejudices toward shepherds had dissipated by the time Moses came along. It's not in the nature of prejudices to fade away gradually down through the generations. Prejudices, if not dug up and rooted out, only solidify over time — then, petrify. It helps to explain the status of the Israelites in Egypt in Moses' time.

We see, from Exodus 1, that Pharaoh's harsh treatment of the Israelites grew out of his fear of them. With the cultural background information of Genesis 46:34, his fear makes sense. Prejudice breeds fear.

All this is just setting the stage for us to better understand the course Moses' life ran. The point of today's lesson (as you may have guessed) is that of Numbers 12:3 — the humility of Moses.

What does Numbers 12:3 state about Moses?

Moses takes a lot of flak for Numbers 12:3. “If Moses wrote the book of Numbers, then Moses wrote that he was the most humble man on earth,” some chortle. “How humble could a person be if he thought he was the most humble man on earth?”

It's doubtful that Moses wrote he was the most humble man on earth. The first five books of the Bible were, to some extent, a collaborative effort as seen by the account of Moses' death (which he certainly didn't record) in Deuteronomy 34. But if Moses did write of his own humility, his admission of it doesn't negate his humility. That's a faulty view of humility. Humility is not false modesty. It's not trying to forcibly lower one's opinion of oneself for the sake of thinking poorly of oneself. It's a willingness to lower oneself in order to raise another. It's essentially other-centredness.

And it is, to a God who is essentially other-centred and all-relational, a very necessary quality in what He calls faithfulness.

5 — The B___________ has a f___________ s___________ and a f___________ S________.

Notice, in Numbers 12:7, God's validation of Moses as His servant, faithful in all His house (the validation quoted in Hebrews 3:5), comes in the immediate context of the statement of Moses' humility in Numbers 12:3. Moses' faithfulness and subsequent raising-up in God's eyes grew from his humility — his willingness to lower himself.

What quality of Moses is being pointed out in Hebrews 11:24-26?

With the build-up I gave you to that question, I handed you the answer on a silver platter. In Hebrews 11:24-26, the writer takes out his first-century version of a highlighter to draw the quality of humility out from the events of Moses' life.

In fact, he draws between the lines to draw out this theme. From the straight narrative in Exodus 2, Moses' motives in refusing to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter and “...choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin...” look rather different than “...esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt..."

Briefly retell the incident that resulted in Moses' flight from Egypt in Exodus 2:15.

Hebrews 11:27 says, “By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king...” when, to all appearances, Moses' fear of the wrath of the king was his very reason for forsaking Egypt.

But in order to understand what the writer of Hebrews meant by, “By faith he forsook Egypt...” we need to back up to the part of the story before the part where Moses “forsook Egypt.” Sure, Moses may have fled Egypt in order to save his own skin, but why did his skin need saving? In other words, why did Moses kill the Egyptian taskmaster? It's in that act that I can begin to see where the writer of Hebrews was coming from. In fact, before that act, I can see Moses already beginning to “forsake Egypt.”

To whom did Moses go “out unto” in Exodus 2:11 (exact wording, please)?

What a telling statement! Why did Moses seek out “his brothers” or “his own people”? Why did he look at “their burdens”? Why did he kill the Egyptian? Because he saw an Egyptian beating one of “his brethren.” There's that telling phrase again: “his brethren.”

Moses' kinship, his national identification, his very heart belonged with the slaves of the nation of Israel. Not with the splendour of the palaces of Pharaoh. He knew who he was. In the “his brethren,” I can't help hearing Moses' own plea of justification for the murder he committed. “Can't you understand why I did what I did? Don't you get it? He was beating one of my brothers! My brothers!”

And in fact, I do get it. I can imagine a kind of temporary insanity overpowering my limbs, causing them to do something they ordinarily wouldn't, at the thought of an overseer laying a whip on the back of my brothers (or sisters) or any of my family.

It was in his complete identification with his people that the writer of Hebrews finds the motivation he ascribes to Moses for refusing to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt, and by faith, forsaking Egypt. Perhaps some of those choices were made indirectly after the slaying of the Egyptian, but in that act of momentary madness, he showed that he had already made his choice. And in that choice, I see the humility that Hebrews 11:24-26 highlights.

From Exodus 2:16-3:1, what profession did Moses follow after his flight from Egypt?

From prince of Egypt to despised shepherd. Why? Because of his complete identification with the despised slaves of Israel. Humility: the willingness to lower oneself for others. Other-centredness.

“His complete identification” with his people, his brothers, puts me in mind of Hebrews 2:11-14. The old song from my childhood is ringing through my mind, “...out of the ivory palaces...” Christ left the palace, His rightful position, to come and identify with “His brothers.” He, too, did it to release His brothers from slavery. He felt what they felt; He suffered what they suffered; He burned with passion for them. He, too, destroyed their master who was bent on abusing and destroying them. And He bore reproach for it. The ones He came to set free misunderstood Him. They rejected Him. They hurled their own abuse at Him. “He came unto his own, and His own received him not” (John 1:11). And that includes all of us, all of “His brothers.”

I'm reminded through Luke's account of Christ's birth of another similarity between Jesus' life and Moses'. The prejudice the Egyptians carried for shepherds eventually infected the Israelites. Those in the know (preachers and biblical scholars, I mean) inform us that, in Jesus' day, there was a common prejudice in Israel towards its own roots — toward shepherds. Never mind that their greatest king had been a shepherd. Never mind that that king had called Israel's true King his Shepherd (Psalm 23).

Jesus' birth announcement came not only to kings but to shepherds. Why shepherds? Because of their humility — their low position. And because (like Moses) Jesus, the Prince and King, descended from the palace and came to be a shepherd (John 10:14). Not only a shepherd. He came to be a lamb. And God's sacrificial Lamb was born in a barn. Talk about humility! What a God!

In Philippians 2:3-11, I see the same cause and effect I see in Numbers 12:3-8. It was because of Moses' and Jesus' humility that God exalted them. We're informed by Hebrews 3:1-6 that God has a faithful servant and a faithful Son. Through their humility, both proved their faithfulness.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 5: The Firstborn & The Builder (Part 3) — Heb. 2:11-18, 3:1-6

Week 5, Day 4: Moses, Part III — Hebrews 11:27

Today's Readings: Heb. 2:14, 2:17-18, 3:1-6, 11:27, Ex. 3:1-10, 4:1-18, Genesis 3:1, Numbers 5:1-3, John 7:37-39, Mark 1:12-13

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

3 — The F____________ beat the f_____. (Heb. 2:14, 17-18, 11:27)

5 — The B___________ has a f___________ s___________ and a f___________ S________. (Heb. 3:1-6)

* * * * *

Let's start with a Key Thought today.

5 — The B___________ has a f___________ s___________ and a f___________ S________.

Ignoring the chapter break (which wasn't put in by Hebrews' author, anyway), Hebrews 3:1-6 seamlessly carries on with the train of thought begun in Hebrews 2:17-18. Jesus is a merciful and faithful High Priest. He's the perfect intermediary. Why? Because He became one of us. Because He knows how it feels. Because there's nothing we endure that He didn't also endure. And that includes temptation. Although He never sinned, He understands what we go through when we're tempted. Because He never sinned, He's a faithful High Priest. Because He was tempted, He's a merciful High Priest. Because He never sinned but because He was tempted to, He makes the perfect intermediary.

I can't tell you the comfort I've found in knowing that Jesus understands what it feels like when I'm tempted to rail against God and His ways when life gets to be too much for me. I also can't tell you the comfort I find in knowing that Jesus didn't give in the way I do. If He had, we'd be doomed. He sympathizes because He was tempted in every way we are, yet without sin (Heb. 4:15). And it's through that unique combination of temptation and sinlessness that He defeated the enemy in a unique way.

3 — The F____________ beat the f_____.

He defeated the enemy through the cross, Hebrews 2:14 tells us. But through Hebrews 2:17-18, we are reminded that the enemy was defeated by the cross only because he was first defeated in the desert. If Satan had won the battle when Jesus was tempted in the wilderness, the cross wouldn't have meant a thing. Our High Priest had to be both faithful and merciful.

Exodus 3-4 shows us a battle Moses also faced in the wilderness. The battle lines were not drawn nearly so clearly as they were in Mark 1:12-13 and the other “temptation of Christ” passages. But the enemy was the same.

Likely, you're already seeing why I included one of the “temptation of Christ” passages as required reading today, but unless you're exceptionally clever (or perhaps, even if you are) you might be wondering why my Genesis 3:1, Numbers 5:1-3, and John 7:37-39 choices were listed.

Let's go to Moses' battle with the enemy in the wilderness where, right from the start of Exodus 4, we're given all the information we need to know regarding who the victor will be. Where are we given that information? Through three, rather strange “signs” God gave to Moses.

Notice, first, Moses' battle. In Exodus 4:1, we see Moses' struggle to be obedient. His particular battle was on the same two fronts my battles always seem to be: doubt and fear.

What was the first sign God gave Moses to overcome his doubts and fears (Ex. 4:2-5)?

Throughout Scripture, what or whom does the snake or the serpent symbolize (Gen. 3:1)?

What was the second sign God gave Moses to overcome his doubts and fears (Ex. 4:6-8)?

Throughout Scripture, what or whom does leprosy symbolize (Num. 5:1-3)?

The second is not as obvious as the first, but I think the second is just as valid. I hadn't realized it until studying Exodus 4, but when I started to see the meaning of God's messages to Moses in Exodus 4 emerge, I could see that leprosy (or all the various, contagious skin disorders that fell under that general heading) was a biblical symbol for sin. And because of “leprosy's” destructive and infectious nature, I could see why. Leprosy is called an “uncleanness” in the Bible, and sin (obviously) is, as well.

There's no suggestion of all lepers in the Bible having been struck with leprosy because of some particular sin (though this is the case in three recorded instances — Numbers 12, 2 Kings 5:27, 2 Chronicles 26:19). Nor is there any suggestion that all snakes are really Satan or his demons in disguise. We're talking about symbols here. And the snake, since the garden, has been a biblical symbol for Satan. Likewise, leprosy is a biblical symbol for sin. Are you seeing where this is going?

What was the third sign God gave Moses to overcome his doubts and fears (Ex. 4:9)?

Throughout Scripture, what or whom does water symbolize (John 7:37-39)?

Are you getting the message? (And are you seeing why I chose my Genesis, Numbers, and John readings for today?) God gave Moses three signs to help him overcome fear and doubt — both his own and the fear and doubt of his people. He said to Moses, “Look! I have power over the snake. I have power over leprosy. I have power over Satan. I have power over sin. But it's through the pouring out of the Water (which becomes the pouring out of blood) that together, we'll ultimately win the victory.”

I don't think Moses quite got the message. (I know I didn't the first thousand times (give or take a few) that I read this account.) I know he didn't get the message because he went on giving in to fear and doubt. In fact, in Exodus 4:13, some translations make it clear that Moses politely refused to do as he was told. If the translation doesn't make it clear, God's anger in the next verse does.

This is where Moses' and Jesus' battles in the wilderness take sharply divergent turns. Moses was not sinless. Moses was tempted to fear and doubt, and he gave in.

But praise God that Exodus 4:13 is followed by Exodus 4:18. In the end, Moses went. He obeyed. And in Numbers 12:7, God said Moses was “faithful in all [His] house.” The moral I take away from this story? It's how the battle ends that counts.

If Moses' battle in the wilderness had been won by the enemy, what would have become of the nation of Israel, trapped in slavery, not only to Pharaoh, but to Satan and sin? But there are no “ifs” in God's world. He had the right man for the job. He picked out His faithful servant that would ultimately (and only because of God on his side, of course) win the battle over fear and doubt in the wilderness.

He also had the right Man for the job picked out as His faithful Son who would ultimately win the battle in the wilderness and on the cross. And through that final victory, victory in any of our daily skirmishes can become reality. Though we will all face periodic losses, ultimate victory is ours because of the Living Water who was poured out as blood for us.

Let's make this week of lessons personal here. Let's match rubber to road.

Remember, as we've discussed, that Hebrews was written to encourage its reading audience to hang on! To cling to Christ as being the only thing worth clinging to, in spite of any suffering coming about through that clinging.

Hebrews was written to first-century, Christian Jews, persecuted by their fellow Jews for their faith, but none of our lives are free from trouble. Jesus (and Moses) are examples to all of us, encouraging us to press on no matter the cost. As Jesus' life was reflected in Moses' life, so His life is reflected in ours. And their experiences — their suffering, humility, and temptations — have direct relation to ours.

From Day 2, what comes from suffering and death?

Have you experienced fruitfulness or triumph coming from any of your experiences of suffering?

The original reading audience of Hebrews were facing the suffering of disgrace and reproach for their faith. They needed to be reminded, from Hebrews 11:24-26, that the faithful servant, Moses, was an example of embracing humility for a greater cause. Even Moses, today the hero of the Jewish people, was first scorned by his people. So was Jesus. So will we be scorned.

From Day 3, what was the result of Moses' and Jesus' humility?

Have you experienced a raising-up coming from any of your experiences of being humbled?

Then, today, from Hebrews 11:27, I'm reminded that Moses (and Jesus) “...endured, as seeing him who is invisible.” It's our old definition of faith. We learn from Hebrews 11:27 that faith endures. It's not the periodic losses that count ultimately — it's the ultimate victory. It's not the occasional stumble and fall that matters in the end — it's repentance. It's, through God's strength, getting back up and keeping on keeping on. It's the truth that those who are suffering temptation need to know. We have a merciful, faithful High Priest. He understands. And He won the ultimate victory.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 5: The Firstborn & The Builder (Part 3) — Heb. 2:11-18, 3:1-6

Week 5, Day 5: Moses, Part IV — Hebrews 11:28

Today's Readings: Hebrews 2:14-18, 11:28, Exodus 4:22-23, Exodus 11-12

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

3 — The F____________ beat the f_____. (Heb. 2:14, 17-18, 11:28)

4 — The F____________ brings f____________. (Heb. 2:14-18, 11:28)

* * * * *

Yesterday, we saw Moses' battle in the desert on the fronts of fear and doubt. We saw some losses, but we saw the victory. The last thing we saw was Moses turning his will toward obedience and his feet toward Egypt. We'll skip past Moses' arrival in Egypt, his first reunion with the new-but-not-improved Pharaoh, and the first nine plagues. We'll pick up the story again where Hebrews 11:28 picks it up.

From Hebrews 11:28, why did Moses (and the others) keep the Passover and the blood-sprinkling?

Let's start with the character Exodus 12:23 calls “the destroyer” as he is one of the key players. It seems to me, from hearing this story told in Sunday School as a child, that “the destroyer” was always called “the death angel.” From that title, I had gleaned the notion that “the destroyer” was one of God's angels. It seemed to me that God was the one who went through the land of Egypt and killed all the firstborn not protected by the blood of a lamb. From Exodus, I can see where I gleaned that notion.

From Exodus 12:12-13, 23, and 29, who was responsible for the slaying of the firstborn of Egypt?

The idea of God being responsible for the deaths of all the firstborn — children, adults, animals — presents a few mental hurdles we need to get over in order to understand this account properly.

The first mental hurdle to, er, hurdle is the necessity of death. The first fact we need to grasp is that no one lives forever. Because sin entered the world, because we've all sinned, we all will die one day.

And I'm grateful for it. Who could want to live forever with this imperfection — in a world of genocides and war and child abuse and hatred and greed and oppression and pain and sorrow? Who wants to live forever here when there's a perfect reality waiting just around death's corner? I've come to realize that, because of sin, we all must die. It was the only merciful solution once sin infected the world.

The next mental hurdle to be overcome is the realization that God is the one who has the right to decide when life should end. While the killing of the innocent (relatively innocent, I mean,) is a great wrong when any human performs that act, God is well within His rights to decide when is the proper time for any death to happen. Everyone dies someday. It's up to God to decide when that day is. He made my body and my soul. It's up to Him to choose when the two will go their separate ways.

If He chose that the lives of millions of firstborn in the land of Egypt should end on the night of the first Passover, well, all those lives would have ended in the not-too-distant future, anyway (like, seventy years or so in the future. A short time in terms of eternity). It was His call to make.

Then, the third mental hurdle to get over is seeing the respective roles of God and the one Exodus calls "the destroyer." Although God said repeatedly that He would be the one responsible for the deaths of the unprotected firstborn, I believe Exodus 12:23 makes it clear that it was the one called “the destroyer” who was directly responsible. This verse changes the entire picture I had of the Passover as a child. It was “the destroyer” who would strike the firstborn. God was responsible for who died and who didn't simply because He was in charge of allowing or not allowing the destroyer into the house.

It was God who struck the Egyptian firstborn (as stated in Exodus 12:12-13, 23, and 29), but He used an instrument to do the striking. And that instrument was “the destroyer.”

What information does Hebrews 2:14 give us about the devil? What does he hold?

"The destroyer" is not one of God's angels. God's nature is essentially creative, not destructive. He is responsible for the destruction that goes on in our world because Satan (whose nature is now essentially destructive) is still answerable to God. Satan can do nothing that God refuses to him. But the destruction belongs to him as God allows it to him.

The book of Job gives us this kind of a behind-the-scenes peek. Satan was directly responsible for the havoc wreaked on Job and his family. Yet at the end of the book, God came along and seemed quite willing to accept responsibility. And that's because He was responsible. He is the one in ultimate control. Satan can only act according to his destructive nature by God's permission. Yet God gives permission and uses Satan's destruction only insofar as He can turn it to some good and loving purpose.

But for what good and loving purpose did God allow Satan to destroy the firstborn in Egypt?

I can see a few, obvious answers. For the purpose of freeing His people, His firstborn.

4 — The F____________ brings f____________.

For the purpose of showing Pharaoh, the Egyptians, and the rest of the world who is really God in order for the world to have the opportunity of knowing Him. (More on that subject next week.) And for the purpose of encapsulating, in a moment of time, an object lesson that would illustrate the central event of our history that had been planned from all eternity past — that decisive battle in the cosmic war fought over our universe.

3 — The F____________ beat the f_____.

Let me share something with you that I learned about the Hebrew word for “pass over.” I learned that the Hebrew word translated “pass over” in Exodus 12:23 is “pasach,” and it can carry the meaning, not only of passing over (as in, skipping over), but it can also be translated, “to halt.”

For years, I held the picture in my mind of God seeing the blood of the lamb on the doorposts and skipping over the house. He “passed” it “over” for destruction and didn't go in to kill the firstborn. But when I think of “pasach” as “to halt,” I begin to get an entirely different picture of the Passover.

Copy out Exodus 12:23, substituting “halt over” for “pass over.”

Notice the wording of Exodus 12:23. Over what part of the house would the Lord “halt ”?

This new picture of mine lends such meaning to, what had always seemed to me to be, the random and arbitrary placement of the lamb's blood on the two doorposts and on the crosspiece running horizontally along the top of the door (or the lintel). There was nothing random and arbitrary about it. There was enormous meaning in the location of the lamb's blood.

Put together the information that “the destroyer” was the instrument who struck the firstborn, God “halted” over the doors painted with lamb's blood, and the blood was painted on the two doorposts and the lintel. Visualize the happening and record any new meanings you find in the first Passover.

This is the new understanding I now hold of what really happened at that first Passover:

God and His enemy went together through the land of Egypt to strike down the firstborn of all those who were the rightful property of God's enemy. This included everyone in the land. Since the beginning of human history, each human inevitably, for a time, chooses to obey God's enemy, thereby making Satan master. Humanity has sold itself into Satan's service. And hard service — slavery — is Satan's service. Satan has the right to do as he wills with his property, and he wills to enslave and destroy.

Satan is only capable of destroying, and that was what he roamed throughout the land of Egypt that fateful night to do. Destroy the firstborn of all those who had sold themselves to him.

Yet God wasn't willing to see it happen. He wanted to buy back — redeem — a people for Himself. His firstborn, Israel.

Notice from one of today's required readings, there's a “life for a life,” a “firstborn for a firstborn,” kind of a situation happening in Exodus 4:22-23. If Pharaoh refused to give God back His firstborn, then God would require the life of Pharaoh's firstborn in exchange.

But there was another exchange that had to happen first. The people God had chosen as His firstborn had sold themselves (very cheaply — for promises of a freedom that turned into slavery) into Satan's service. God had chosen a people for His firstborn, but they were the property of His enemy.

Yet God had another Firstborn — His first Firstborn. One who is the Firstborn from all eternity.

As God and Satan passed through the land of Egypt on that Passover night, God had given Satan access to all the firstborn — all those who were Satan's own to do with as he wished. But the problem was, that number included absolutely everyone. And God wasn't content with that state of affairs. So God arranged a signal with His people. He arranged for any who were willing to come over to His side, any who were tired of slavery and ready to serve God again, to signal their decision by painting blood on their doorposts and lintels. By the “sprinkling of blood,” a household claimed for itself the protection that God had promised to all who obeyed — the protection of the blood of a lamb.

It's where the faith of Hebrews 11:28 comes in. It was a very simple act, but it was the acknowledgement back of it of who was really God that made it an act of faith.

Now, an interesting speculation occurs to me: What if an Egyptian had noticed what the Israelites were up to? What if an Egyptian had said to himself, “I don't know what's about to go down. All I know is that Pharaoh and our gods are helpless against this Israelite God, and it sure looks like something else is about to happen. I don't know why these crazy Israelites are painting blood on their doors, but maybe ... just in case, I'll do the same thing”? What would have happened to that Egyptian's household? Exodus 12:23 says that when God saw the blood on the door, He would pass over it. Period.

I imagine if any Egyptians had been clever enough to copy their Israelite neighbours (through fear of the Israelite God) their firstborn would have been protected. 2 Peter 3:9 makes it plain that God is not willing that any should perish.

At any rate, to return to our reenactment of the first Passover, God and Satan went together throughout the land of Egypt, and Satan was allowed to enter any household and slay any firstborn who belonged to him. But when they came to a house with the blood painted on the doorposts and the lintel, God “passed over” the door. Not the house. But the door. He halted before that door. In fact, He passed Himself over the door. He barred Satan's way. He matched His hands to the bloody patches on the doorposts. He put His head up against the bloody spot on the lintel. He took up a "you-shall-not-pass-this-threshold" stance.

Satan had the right to the firstborn of those inside. There could be no question about it. All the inhabitants of all the houses had sold themselves willingly to Satan for no other sum than the sum of all the destruction Satan could heap on them. But God was determined that any who were willing should be bought back by Him. At the cost of His own blood. His own life.

The lamb's blood was only a symbol. It wasn't really any ordinary old lamb's blood painted there on the doorposts and the lintel. It was the blood of the Lamb of God.

Those who painted the blood on their doors were simply asking God for His protection from the destroyer. They were admitting that they'd had enough of Satan and His slavery and destruction. They were asking to be rescued. And God will never turn a deaf ear or a blind eye to any who paint His blood on their doors to ask Him for rescue. For those who say to Him, “Okay, I give in. I'm willing for You to save me,” there's nothing He won't do. He's proved it.

It wasn't only a “you-shall-not-pass-this-threshold” stance that God took with Satan. On the cross, it was a “do-with-me-what-you-will” stance. He opened Himself up to the worst the destroyer could do to Him, rather than let Satan get at his own rightful property. There was another exchange of firstborns. He redeemed back His firstborn, His people, at the cost of His true Firstborn — who was God Himself.

It was Satan's right to destroy his own property, all those who had sold themselves into his service. Yet God gave Himself in exchange, to buy back a people for Himself. It was His own bloodied head and bloodied hands that left the bloody marks on the cross which the bloody marks on the doorposts and the lintel represented.

What a picture that first Passover paints of the kind of God to whom we are privileged to belong!

Have you painted His Lamb's blood on your own doorposts and lintel? Have you turned to Him for rescue from the destroyer? Then, there's nothing He wouldn't do to rescue you. Do you believe it?

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

WEEK 5 Group Study — Heb. 2:11-18, 3:1-6, Heb. 11:23-28

Review Readings: Heb. 2:11-18, 3:1-6, 11:23-28, Exodus 2:1-15, 4:1-9, 4:22-23, 12:23, Isaiah 8:17-18

* * * * *

Key Thoughts for Review:

1 — The F____________ became f________. (Heb. 2:11-14, 11:23-26)

2 — The F____________ bears f________. (Heb. 2:13, 11:23, Isa. 8:17-18)

3 — The F____________ beat the f_____. (Heb. 2:14, 17-18, 11:23, 27-28)

4 — The F____________ brings f____________. (Heb. 2:14-18, 11:28)

5 — The B___________ has a f___________ s___________ and a f___________ S________. (Heb. 3:1-6)

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: The Firstborn & The Builder

1 — Review the Key Thoughts to share any new insights from this week on the Firstborn and the Builder.

2 — What is the theme of the book of Hebrews or the purpose of its author in writing it? How is that theme or purpose made plain through Hebrews 11:23-28 and the life of Moses?

3 — As mentioned on Day 1, my own personal theme in writing this study seems to be 1 John 4:8b. “...God is love.” How was that theme made plain through each of this week's lessons on Moses?

4 — Days 2, 3, and 4 shared three lessons Hebrews' reading audience needed (and still need) to know: the suffering need to know that out of suffering comes fruitfulness and triumph, the humbled need to know that humility is the path to exaltation, the tempted need to know that it isn't the occasional stumble which matters in the end but repenting, getting back up, and keeping on keeping on. How do these three lessons tie in to the purpose of the author in writing Hebrews? As someone who faced some major losses this week on the doubt and fear fronts, the third was tremendously meaningful to me. Which of the three lessons is the most meaningful to you and, if you would like to share the reason, why?

5 — From Day 5, the enslaved need to know that there's nothing God wouldn't do for those who cry out to Him for rescue. He's proved it. How does this truth impact your life? Relate any personal experiences you feel comfortable relating.

And finally, one last time for the week, please share any of your own discoveries this week about...

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 6: The Builder & The Promise Keeper — Heb. 3:1-19, 4:1-11

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

Part I — The Promise of Rest (Heb. 3:1-19, 4:1-11)

1 — The B____________ is b____________ Himself a house. (Heb. 3:1-6)

2 — The B____________ r__________ from His b____________ work. (Heb. 4:3-4)

3 — The P___________ K___________ has a p__________ land of r_______ for His house. (Heb. 4:1, 9)

4 — The house and the p____________ land may only be entered through faith. (Heb. 3, 4:1-11)

Part II — The Building of a House (Heb. 11:29-31)

1 — Unless the B__________ b_______ the house, it won't get b_______. (Heb. 11:29-30, Ps. 127:1)

2 — Unless the K__________ k_______ the city, it won't get k________. (Heb. 11:29-30, Ps. 127:1)

3 — The B__________'s throne is b_______ on righteousness and justice. (Heb. 11:30-31, Ps. 89:14)

4 — The K____________ k________ mercy and covenant forever. (Heb. 11:30-31, Ps. 89:28)

5 — The B__________ and K__________'s house, throne, city, and covenant will be b________ and k________ forever. (Ps. 48:8, Ps. 87:5, Ps. 89:28-29)

Key words: Builder, building, builds, built, Promise, promised, Keeper, keeps, kept, rest, rested

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 6: The Builder & The Promise Keeper — Heb. 3:1-19, 4:1-11

Week 6, Day 1: The Builder & The Promise Keeper — Hebrews 3:1-19, 4:1-11

Today's Readings: Hebrews 3:1-19, 4:1-11, Genesis 2:1-2, Matthew 11:28-30, John 5:1-24, 2 Corinthians 5:17

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

Part I — The Promise of Rest (Heb. 3:1-19, 4:1-11)

1 — The B____________ is b____________ Himself a house. (Heb. 3:1-6)

2 — The B____________ r__________ from His b____________ work. (Heb. 4:3-4)

3 — The P___________ K____________ has a p__________ land of r_______ for His house. (Heb. 4:1, 9)

4 — The house and the p____________ land may only be entered through faith. (Heb. 3, 4:1-11)

* * * * *

This week, we'll get to see the Builder of the nation Israel as the Promise Keeper. From the beginning of the founding of the nation, God had promised His people a land of their own. This week, they enter it.

This week's Hebrews 11 lessons also coincide with the time frame of our other Hebrews passages, Hebrews 3 and 4:1-11. Hebrews 3 speaks of Moses and the forty years of wandering of Israel in the wilderness. Hebrews 4 speaks of Joshua and the entry of the nation Israel into the promised land. Hebrews 11:29-31 (this week's Hebrews 11 verses) covers the period of Israel's exit from Egypt and their entry into the promised land. In Hebrews 11, however, there is only a blank left for the forty years between that exit and entry. The reason is simple. Hebrews 11 is the hall of faith. There was a notable blank in the history of the nation Israel during its forty years of wandering where faith should have been.

The nation of Israel that came out of Egypt makes it into the hall of faith only once — for the Red-Sea crossing (tomorrow's lesson). The “faith” of the nation Israel as demonstrated at the Red Sea looks extremely dubious to me, but I am grateful for its inclusion in the Hall of Faith, anyway. As we'll see tomorrow, the only faith of the nation Israel on the banks of the Red Sea happened on the opposite bank. After the crossing. There was no faith-in-advance (as I usually think of faith); only a retroactive faith — a rejoicing in God's work after it was already accomplished. I'm grateful because that is often the only kind of faith I myself possess. I'm glad to know that God is willing to accept repentance for un-faith as an act of faith. And if the nation Israel had continued down that path of faith (even retroactive faith) and repentance, the whole story would have gone very differently, I believe.

But Hebrews 3 contrasts Israel with God's faithful servant, Moses, and His faithful Son, Jesus, to inform us that, overall, the nation of Israel (at the time of the Exodus from Egypt) was not a faithful or a faith-filled bunch. In consequence, God swore that they would not enter His “rest.” I feel a Key Thought coming on: the main point of Hebrews 3-4. It's not a new concept. We've seen it before.

5 — The house and the p____________ land may only be entered through faith.

And as touched upon briefly last week, faith — real faith — endures. It falls down, but it gets back up. The author of Hebrews wrote the book as an encouragement to the suffering to hang on! To get back up after stumbles and falls and to keep on keeping on. And that encouragement comes occasionally in the book of Hebrews in the form of a stiff warning.

Hebrews 3-4 are chapters of warning, but they also contain other kinds of encouragement. On the one hand are the warnings of failure to enter the promised land. On the other is a promise.

Part I — The Promise of Rest

Let's look at that promise of rest and see if we can discover what the author of Hebrews meant by it.

2 — The B____________ r__________ from His b____________ work.

The first thing we need to know about the rest is that it is God's rest. The author of Hebrews pulls two, short words out from Psalm 95 (the Psalm quoted in Hebrews 3 and 4) and gets long mileage out of them. The first is “my.” I missed this point the first hundred times I read through Hebrews 3-4, but the rest is not “their rest,” “your rest,” or “our rest.” It's “my rest,” and the “my” is God speaking.

There's an apparent biblical contradiction pointed out in Hebrews 4:3-4. The author says (in my paraphrase), “Wait a minute here! God swore that unfaithful Israel in the wilderness would never enter His rest. But didn't God rest from all His work on the seventh day of the first week? Since the foundation of the world, hasn't God been resting? If that's the case, how is it possible for anyone to be barred from entering God's rest? Isn't God's rest now? Isn't God's rest everywhere? Doesn't it fill the earth?”

Isn't God's rest now? “Nope,” says the author of Hebrews (my paraphrase again). He pulls that second, short, long-mileage word — “today” — out of Psalm 95 to show us that God's rest is not now.

Here the author's logic becomes intricate and difficult to untangle, but I unravel it like this: “Today,” the psalmist wrote in Psalm 95 and then went on to issue a warning of example. The example was the Israelites' unbelief in the wilderness. The consequence of the example was failing to enter God's rest.

The “today” of Psalm 95 was long after the Israelites had wandered for forty years in the wilderness, but if the warning of the Israelites' example had any relevance to Psalm 95's original audience, then the consequence must have had relevance to that audience. There must still have been God's rest available to that audience that they, through unbelief, could fail to enter. Then, that rest was still in their future.

The writer of Hebrews then drew the Spirit-inspired inference that the “today” of Psalm 95 still applied to his day and age. Then, God's rest was still in his future, as well. Beginning to follow the writer's logic and grasp his point, I now draw the inference that the “today” of Psalm 95 and of Hebrews 3-4 also applies to our day and age. Then, God's rest (of Psalm 95 and Hebrews 3-4) is still in our future.

The apparent contradiction pointed out in Hebrews 4:3-4 can be found in my Key Thoughts, as well.

1 — The B____________ is b____________ Himself a house.

I've stated in my Key Thoughts that the Builder rested from His building work, but I've also stated that the Builder is building Himself a house. The “is building” is in the present continuous tense. How can the Builder be resting from His building if He's still building?

Like this: there were/are two kinds of building work that the Builder has done/is doing. But only one is still in progress.

From Genesis 2:1-2, why did God rest on the seventh day?

Hebrews 4:3 tells us the same reason. God got the job done. He only rests when He's finished. He completed one type of building work. From the “foundation of the world,” it's been finished. (Please take note of the “foundation” in Hebrews 4:3 and bear in mind that whenever we run into words like, “foundations, founded, established” we're talking about building. These are all biblical building terms.)

Science and plain, old, everyday observation tell us the same truth Genesis 2:1-2 and Hebrews 4:3 tell us. Simply stated, it's the truth that, physically, nothing new is presently being created. Everything we “create” has already been created. Everything we build, we build using recycled materials. The human builder who builds a house recycles God's clay or God's trees or God's metals. Human “houses” (as in, the people in them) are also built out of recycled materials. Two weeks ago, when I talked about the oneness of fathers and sons, I was reminded of a conclusion that strikes awe into me every time I think of it: when God created the first, two human bodies, He created every human body. The bodies of the first man and woman contained every man and woman since. (Those who reject this awe-striking conclusion must arrive at a much more awe-striking one: however it happened along, the body of that first, miraculous microbe must have contained every man, woman, and child who has ever lived. I personally find it a little easier to believe that our first parents were human, but that's just me.)

Even His miraculous works show me that God finished His building of the world and all in it. God demonstrated His power over nature in acts, like, seas splitting in two, stormy seas calming in an instant, other seas turning solid under feet of faith, a fish swallowing a man whole, axe heads floating, but in none of these acts was anything new created. In other kinds of miraculous acts, we see Jesus performing in a blink of an eye the acts He saw His Father perform over longer periods of time. He kept the laws of conservation His Father set in place since the foundation of the world. He didn't create bread out of stones. As His Father always has, He produced bread from bread and fish from fish. He didn't create wine out of thin air. As His Father always has, He transformed water into wine. The usual procedure involves soil and vines, but there was nothing new being created when Jesus bypassed the usual procedure; just the recycling of materials we see going on all the time around us. His miracles of healing were in this order. He didn't create new bodies; He compressed into an instant the healing process that God set in place in our bodies since “the foundation of the world.” On one occasion, He recycled God's clay to give a man seeing eyes. Even in His raising of Lazarus and the son of the widow of Nain, nothing new was created. Their bodies were resuscitated, but those bodies were still the same old bodies, still possessing the same old biological alarm clocks that allow no man to live forever in them. Lazarus and the son of the widow one day faced death again in their old, resurrected-but-still-dying bodies.

This may be only my fancy, but I believe there is only one kind of work that God calls His work. The energy/matter conservation/recycling that He does all the time I don't believe He calls work. (We call it work; He doesn't.) The acts (which are nothing for Him) that demonstrate His power over nature, I don't believe He calls work. I believe the only work that to Him is work is the creation of entirely new things. And physically, He creates nothing entirely new. In this way, He rested on the seventh day and still rests.

But there are two “rests” for God, and one is (from our time-bound perspective, at least) still future.

Quote Jesus' statement in John 5:17.

Here again is the apparent biblical contradiction that Hebrews 4:3-4 points out. If God rested from all His work on the seventh day, what did Jesus mean that His Father was always at work, and so was He?

As I've said, I don't believe He meant the healing of a man's body that He had just performed. There was nothing new created in that act, and it may be just my own silly, little notion, but I think God only counts creating as His work. I say the healing of the man's body wasn't what Jesus counted as work because if it was, it was a physical work. Jesus kept God's Law perfectly. God told His people to rest from physical work on the Sabbath which Jesus undoubtedly did. Perfectly. He didn't, however, bow to the small-minded nit-picking of manmade tradition that turned simple things, like, carrying a mat, into a job of work. Small-minded, nit-picking tradition would have turned a physical healing into a job of work, as well. I believe Jesus resisted the idea. But He didn't defend Himself on those grounds or deny that He worked on the Sabbath. In what kind of work was He engaged, then?

From John 5:21, what work did Jesus and His Father do? Elaborate on this work from John 5:24.

What does 2 Corinthians 5:17 tell us about this kind of work?

I don't claim to fully understand the statement, but the kind of new life that is really new (and not just recycled, old life) is the kind that is “in Christ”— the kind that has passed from death to life. It is that creating work from which the Father never rests, not for a single second. It's that work Jesus was doing when He healed a man's body on the Sabbath. He was thinking about a whole lot more than the man's body. He was thinking about a resurrection to a new life that He wanted for the man (see John 5:14).

God is finished building His earth. But there is another building work which occupies Him constantly. He (as Father and Son) is presently occupied in building Himself a house (John 14:2). He calls out, from a living death, a people for Himself. New creations.

I was put onto the track of God's two lines of work because of two kinds of rest I discovered through comparing Hebrews 3-4 and Matthew 11:28-30 through the lenses of my trusty Greek-English dictionary/concordance. “Rest,” every time it occurs in Hebrews 3-4 (except once), is “katapausis/katapauo” in the Greek. In Matthew 11:28-30, “rest” is “anapausis/anapauo.” The “pauo/pausis” root that is the same for both words is “to cause to cease.” The “ana” prefix from Matthew 11 adds the meaning of “up.” The “kata” prefix from the Hebrews “rest” means “down.”

I don't know the shades of differentiations in meaning the two prefixes lend, seeing both words are simply translated “rest,” but that they are two different kinds of rest I can see from their contexts.

From the contexts of the “rest”s in Hebrews 3-4 and Matthew 11:28-30, how are they different?

From Hebrews, the “rest” is one of completion. This is God's rest that is still future from our perspective. God is not finished building His house. 2 Peter 3:9 tells us it's the reason history carries on. From Matthew 11:28-30, the “rest” is a rest that happens while wearing a yoke. Yokes speak of work — of service. Jesus didn't call His followers to a rest of completion. Not at present. He called His followers to the rest of work — His work. As He learned the family business from His Father, so are His followers called to learn the family business from Him. The all-relational God calls us to a little house-building.

Some day God's work (and ours) will be completed. His house will be completed. And then will be the “katapausis/katapauo” kind of rest. For Him and us. The “rest” of Hebrews 3-4 is an eternal kind of rest. It's a rest of a final completion. And because it's promised to God's “house,” it's a promised land.

3 — The P___________ K___________ has a p__________ land of r_______ for His house.

I'm sure you know by now what it is we need to enter our promised lands. The only way in is faith.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 6: The Builder & The Promise Keeper — Heb. 3:1-19, 4:1-11

Week 6, Day 2: The Nation Israel — Hebrews 11:29

Today's Readings: Hebrews 3:6, 11:29, Exodus 14, 15:1-18, Psalm 48, 49, 114, 127:1

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

Part II — The Building of a House (Heb. 11:29)

1 — Unless the B__________ b_______ the house, it won't get b_______. (Heb. 11:29, Ps. 127:1)

2 — Unless the K__________ k_______ the city, it won't get k________. (Heb. 11:29, Ps. 127:1)

5 — The B__________ and K__________'s house and city will be b________ and k________ forever. (Ps. 48:8)

* * * * *

Hebrews 11:29 tells us that the Red-Sea crossers crossed the Red Sea by faith. It's a fact we need to be told. It is not a fact we would be able to guess for ourselves from the Exodus account. As I've said, it's a fact I'm glad to learn. I'm glad to know that God accepts retroactive faith (repentance for un-faith) as an act of faith because all that can be seen on the near shore of the Red Sea is the un-faith of the nation. Immediately before the crossing of the Red Sea, the “faith-heroes” of the nation Israel expressed their un-faith in a refrain they were to sing at every twist and turn of the trail on the way to the Promised Land.

I can't help seeing the irony of the question, “Were there not enough graves in Egypt...?” It's what ancient Egypt is known for — graves. If there was one thing Egypt had plenty of it was graves. It was a culture obsessed with death. At least, obsessed with trying to get the better of it — cheat it of its prey. Mountainous graves still stand in Egypt as monuments to its desperation to put one over on death.

We've talked about it before. The ancient Egyptians believed the burial was all-important to the afterlife. As worshippers of the visible, they pinned all their hopes for permanence on the visible. They attempted to turn their impermanent “tents” into permanent “houses” by preservation. And they succeeded to an extent. The preserved-but-empty shells of humans are still being dug up today.

Then, the Pharaohs took their obsession a step farther. They built themselves massive pyramid-tombs and had elaborate mazes contrived within them to protect their preserved, empty shells and all the treasures they believed they'd somehow be able to take with them into the afterlife. If preserving the “tent” wouldn't be quite enough to ensure a happy and successful afterlife, surely the grandeur of the tomb that housed the tent would do it. In spite of all the Pharaohs' precautions, however, very few of the pyramid-tombs have remained undisturbed by thieves. Apparently, legends of the mummy's revenge, etc. weren't enough protection for the Pharaohs' treasures. Dead men make poor watchmen.

As you've no doubt noticed, I've been doing all my thinking for this lesson along the lines of houses and cities, and I'd like to look into today's story along those lines, doing a little contrasting.

To begin, we'll need to look at the geography of today's account and discover a few name meanings.

From Exodus 14:2, sketch out the setting for the scene of the action and label with place names. What are the meanings of the names of the locations (if the margin notes in your Bible tell you)?

If your margin notes don't tell you, Pi Hahiroth apparently means “mouth of Hiroth” or “mouth of the gorges” or “mouth of the waters.” One way or the other, Pi Hahiroth was some sort of “mouth” place — a widening of land surrounded by mountains, water, or both. Migdol, which the Israelites would have passed to arrive at Pi Hahiroth, their camping spot, means “tower.” Because the Israelites were in uninhabited wilderness, this “tower” was obviously natural formation, presumably of rock. In other words, the Israelites camped in a corral kind of “mouth,” guarded on one side by the Red Sea and by impassable, unscalable “towers” on the other side. We know this is so because of Exodus 14:3.

What would Pharaoh say to himself when he learned where the Israelites were positioned?

The Israelites were “shut in.” They were surrounded by natural barriers. To use the imagery of this week's Key Thoughts, they were in a walled city under siege. The problem with this natural “city” and its natural walls is that it had no natural barrier to form a gate. The opening that allowed the Israelites into Pi Hahiroth was the same opening that would allow Pharaoh access. In any siege situation, a city is only as strong as its gate. And there was no (visible) gate to this city.

The walls of a city (back in the days of walled cities) were designed for protection. They were for keeping the bad guys out. But what keeps out may also keep in. And the Israelites were “shut in” with no route of escape. You can understand why they turned on Moses. And on Moses' God. It had been His clear leading that got them into their impossible situation.

Have you ever been in a seemingly-impossible situation as a direct result of God's clear leading? How did the story end? How did you react in the midst of the situation?

If you answered that last question the way I would be forced to, you'll have to agree with me that we have no right to jump all over the Israelites. When our physical eyes are telling us God has made a bad mistake, it's extremely hard to trust the evidence of our faith-eyes.

But God was making no mistake. He had a carefully-concocted plan, and the Israelites' seemingly-impossible situation was all part of that plan.

What was God's plan according to Exodus 14:3-4?

God's plan was to use Pharaoh's hard-heartedness (and hard-headedness, I might add) to gain glory for Himself. Why? Because He was very interested in revealing Himself. To whom? To the “bad guys” — to the Egyptians. Why to the Egyptians? We'll tackle that question later this week.

God's plan worked like a charm (of course). Pharaoh did indeed say to himself what God said he'd say to himself. Maybe we should talk about our last place name here in order to understand how Pharaoh could possibly be that hard-headed (read: not too bright) after all that had happened in Egypt.

Baal-zephon means, “lord or master of the north.” “Baal” may look familiar to you. It simply means “lord or master,” but it's a name that shows up often once the Israelites finally set foot in their promised land. Baal was the most prominent of the deities of Canaan (and the surrounding nations).

Why does this place name give us any clue toward understanding Pharaoh's not-too-brightness? We need to understand the way polytheists viewed their gods. In the polytheistic view, gods had different areas of domain. One god may have controlled crop-production while another god was in charge of travel by sea, for instance. Polytheists viewed their gods the way I view my government. I understand that I can't usually blame the minister of finance for a decision made by the minister of education or vice versa. There may be a sort of “top guy” over it all, but I realize he doesn't hold all the reins.

The God of the Israelites had demonstrated Himself immeasurably more powerful than at least ten of Egypt's plethora of deities. (Each plague attacked, in some way, an area of domain under the jurisdiction of Egypt's gods.) Pharaoh's gods had proved helpless against Israel's God, but Israel (and presumably Israel's God) was travelling into new territory. This territory had its own “lord and master,” and to Pharaoh's way of thinking, Israel was making some very poor moves. Apparently, their God had lost His head when He got into a new god's territory. Missing his free labour and disliking to admit himself beaten, it seemed the perfect chance to Pharaoh to get a little of his own back from Israel and their God.

God saw it as the perfect chance to show the Egyptians (and other surrounding nations) that He is. If believing that God is is the first step in a faith required to please God, it's vitally important to Him for people to know who He is. That He is who He is. “I AM that I AM” (Ex. 3:14). The ultimate fact of the ultimate existence. The ultimate reality. Or, in other words, the only God. The One holding all the reins.

Now. Back to houses and cities. God used a kind of natural, walled city in order to lure Pharaoh into a trap and rid Israel of their never-say-die-till-actually-dead enemy. In so doing, He showed the world who was really God. But where do houses come into this account? You tell me.

What parts of a house are named in Exodus 14? From what materials were these house parts made?

Probably because I was thinking along the lines of houses and cities, I noticed, possibly for the first time while working on this study, the pillar and walls mentioned in Exodus 14. I mean, I had noticed the pillar and walls before. I don't think I'd thought of them as a pillar and walls before, though. I know I'd noticed the pillar before because I'd done some checking into this word in the Hebrew, wondering why all translations would call the column of cloud or fire travelling before the Israelites a pillar! (What an odd concept! A pillar of cloud!) I learned that all translations translate the Hebrew word as pillar because the Hebrew word means pillar. It's a supporting column in a house or temple or other structure. But I'd never thought of this pillar as a pillar until this study when I was reminded that, in calling out of Egypt a nation for Himself, God was building Himself a house. (Yes, He enjoys a good pun I've noticed.)

But — and here's an irony bordering on humorous — the pillar was made of cloud. Or fire. Who would construct the supporting column for a house out of cloud? Or worse still, out of fire? And the walls were made of water. Like the walls of a city, walls on a house are meant for protection. What kind of house can be supported by a pillar of cloud or fire and protected by walls of water?

How about this for an answer: the invisible house being constructed by and on the invisible God? When I asked you from what materials the pillar in Exodus 14 was made, there could have been more than one answer. On the one hand, the pillar was made of cloud or fire. On the other, reading between the lines, the pillar was made of the invisible God Himself.

Here's where the contrast I told you we'd be looking at today comes in. Worshippers of the visible cling to the visible because it seems so solid, so safe, so secure, so, well, real! Faith requires that we rest all our weight on the invisible, and living by faith seems like living in a house with pillars of cloud and walls of water. But when the invisible God is in the pillar and the walls, there is nothing more solid.

Comment on Psalm 114 and God's disregard for the solid, the safe, and the secure of the visible.

I see an irony akin to the irony of a house of cloud and water all over Psalm 114. Liquids turn into solids (vv. 3, 5); solids turn into liquids (v. 8). Immovable objects (like mountains and hills) meet an irresistible force (like a pillar of the invisible God in the midst of the invisible house He's building — vv. 1-2), and the immovable objects leap and buck in their haste to get out of the way (vv. 4, 6-7).

My other Psalm choices for today's required reading present a study in contrasts (and ironies), also.

Notice the contrasts of the invisible city God is building in Psalm 48 and the visible houses men build for themselves in Psalm 49. How does Psalm 48 fit the nation Israel in today's story and Psalm 49 Egypt?

And here's Psalm 127:1 in the form of our Key Thoughts.

1 — Unless the B__________ b_______ the house, it won't get b_______.

2 — Unless the K__________ k_______ the city, it won't get k________.

From the habits of the Pharaohs in ancient Egypt, it seems likely that the nameless Pharaoh of Exodus 14 had made his death his life's work. He had likely invested a great deal of energy in constructing some kind of “house” as his tomb and in amassing a fortune to surround him in that house. He no doubt anticipated that his “tent” would be preserved in the same manner his ancestors had been preserved. But his end was much different than expected. Unless the Builder builds the house...

The Pharaoh of Exodus 14 came to an unexpected end. But his end, when seen from the right perspective, was no different from the fates of his ancestors. Their empty shells might still be found in their tomb-houses, but the shells are empty. The Pharaoh who slept with the fishes on the bottom of the Red Sea was no more and no less dead than the Pharaohs who slept with their wealth. The same truth applies to the rest of the Pharaohs as to the Exodus 14 Pharaoh: unless the Builder builds the house...

But our last Key Thought of the day turns around the first two.

5 — The B__________ and K__________'s house and city will be b________ and k________ forever.

If the Builder and Keeper doesn't build the house or keep the city, it just, plain doesn't get built or kept. But if the Builder and Keeper does build the house or keep the city, nothing can stand against them. His house may be invisible; it may look like a house of fog and water. And the visible may look like the only solid reality. But those who place all their reliance on the solidity of the visible will find themselves sharing the fate of the Pharaoh of Exodus 14. Whether their empty shells rest on the bottom of the sea or in a glorious tomb-house is immaterial. Nothing lasts unless God builds it.

To close, I want to point out one more place name and its meaning. Its a place name found in Psalm 48 and used for the invisible city of God — Zion. I discovered that Zion (oddly) means, “monument; raised up; sepulchre.” I could see no connection between the three meanings until I began to think of the Pharaohs and their monumental, raised-up sepulchres that we call the pyramids. Apparently, God has raised up a sepulchre as a monument in His city, as well. There are some differences, however.

In the city of Jerusalem (iconic for the as-yet-invisible city of Zion), there is a sepulchre that stands as a monument to a particular raising-up. Unlike the tombs of the Pharaohs, it contains no treasures. Unlike the tombs of the Pharaohs, it contains no empty shell of a king. Unlike the tombs of the Pharaohs, it contains nothing. At one time, an immovable object covered its entrance to keep in death's prey, but that immovable object met an irresistible force, and the immovable stone skipped out of the way. Today that sepulchre is empty as a testimony to the fact that the houses God builds live forever.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 6: The Builder & The Promise Keeper — Heb. 3:1-19, 4:1-11

Week 6, Day 3: The Nation Israel and Joshua — Hebrews 11:30

Today's Readings: Hebrews 4:8-9, 11:30, Joshua 6, Psalm 48, Psalm 127:1, Isaiah 14:1-15, Matthew 11:28-30

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

Part II — The Building of a House (Heb. 11:30)

1 — Unless the B__________ b_______ the house, it won't get b_______. (Heb. 11:30, Ps. 127:1)

2 — Unless the K__________ k_______ the city, it won't get k________. (Heb. 11:30, Ps. 127:1)

5 — The B__________ and K__________'s house and city will be b________ and k________ forever. (Ps. 48:8)

* * * * *

Let's pick up the story and the nation of Israel where we left them — on the opposite banks of the Red Sea. As Hebrews 11 does, we'll be skipping over the forty years of wandering, but I have a little more to say about the Red-Sea crossing or at least about the place names involved in that crossing and their meanings that we looked at briefly yesterday. Let's review.

As stated in yesterday's lesson, what do the names Baal-zephon and Migdol mean?

I became especially interested in Baal-zephon when I discovered a piece of the name in Psalm 48 which I knew I wanted to use as required reading some time this week. Then, I noticed that Psalm 48 contains both the names Zephon (or Zaphon) and Migdol. The first will be obvious in some translations. You'll have to use your detective skills (or your linguist skills) to find the second.

What verses in Psalm 48 contain the words Zaphon and Migdol?

In case your detective or linguistic skills weren't up to the task, it's the “north” of Psalm 48:2 that is “zephon” or “zaphon” and the “towers” of verse twelve that are the “migdol”s

I remember from my childhood singing the line from Psalm 48:2, “...is mount Zion, on the sides of the north, the city of the great King...” and I remember wondering why Mount Zion was on “the sides of the north.” Why would God's city somehow be associated with “the north”?

Looking up “north” in my concordance, I ran across a relevant passage that uses the same expression: “on the sides of the north.” Isaiah 14:13 uses the same word, “zaphon,” for north that Psalm 48:2 uses.

But Isaiah 14 I knew (from reading between the lines) is about Satan's fall from heaven.

From Psalm 48, God is building His invisible city “on the sides of the north.” But “the sides of the north” are coveted real estate. From Isaiah 14, Satan also aspired to build his city and plant his throne on “the sides of the north.” Not all translations show us Satan building his city in Isaiah 14, but in the King James, Isaiah 14:4 says, “...How hath the oppressor ceased! The golden city ceased!” Regardless of translation, Isaiah 14 is written or spoken to “the king of Babylon.” And remember that in Week 3 we discussed the city of Babylon (descended from the tower and the city of Babel) as a scriptural symbol for the city of pride and self-worship. Small wonder, then, that Satan is addressed as “the king of Babylon.”

It's that link between Babylon and Babel that brings the “migdol” — the tower — into Isaiah 14, as well. Are you seeing again the two, iconic cities and their similarities? God is building a city called Zion (monument, raised up, sepulchre). From Psalm 48, it's in Zaphon — “the sides of the north” — and it has its towers. From Isaiah 14, Satan attempted to build a city in Zaphon. (Babylon is also clearly identified with “the north” in Jeremiah's prophecies of Babylon's world domination (Jer. 4:6, 6:1, 25:9, 46:6,10, 20, 24, 47:2). Odd when Babylon is almost due east of Israel! Perhaps it's because “the king of Babylon” attempted to build his city of pride and self-worship “on the sides of the north”?) This city's most prominent feature from its earliest days was a tower. A tower whose purpose was to what? Right! To “...reach unto heaven” (Gen. 11:4).

Where in Isaiah 14 (reading between the lines) do you see Satan attempting to build a “city” and a “tower” to reach up to heaven? What was Satan literally attempting?

“I will be like the Most High,” (Isa. 14:14) Satan said to himself. He wanted to be God — the ruler of the universe. He attempted what the builders of their own individual ”Babels” and “Babylons” still attempt. It was this attempt that the serpent held out as inducement to the first humans to rebel against God: “...ye shall be as gods...” (Gen. 3:5). The attempt is to usurp God's throne — to serve no one but oneself. To be the most high (at least in one's own personal universe).

It's in that title, “the Most High,” that I finally began to see the point of the Zaphon in Psalm 48 and Isaiah 14. Why is God's city “on the sides of the north”? The “north” in Psalm 48:2 points to the same concept Psalm 48:12 points out with its “migdol”s — its towers. The point of Zaphon (and midgols) is up!

Puzzling over the “Zaphon” of this lesson, I realized something about the directions of north and south when I contrasted them with east and west. For lack of better terminology, I would say that east and west are subjective, but north and south are objective. We may say that London is east of Toronto, but we could just as easily say it's west of Toronto. It will take longer to get to London going west from Toronto, but it can be done. You could fly around the globe going east, and there will never be a point when you stop going east and begin going west. This is not the case with north and south.

There is a very real sense in which south is down and north is up! In fact, when you've gone as far north as you can on our planet (before it begins to turn into south again), theoretically, you could still keep moving northward. If you hopped in a rocket ship at the north pole, you could keep moving forever in the same upward direction that brought you to the north pole.

When I began to think of north as up, I began to understand the battle over Zaphon — the sides of the north. It's a battle over up. It's the battle over who will be “the Most High.” It's the battle I see written all over Isaiah 14. (Of course, Isaiah 14 also makes it very plain who loses the battle for up. And it promises, to God's people, ultimate rest and ultimate triumph over the enemy — vv. 1-4)

When I think of the Israelites by Baal-zephon on the shores of the Red Sea, entering into their new life as a new nation, I see the gauntlet thrown down. The gateway into Israel's new life was named Baal-zephon: lord of the north. The lord of up. And whoever named Baal-zephon did not much likely have the One True God in mind as the lord of up. Israel was entering territory held by another who laid claim to being the lord of the north — the lord most high.

The battle for freedom from Egypt — from death and slavery — may have already been decided decisively at the shores of the Red Sea, but on other fronts, the battle was only just beginning.

This is where we'll skip over the next forty years of Israel's life as a nation and land with a thump on the other side of the Jordan, right outside the walls of Jericho. The first thing we need to know about the promised land is that, from the point of view of God's nation, it was enemy-occupied territory. It makes sense of Hebrews 4:8 and the reason Joshua did not bring rest to his people. The work from which the people could not rest until it was completed was the work of warfare.

This truth has an all-too-fitting counterpart in our lives as New Testament believers. Hebrews 4:8, in the King James, states that Jesus did not give his people rest, Jesus and Joshua being different forms of the same name. While I believe the newer translations got it right when they identified the “Jesus” of Hebrews 4:8 as being the Joshua of the Old Testament, I'm reminded that the Old Testament Joshua was yet another of those portraits of the New Testament Jesus, and I'm reminded that Jesus has not yet given His people that “katapauo/katapausis” or “sabbatismos” rest — a Sabbath-rest, a rest of completion.

After we enter into our new lives as believers in Jesus, the first lesson we need to learn is that we've entered into enemy-occupied territory. It takes no time at all for the new believer to discover that his or her new life is one of warfare. Joshua and the nation Israel had their battles to fight against flesh and blood armies and cities of brick and stone, but our battle is not against flesh and blood (Eph. 6:12). The cities and towers and fortresses and strongholds we go up against are not of brick and stone, but they are real entities and are ruled by “...principalities...powers...rulers of the darkness of this world...spiritual wickedness in high places...” (Eph. 6:12, emphasis added). Our battle is against the one who appropriated to himself the title “lord of the north” in his challenge to the God Most High.

We've already looked at Matthew 11:28-30 this week and the family business we've been called into. It is a house-building work. God is in the process of building Himself a house and a city, but this earth is enemy-occupied territory, and in order to do His house-and-city-building work, He first must do a little tearing-down work. As we've been asked to participate in the house-building, so must we first join in the tearing-down. The good news is our Key Thoughts for the day.

1 — Unless the B__________ b_______ the house, it won't get b_______.

2 — Unless the K__________ k_______ the city, it won't get k________.

5 — The B__________ and K__________'s house and city will be b________ and k________ forever.

We've seen it from the city and tower of Babel. We see it again today from Joshua 6, Hebrews 11:30, and the city of Jericho. What God decides to tear down cannot stand. But what He decides to build will stay built. We know which side wins.

In the ultimate, the battle is already won. In the immediate, it rages on. The battle is over souls — over the building of God's house. All the enemy can do is inflict casualties, but he does what he can.

Let's look more closely now at Joshua 6 and the city of Jericho that God didn't build or keep. In the battle plan given to Joshua for Jericho, I see the model strategy that God had in mind for all the battles the nation Israel would face in their new land. I see the model strategy God has in mind for all the battles we'll face. I don't mean that all battles looked or will look exactly like Joshua 6, but Joshua 6 lays down a few principles that applied and should apply to all the battles fought by God's people.

What number shows up repeatedly in Joshua 6 and Hebrews 11:30?

What does the number seven represent in biblical numerology (Hebrews 4:4 can help you answer)?

In case you've never noticed before, the number seven in the Bible points us toward God's work — perfect and complete. When the number seven shows up, we're being shown a work God is doing.

Where was the ark of the covenant in relation to the rest of the army in Joshua 6?

What did the ark of the covenant or the ark of the LORD represent in the Old Testament?

The ark was a very special box that God commanded to be built which represented His throne (also called “the mercy seat”), His covenant, and His presence with His people (Ex. 25:10-22). I only recently noticed its very intentional placement in Joshua 6. The army went before and behind the ark (Josh. 6:9). In other words, God's presence was in the very midst of His people as they went out to battle.

Are you seeing the principles that are the strategy for every battle God's people must fight? The sevens show us that the battle is the Lord's. The work is His. The people were not to make a noise until, on the seventh day, after seven times around the city, the seven rams'-horn-trumpets sounded. God takes the initiative in our battles. We follow His lead. But the walls of Jericho didn't collapse until the people shouted, echoing the seven trumpets. God is the General, but His plan is not to go into battle alone. The ark went in the midst of the army. The all-relational God asks us to join Him in His work — His work of battle. His work of tearing-down in order to build up His house.

God had to make it very obvious to the people — the people of Israel, the people of Jericho, and all the people of the surrounding nations — who was really God. Even without understanding all the sevens and what they meant or the ark of the covenant and what it meant, any who heard about the battle of Jericho would have realized that a Power greater than any other was at work for Israel. Israel had entered into territory staked out by one claiming to be “the lord of the north” — the lord of up. God had to prove to everyone's satisfaction who was really the Lord of the north — the God Most High. No cities, walls, or towers could stand against Him in the midst of His people.

Now that we have the model strategy of Joshua 6, let's take another look at Matthew 11:28-30. Realizing that a big part of the work Jesus calls His followers to partake in is warfare, how is it possible for Him to promise that His work is a kind of rest — that His yoke is light and easy? How can there ever be rest in the middle of a battle raging around us on all sides? The answer is simple (intellectually. I wish I understood it a little more experientially.) His yoke is light and easy because it's a double yoke.

I was intrigued to learn that the word for “yoke” in Matthew 11:28-30 is “zugos” in the Greek which can mean a yoke or a pair of balances. It struck me that Jesus' light and easy yoke can be light and easy for us because the vast majority of the weight falls on His own shoulders. In the pair of balances that is His yoke, His side plummets downward to lift the load on our side. When I look at the battle of Jericho, that's the strategy I see. The all-relational God wants to fight His battle with His people — joined together with them in the same yoke — but He does the lion's share of the work.

Every day of my life is a battle, even when I forget the fact. Every day, the one who thought he could raise his throne to Zaphon and be like the Most High tempts me to that same futile attempt. Every day, there's a battle over who will reign in my life. I'm not unique. The battle is the same for everyone. And remember that promised lands are claimed only through faith — through recognizing who is really God.

Living our lives of unrest in the battle zones that are our earthly promised lands could be unbearably wearisome were it not for one fact: the rest of the double-team yoke. We're yoked together with an all-powerful Power — the God Most High. Daily in the battle I face, I cry out to Him for deliverance. It's all I can do. Although the battle still feels like a battle, He's seen me through so far. He won't stop now.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 6: The Builder & The Promise Keeper — Heb. 3:1-19, 4:1-11

Week 6, Day 4: Rahab — Hebrews 11:31

Today's Readings: Hebrews 3:16-19, 11:31, Joshua 2, Psalm 87, Psalm 89:1-37, Psalm 147:11, Matthew 1:5-6

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

Part II — The Building of a House (Heb. 11:31)

3 — The B__________'s throne is b_______ on righteousness and justice. (Heb. 11:31, Ps. 89:14)

4 — The K____________ k________ mercy and covenant forever. (Heb. 11:31, Ps. 89:28)

5 — The B__________ and K__________'s house, throne, city, and covenant will be b________ and k________ forever. (Ps. 87:5, Ps. 89:28-29)

* * * * *

It's finally time to answer the questions I asked you on Day 2 of this week (and I quote): “God's plan was to use Pharaoh's hard-heartedness...to gain glory for Himself. Why? Because He was very interested in revealing Himself. To whom? To the 'bad guys' — to the Egyptians. Why to the Egyptians?”

Exodus 9:16 expands this question. It's the record of God telling Pharaoh that He had raised Pharaoh up for the purpose of showing His power and declaring His name in all the earth. Why all the earth?

Does the answer as seen from today's readings in Joshua 2, Hebrews 11:31, and Psalm 87 surprise you? Psalm 87 is particularly clear in giving its answer.

From Psalm 87, why was God interested in revealing Himself to the Egyptians (among other nations)?

If you're puzzled to see why I think Psalm 87 answers the question of why God was interested in revealing Himself to the Egyptians, you need to know who “Rahab” is in Psalm 87. I don't know if there's any linguistic link between the Rahab of Joshua 2 and the “Rahab” of Psalm 87 and 89, but they are two different names. In Psalm 87 and 89, “Rahab” is a poetic name for Egypt, my margin notes inform me.

As far as I can tell, Psalm 87 teaches that God is building a city, and its supernatural-born citizens will include natural-born citizens from such “enemy” nations as Egypt, Babylon, Philistia, and Tyre.

Astonishing answer, isn't it? Maybe not for those of us fed on John 3:16 and God's love for the world with our mother's milk, but if you know anything about the dim view the Jews of Bible times took of their Gentile neighbours, you can imagine that the ancient scrolls were not often opened to Psalm 87.

Sometimes, in light of the rest of the Old Testament — from passages like Psalm 89:10 which glories in God's crushing of “Rahab” — I'm still astonished to see John 3:16 and God's love for the world displayed so clearly in the Old Testament through passages like Psalm 87. And Joshua 2.

Joshua 2 introduces us to the enigmatic character that Hebrews 11:31 reacquaints us with. How did a harlot from a city like Jericho and a people like the Canaanites end up in the Hall of Faith?

Don't you love it? If there was a ever a story that fleshes out 2 Peter 3:9 and God's unwillingness for any to perish but for all to come to repentance, it's Rahab's story. Her story sets the precedent to show how God would have dealt with any who believed and repented, even among the very wicked and fated-for-destruction people of Canaan (Gen. 15:16, Deut. 12:29-31).

Hebrews 3:16-19 reminds us that many among God's nation, Israel, were also fated-for-destruction through their unwillingness to believe God. Interestingly, the city of Jericho as a whole demonstrated more willingness to believe God than an entire generation of His own people did.

Where in Joshua 2 and 6 do you see a willingness on the part of the inhabitants of Jericho to believe that God is? What did they believe about who God is?

From the forty-year-old rumours they'd heard about God parting the Red Sea, the Jericho-ians had a stronger belief in God's power than did the Israelites who'd witnessed God's power first-hand. The citizens of Jericho huddled inside their thick walls in mortal terror of Israel's God, convinced they stood no chance against Him (Josh. 2:11), while the original batch of Israelites refused to enter the promised land when they were told to, convinced they stood no chance against the Jericho-ians and the like.

But there was an important ingredient missing in the belief of the people of Jericho that kept their beliefs from qualifying as faith. Faith is believing God is. That He is who He is. And the people of Jericho, while they understood a little about who God is, didn't understand enough.

Give the two actions listed in Psalm 147:11 that delight God or give Him pleasure.

We're told one page over from Psalm 147 that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Prov. 1:7). But if the fear of the Lord stops short at fear and never progresses, it doesn't count as faith.

The Jericho-ians had the fear. But rather than take the next step — the act of faith of throwing themselves on His mercy — they decided that, even if they were doomed to failure, they'd fight Him to the death. And they did.

Somehow, Rahab had grasped that God is — not only that He exists; not only that He is awesomely powerful — but that He is merciful. She thought it worth her while to take her chances with a strange God's mercy rather than to take her chances with her own people and stand against this God.

Rahab feared. So did all the people of Jericho. But only Rahab and the handful and houseful she swayed to her way of thinking hoped in God's mercy. And it takes both actions to please God.

Reading Psalm 89 while thinking about Rahab and her two-part faith, I saw both the actions of fearing God and hoping in His mercy in this Psalm.

From Psalm 89:1-37, pick out the verses that show the fear of God and verses that hope in His mercy.

I could have had you read the whole psalm which changes tune abruptly at verse thirty-eight. The psalmist opens Psalm 89 by remembering all God's promises but turns to bemoaning the fact that he doesn't see those promises coming true. (Boy! Have I been there!) By the end of the psalm, however, the psalmist is again throwing himself on God's mercy and reminding Him of His promises.

God as a Promise-Keeper is a main theme of Psalm 89. “Covenant” and “faithfulness” are key words. Today's Key Thoughts are all about God's promise-keeping character as seen from Psalm 89.

3 — The B__________'s throne is b_______ on righteousness and justice.

4 — The K____________ k________ mercy and covenant forever.

Psalm 89:14 tells us that God's throne is built on the foundation of righteousness and justice. In His righteousness and justice, I see our promise-keeping God. Righteousness and justice are both integrally related to truth. And our God speaks truth. He can't lie. He can't promise something He won't do.

But Psalm 89:14 goes on to tell us that mercy and truth go before God's face. Psalm 89:28 states that His mercy and His covenant will be kept forever. Part of God's character as a Promise-Keeper, then, involves His mercy. His promises are promises of mercy.

We need to believe that He is who He is in order to please Him (Heb. 11:6). It's not enough to recognize His existence or His incredible power. We must also understand a little of His heart. Otherwise, we'll never trust ourselves to His mercy but, like the majority of Jericho-ians, stumble our way through life in rebellion against Him.

It strikes me, on reading Psalm 89, that God's power is showcased in verses six to thirteen (including His power in crushing Egypt's power through the Red-Sea event). These are the verses that help us along the path to the fear of God where wisdom begins. But it's not on that power that God's throne is built.

He could rule simply because He's the biggest and the strongest. We've seen many thrones built on power alone where “might makes right.” Thrones built on power are certainly fear-inducing. What enormously good news it is that, while God's power is unequalled and should be feared, His throne, His rule, is built on His character. And that character is all about righteousness and justice. It's all about truth. It's all about promise-keeping. And best news of all, it's all about mercy.

We're looking at God's righteous, merciful character through two different portraits this week: the House-Builder and the Promise-Keeper. I don't know where the harlot Rahab from the accursed city of Jericho learned to understand God's character the way she did. But I can see her understanding of God's character through her reflection of it. In Rahab, I see a reflection of those same two portraits.

From Joshua 2, in what way did Rahab show a house-building and promise-keeping heart like God's?

Rahab's concern was not just to save her own skin. She immediately began bargaining with the two spies for the lives of her “house.” Then, we see also that Rahab kept her end of the bargain with the spies. She kept her promises and risked her life to save them because she believed their promises to her. Through her understanding of their God as a Promise-Keeper, she became a promise-keeper herself.

I love seeing the end of her story. Not only does Rahab show up in Hebrews 11 as a faith-heroine, she shows up in Matthew 1's genealogy. She had a house-building heart, and God built her a house. He gave her a husband and a family-line among His people.

And what a family-line! Rahab was a promise-keeper, and God used her to keep the promises He spoke in Psalm 89. He used her in the building of His house and the founding of His promised, never-ending royal line — His throne. Through the line of David, which was first Rahab's line, God sent His firstborn (Ps. 89:27) for the building of His house, His city, and the saving of the world He loves.

More good news. And that good news is today's last Key Thought.

5 — The B__________ and K__________'s house, throne, city, and covenant will be b________ and k________ forever.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 6: The Builder & The Promise Keeper — Heb. 3:1-19, 4:1-11

Week 6, Day 5: Joshua and Rahab — Hebrews 11:30-31

Today's Readings: Hebrews 3:1-6; 11:30-31; Exodus 25:10-22; Joshua 6:17-27; Psalm 89:14, 28-29; John 8:1-11, Hebrews 9:4-5

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

Part II — The Building of a House (Heb. 11:30-31)

3 — The B__________'s throne is b_______ on righteousness and justice. (Heb. 11:30-31, Ps. 89:14)

4 — The K____________ k________ mercy and covenant forever. (Heb. 11:30-31, Ps. 89:28)

5 — The B__________ and K__________'s house, throne, city, and covenant will be b________ and k________ forever. (Ps. 89:28-29)

* * * * *

Joshua and Rahab. What a contrast these two lives present when set side-by-side! Both had a history, but what different histories they had! One was a man who walked with God straight as an arrow (though not perfectly, of course) all his life. We read very little to Joshua's discredit in all the accounts of him. On the other hand, both Joshua 2 and Hebrews 11 are insistent that the reader should know about Rahab's past. Both emphasize the prostitution that was part of her back story.

In Joshua 2, the information may be added to give us a slightly clearer picture. The spies may have been taking advantage of Rahab's profession to make their visit to the city look “innocent.” Two strange men in Jericho would have raised fewer Jericho-ian eyebrows by visiting the house of a harlot than by seeking rooms elsewhere and being unable to account for their presence in the city.

I think the use of “the harlot Rahab” in Hebrews 11 has a different intention, however. I think the author is pointing out that Rahab was a woman tainted on two counts: she belonged to a nation sold out to corruption that God had commanded His people to destroy. And as a result of the corruption of her nation, she was a prostitute. There's no way of knowing how or why she became a prostitute. Given the morals of the people she belonged to, in her world, her prostitution likely did not carry the stigma it does in mine. Yet prostitution was forbidden by God. Rahab had two major strikes against her.

I believe the merciful heart of a God who doesn't count strikes when it comes to those willing to believe that He is is the fact being pointed out by the inclusion of “the harlot Rahab” in Hebrews 11.

Reading about Joshua's dealings with Rahab, I see another reflection of the merciful Promise-Keeper.

It makes me think of another woman of the Bible — another woman carrying a taint and a stigma — who had an encounter with another “Joshua.” Another Joshua whom the Old Testament Joshua resembled. The Joshua of the New Testament also had no blemishes on His record, but unlike the first Joshua, the second had never sinned. Not even once. If anyone deserved to throw stones it was He.

But there was a surprise ending to the encounter. There was a surprise ending to the day which must have started off for the woman as the worst day of her life. There were no stones thrown that day. There were no words even of condemnation for the fallen woman from this “Joshua.” There was only mercy and the chance for a new start.

John doesn't finish off the story of the “woman taken in adultery.” He doesn't tell us that she, like Rahab, went on to marry a good Israelite man, to raise a godly son, and become a person of note in the history of God's people. The end of her story is left to the imagination. But on the day any fallen woman has a true encounter with Jesus and sees the compassion and mercy in His eyes, even if the day starts off as the worst day of her life, it will end up being the best day. Her life will never be the same again. Right there, her path will begin to run a different course, and her story will turn out to have a surprise ending.

There's a minor-yet-intriguing detail that John includes in his account of the woman taken in adultery that has given rise to much speculation. John makes nothing of it; just mentions it off-handedly as eyewitnesses will mention details they notice whether they see the significance of them or not.

What did Jesus write with His finger on the ground? That's the question every reader of John 8:1-11 asks. Whatever He wrote, unless it was only idle doodling to pass the time and make the crowd uncomfortable with His silence, they were words that convinced the watching crowd they would be unjustified to cast any stones at the fallen woman. One suggestion is that Jesus wrote out a list of sins that the crowd had committed. I'd like to offer a similar suggestion with a slightly different slant.

From John 8:5, who commanded the punishment of stoning for the sin of adultery?

The woman's accusers opened their arguments with, “Moses in the law commanded us...” (John 8:5, italics added). Were they telling the truth? Had Moses given the commandment?

When I noticed in Exodus 31:18 and Deuteronomy 9:10 that God gave Moses His commandments, written with His own finger on tablets of stone, I was reminded that the Son did only what He saw His Father do (John 5:19). At one point in history, the Father stooped to earth to inscribe in the ground with His own finger His ideas (the only true ideas) about right and wrong. By writing in the ground with His finger, was Jesus reminding the crowd that Moses hadn't given the people the Law? Moses was only the faithful servant who passed on God's words faithfully. The words, however, were God's.

Did Jesus write with His finger in the ground, not a list of sins, but a list of commandments? God's commandments? The commandments of the Father and the Son? Their ideas of right and wrong?

From today's reading, what became of the laws written by the finger of God? Where were they kept?

I hope you noticed already (from Hebrews 9:4) the contents of the ark of the covenant. Hebrews 9:4 puts together different Old Testament passages (Ex. 16:32-34; 25:16, 21; Num. 17:10) to deduce what the ark of the covenant held. We talked briefly about the ark on the first day we marched around Jericho with Joshua, the Israelites, and the ark. I told you then it was the representation of God's throne, God's covenant, and God's presence with His people. I'd like to defend that explanation from Exodus 25.

Skim Ezekiel 1, 10, and Revelation 4. Compare Ezekiel 1:26, 10:1, and Revelation 4:6 to Exodus 25:18-20 and explain the scriptural evidence that the mercy seat of Exodus 25 represents God's throne.

That was an extra-credit assignment and a bit of a task, but I hope you accomplished it. I wanted you to see for yourself that the four cherubim of Ezekiel 1 and 10 are certainly the same as the four living creatures of Revelation 4. And the role of the cherubim, from both Ezekiel and Revelation, is to surround God's throne. When they show up in Exodus 25:18-20, then, to cover the “mercy seat” on the ark, it becomes obvious (in my mind, at least) that the “mercy seat” represents God's throne.

That the ark is called “the ark of the covenant” tells us that it represents God's covenant with His people. There was also the “testimony” (“the tables of the covenant” — Heb. 9:4) which God commanded to be placed inside the ark (Ex. 25:16, 21). These stone tablets (God's laws) engraved with His finger were a kind of signed contract. They were the reminder of the covenant God had made with His people that He would be their God and keep them if they would be His people and keep His Law.

I see the ark as a representation of God's presence with His people from Exodus 25:22.

From Exodus 25:22, where would God meet and speak with Moses?

The “mercy seat” of the ark was the place God and Moses would meet. Of course, if the mercy seat represented God's throne, as I believe, then it represented God's presence. God's presence and His throne are inseparable. When it comes to His reign, He never takes a break, never needs a breather, never goes on holidays, never gets the boot. That the ark represented God's presence with His people can be seen from Exodus 25:12-15. The ark was equipped with rings and rods for what purpose? For the purpose of transport. The ark was meant to be carried. It was meant to travel with (and lead) the people of Israel wherever they travelled. The fact that the ark went wherever His people went tells me that it represented not only God's presence but God's presence with His people.

From Exodus 25:22, why would God meet with Moses at the mercy seat?

And here we are back to those commandments — God's laws and God's covenant — that seem to keep invading our lesson today. It's those laws, spoken from the mercy seat, that bring in a Key Thought.

3 — The B__________'s throne is b_______ on righteousness and justice.

As I began this week's lessons (without knowing which direction they were going to head) and I began fumbling around, looking here, there, and everywhere for Key Thoughts, it seemed that everywhere I looked, all I could see (through my reading in the Psalms) was God's throne and its foundations of righteousness and justice. I gave in and made God's throne and its foundations one of my Key Thoughts, although I had no idea how it could possibly tie in to any of this week's lessons.

A chance comment put me on a trail of thought that led me to the ark of the covenant and its contents. Then, I began to see a thread (a slim thread, mind you) binding together God's throne and its foundations with Joshua and with this week's portrait of Christ as a Promise-Keeper.

That binding thread is the ark of the covenant and its contents. I remembered that the ark of the covenant marched around the city of Jericho with Joshua and the Israelites as a representation of God's presence with His people and His promises to them. Then, I remembered that the ark also represented God's throne. I remembered that God's throne is built on the foundation of righteousness and justice. And I remembered that God had commanded two tablets of stone — His law and His covenant — to be placed within the ark, under the mercy seat. And then the light bulb above my head switched on. The mercy seat on the ark of the covenant, representing God's throne, rested on God's laws.

His throne is built on His righteousness and His justice. In His reign, He cannot go against His own ideas (the only true ideas) of right and wrong. He must keep His own laws.

But His laws were also His covenant with His people. His throne also rests on His covenant. And His people had broken their covenant. The agreement was that He would be their God and keep them if they would be His people and keep His Law. But this state of affairs had not come to pass. They had not kept His laws. They had not made Him their One True God.

God's throne is built on righteousness and justice. But mercy goes before His face. The mercy seat rested on God's laws. But it was the mercy seat. He must do justly. But He loves mercy (Micah 6:8).

4 — The K____________ k________ mercy and covenant forever.

The Promise-Keeper had a dilemma on His hands. He'd made promises of judgment against sin. On the other hand, He'd also made promises of mercy. He keeps mercy and covenant forever. But how could His promises of judgment and His promises of mercy fit together? How can His righteousness and justice meet His mercy without each side cancelling the other?

God's dilemma was also Joshua's. “Destroy Jericho utterly,” God had commanded. And before Joshua was the ark, reminding him of God's reign based on His laws. But a promise of mercy had been made. How could both the promise and God's commands be kept? Joshua kept the promise of mercy, grasping, somehow, that there must be a solution to the dilemma that included promises of mercy.

Do you also see Jesus' dilemma before the woman taken in adultery? Whatever He wrote on the ground with His finger on that occasion is immaterial. What is material is that it had been His finger (given the oneness of Father and Son) that had engraved into stone the law against adultery. The law that had been broken was His law. It was His command that an adulterer be stoned. If only the sinless should throw the first stone, then the first stone should have been His to throw. But He keeps mercy and covenant forever. As He cannot go against His laws, so He cannot forget His promises of mercy.

What was Jesus' solution to His dilemma?

God made provision in His law to deal with His dilemma. Contained within those laws God had given to Moses were sacrificial laws. In order to keep His right and just promises of judgment against sin as well as His promises of mercy, God instituted a system where the innocent could bear the punishment of the guilty. The laws of animal sacrifice pointed to the one, perfect human sacrifice.

It was the only way the Promise-Keeper could say to the adulteress, “Neither do I condemn you.” It was because He kept His own laws — all of them; even the substitutional sacrifice laws — that Jesus could refuse to throw the first stone. Because He would take the punishment, He was free to pardon.

Because He also bore Rahab's guilt, the promises made to her were His promises, and He kept them.

Jericho was under a curse. No plunder was to be taken from the city. Anyone who took plunder must die for it. Yet God took plunder for Himself from Jericho. Because He delights in mercy, He delights in plundering the enemy's cities. I'm not speaking here of the gold and silver devoted to Him from Jericho. I'm speaking, of course, of the human plunder belonging to the enemy's camp. But the price was the same. In order to plunder the enemy, God Himself was willing to die. And He did.

The city of Jericho was under a curse as to its rebuilding, as well. Joshua prophetically said that the rebuilder of Jericho must pay the cost of his firstborn. Jericho was a cursed city, and all in it was cursed.

But God is building Himself a city from the human plunder He reclaims from the enemy. All inhabitants of Jericho were under a curse, and all the inhabitants of all the spiritual Jerichos (and the spiritual Egypts and the spiritual Babylons, Philistias, Tyres, etc.) are under a curse, but God reclaims them, anyway. He takes the curse on Himself in order to reclaim them. He paid the price of the life of His Firstborn in order to build His city out of the plunder He takes back from the enemy's “Jerichos.”

One more thing to remember about the Builder and Promise-Keeper and His building and promises:

5 — The B__________ and K__________'s house, throne, city, and covenant will be b________ and k________ forever.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

WEEK 6 Group Study — Heb. 3:1-19, 4:1-11, Heb. 11:29-31

Review Readings: Heb. 3:1-19; 4:1-11; 11:29-31; Exodus 14:1-4, 14:29-31; Joshua 6:17-27; Psalm 48; 87; 89:14, 28-29; 127:1

* * * * *

Key Thoughts for Review:

Part I — The Promise of Rest (Heb. 3:1-19, 4:1-11)

1 — The B____________ is b____________ Himself a house. (Heb. 3:1-6)

2 — The B____________ r__________ from His b____________ work. (Heb. 4:3-4)

3 — The P___________ K___________ has a p__________ land of r_______ for His house. (Heb. 4:1, 9)

4 — The house and the p____________ land may only be entered through faith. (Heb. 3, 4:1-11)

Part II — The Building of a House (Heb. 11:29-31)

1 — Unless the B__________ b_______ the house, it won't get b_______. (Heb. 11:29-30, Ps. 127:1)

2 — Unless the K__________ k_______ the city, it won't get k________. (Heb. 11:29-30, Ps. 127:1)

3 — The B__________'s throne is b_______ on righteousness and justice. (Heb. 11:30-31, Ps. 89:14)

4 — The K____________ k________ mercy and covenant forever. (Heb. 11:30-31, Ps. 89:28)

5 — The B__________ and K__________'s house, throne, city, and covenant will be b________ and k________ forever. (Ps. 48:8, Ps. 87:5, Ps. 89:28-29)

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: The Builder & Promise Keeper

1 — Review the Key Thoughts to share new insights from this week on the Builder and Promise Keeper.

2 — What connections can you see between the portraits of the Builder and the Promise Keeper?

3 — Has any theme from this week's lessons emerged in a personal way for you?

4 — The Promise Keeper has promised rest to His people; still He works and asks us to join Him in His work. How is it possible for Him to give us rest in the midst of His building-work and of His battle-work?

5 — How has Key Thought Part I # 4 been demonstrated in every lesson this week?

And finally, one last time for the week, please share any of your own discoveries this week about...

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 7: The Promise Keeper & The Sword Keeper — Heb. 4

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

Gideon, Barak, Jephthah, and Samson. . . (Heb. 11:32a.)

A — . . .obtained p____________. . . (Heb. 4:1-11, 11:33b.)

B — . . .escaped the edge of the s____________. . . (Heb. 4:12-16, 11:34b.)

Part I — . . .were made s____________ through w_______________. . . (Heb. 11:34b. Judg. 6:14-15)

1 — . . .were made s____________ in b____________. . . (Heb. 11:34b., Judg. 4:6-7)

2 — . . .put to flight foreign a____________. . . (Heb. 11:34b.; Deut. 28:1, 7; Judg. 11:32-33)

Part II — . . .was made w____________ through his s____________. (Judg. 16:18-21)

Key words: promises, sword, strong, strength, weak, weakness, battle, armies

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 7: The Promise Keeper & The Sword Keeper — Heb. 4

Week 7, Day 1: The Promise Keeper and the Sword Keeper — Hebrews 4

Today's Readings: Hebrews 4, 2 Thessalonians 1:4-10, Revelation 19:11-15

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

A — . . .obtained p____________. . . (Heb. 4:1-11)

B — . . .escaped the edge of the s____________. . . (Heb. 4:12-16)

* * * * *

With this week's lessons, we're settled down in the promised land with the nation Israel; the division of territory according to tribe has been accomplished; Joshua has fought his battles, conquered some enemies, sternly warned the nation to follow his example by having no other gods before the One True God, and rested with his fathers (Josh. 24). And still there is little rest in the land. Can you guess why?

Here we close the book of Joshua and open the book of Judges. Our Hebrews 11 time-frame this week covers the book of Judges by covering the lives of Gideon, Barak, Jephthah, and Samson. There were many more than these four judges in the book called after the designation of the leaders of Israel during this period, but as Hebrews 11 restricts itself to these four, so will we.

In case you couldn't guess the reason why there is very little “rest to the people of God” to be found within the pages of Judges, I'll tell you what I see as the theme verses. Chapter two sets the stage for the book. It explains, “And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the LORD, died...And also all that generation were gathered unto their fathers: and there arose another generation after them, which knew not the LORD...And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD, and served Baalim” (Judges 2:8, 10-11). This chapter opens with God's messenger reminding the people that they had been strictly instructed to drive out the people of Canaan and under no circumstances to make covenants of peace with them or go after their gods. These instructions had not been followed. Therefore, “...they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you,” God's messenger promised (Judges 2:3). The book of Judges is the story of the fulfillment of that promise.

The other theme verse is the final one in the book: “In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25). Between chapter two and its final verse, nearly every word in the book expands somehow on those thesis statements.

But there are bright spots. The bright spots are the men (and a woman) who give the book its name — the judges. Although each judge steps into position as a result of the acting out of the theme verses of the book, the judges are the good news in the midst of all the bad news/good news cycles of the book.

The story of those cycles is the story of Judges. It would be impossible to teach any lessons on the book of Judges and ignore its cyclical nature. I've heard the cycle described in various ways. I'll give you my own descriptions of it: the slide into the worship of false gods — deliverance over to the enemy — the cry for deliverance — deliverance from the enemy — a period of rest (then, same song, second verse; little bit louder, little bit worse). And the shortened version: rebellion — retribution — repentance — rescue — rest (etc. ad nauseam). The judges come in on the “rescue” and “rest” stages of the cycle.

It's in that “rescuing” and “resting” activity that this week's Hebrews 4 portraits are found. If you're given to reading the Key Thoughts in advance, you'll have noticed that the week's two main headings...

A — . . .obtained p____________. . . (the resting)

B — . . .escaped the edge of the s____________. . . (the rescuing)

...are drawn from both Hebrews 4 and Hebrews 11.

We've reached the point in Hebrews 11 where it becomes a jumble of people and experiences. The reader, from here on in, is left to decipher for him or herself which people are meant to go with which experiences. You'll be stuck with my decipherings in this study, and I've decided that the four from the book of Judges “obtained promises” and “escaped the edge of the sword.” I further decided that they escaped the edge of the sword through three specific promises they “obtained” (as listed in Hebrews 11:34): they were made strong through their weakness (and through that means “obtained” the other two promises): they were made strong in battle, and they put to flight foreign armies. The “...was made weak through his strength” Key Thought applies specifically to the last judge whose story we'll examine on Day 5 of this week, but the first three points under “...escaped the edge of the sword...” apply fairly equally to all four. Although that is the case, we'll be looking at one promise per judge this week.

Being familiar with Hebrews 4 by now, you've likely realized why I chose “obtained promises” and “escaped the edge of the sword” (from Hebrews 11:33-34) as the main Key Thoughts of the week.

From Hebrews 4, one “promise” that each of the four judges “obtained” was a promise of rest. Again, this rest was not the “katapauo/katapausis” final rest of completion, but a short period of rest. The rest, like the rest Joshua couldn't give his people, was a rest from the work of battle. And that rest was “obtained” (for a short time) by reversing the conditions of the theme verses of Judges. The people returned to the worship of the One True God and, as a result, experienced a time of rest.

Seeing warfare is unavoidably a part of this week's lessons, “escaping the edge of the sword” is unavoidably intertwined with the “obtaining” of the “promise of rest.”

So let's look at the sword of Hebrews 4 to attempt to piece together the meaning of the chapter.

Divide Hebrews 4 into three parts according to theme.

On numerous readings-through of Hebrews 4, I was stumped (nearly) every time to see what the themes of a promise of rest, a sword, and Jesus, our sympathetic High Priest, had to do with each other.

What is the “sword” of Hebrews 4:12?

Being that the sword is the Word of God, I could faintly see a connection between the promise of rest and the Old Testament warnings-by-example of all those who had failed to obtain this promise.

But if the the point of the sword (ouch! pun not intended) in Hebrews 4:12 is, “God's Word gives us warnings,” then, what on earth is the point of Hebrews 4:14-16 —“Jesus as a sympathetic High Priest”?

There seems to be an abrupt turnaround from Hebrews 4:12-13 to Hebrews 4:14-16 which opens with the words, “Seeing then...” or “Therefore...” “Therefore”? Whadd'ya mean “therefore”? “Therefore” means logical conclusion; not charging-off-in-the-opposite-direction subject change!

Because of the “therefore,” followed by words of strong comfort, I'm convinced that there must be more intended in the Hebrews 4:12-13 section on the sword of God than words of strong warning.

First, there's Hebrews 4:1-11 with the “rest” Joshua couldn't give his people but also the “rest” that will eventually be for all God's people. Then, there's Hebrews 4:12-13 and the sword of God's word. When I put those pieces together with the purpose for the writing of the book of Hebrews, I begin to understand Hebrews 4:14-16 and the “therefore” of verse fourteen a little better.

The “promise of rest” of Hebrews 4 is a promise of rest from battle. Joshua's generation experienced none of it; the judges' generations experienced little of it; but their battles were against flesh and blood. The original reading-audience of Hebrews was also experiencing no rest from battle, but their battle, they needed to be reminded, wasn't against flesh and blood. Hebrews' reading-audience needed to remember that the flesh and blood which stood against them was inspired by principalities and powers. And it was against the principalities and powers that their real battles must take place. God's sword, more powerful and sharper than any sword of iron, was their weapon. It stood as an instrument of warning to them that they never, ever wanted to ally themselves once again with the losing side, but it also stood as an instrument of comfort to them as they allied themselves with God and His army.

Either a warning or a comfort (depending on which side of the sword one finds oneself), the sword is always an instrument of warfare — of judgment. The suffering Hebrew Christians were being reminded in Hebrews 4:12-13 that there is a final judgment coming. There is a promised rest for the people of God. That promised rest is an end to their warfare, but it is a time of judgment for those who have fought their battles on the side destined to lose. It is God's Word that will judge the world (John 5:45-47, 12:48). It lays bare motives and strips away excuses (Heb. 4:12-13). But it's also that Word which will judge those who cause the suffering of God's own. And that is how an instrument of judgment becomes an instrument of comfort to God's people. Let's look at that comfort from today's other readings.

What will God give to His own suffering ones from 2 Thessalonians 1:7? From 2 Thessalonians 1:6, what will He give to those who caused their suffering and why?

If you've never experienced (as I never have) any suffering caused by gross injustice, you (like me) might wonder how vengeance and mercy can both be part of God's character.

I once wrote a study on Revelation, and I began to see it. It's because of God's great love for His own that He cannot leave them unavenged. There must be recompense. Innocent suffering cannot be swept under the rug. It's a righteous thing with Him to repay the unrepentant suffering-causers with suffering.

Let's look now at that instrument of warfare and judgment from Revelation 19:11-15.

What is Jesus' title in Revelation 19:13? Why would His sword issue from His mouth in 19:15?

We saw Jesus as the Word in John 1 when John wrote about the beginning of the world. Writing about the end of it, John again calls Jesus the Word. The Word is creative and life-giving. But it also judges and makes war. Because sin and suffering entered His world, His Word must also be a sword.

Then, if you see the last part of Revelation 19:15 (the winepress of the wrath of God) in its context of Revelation 14-18, you'll again see God's vengeance because of His great love for His own.

And that's the comfort of Hebrews 4:14-16. We have a High Priest who knows it all. He, too, fought battles. He knows what we endure. And He holds the only sword we'll need in the battles we must fight.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 7: The Promise Keeper & The Sword Keeper — Heb. 4

Week 7, Day 2: Gideon — Hebrews 11:32-34

Today's Readings: Hebrews 4:12-13, 11:32-34, Judges 6-7,

2 Corinthians 4:3-11, 12:1-10

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

Gideon. . . (Heb. 11:32a.)

A — . . .obtained p____________. . . (Heb. 11:33b.)

B — . . .escaped the edge of the s____________. . . (Heb. 11:34b.)

Part I — . . .was made s____________ through w_______________. . . (Heb. 11:34b., Judg. 6:14-15)

* * * * *

You may have noticed that I've rearranged the order of the judges of Hebrews 11:32 slightly. Chronologically from the book of Judges, they run in the order of Barak, Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson. I've chosen the Hebrews-11 order for the first two judges and the book-of-Judges order for the last two. There's a reason for it. I wanted to use Gideon and Samson as my bookends for the book of Judges. I see both Gideon and Samson as exemplifying a principle I believe God taught strongly through the book of Judges. But I see this principle in mirror images from the lives of Gideon and Samson. For Gideon, this principle is a positive. For Samson, the reverse image is in the negative.

That principle from Gideon's life is one of today's Key Thoughts. It was how he managed to perform another of today's Key Thoughts.

B — . . .escaped the edge of the s____________. . .

Part I — . . .was made s____________ through w_______________. . .

Because his weakness was turned into his strength, Gideon did indeed escape the edge of the sword. But before we get to see that principle of Gideon's strength through his weakness (which will be the main point of today's lesson), let's look at Gideon as a promise-obtainer.

A — . . .obtained p____________. . .

As mentioned, the specific promise Gideon obtained which I'd like to look at today is the promise found under “...escaped the edge of the sword...” I'd like us to see that God promised Gideon strength — specifically strength through his weakness.

Let's walk through Judges 6-7 to see the promise given to Gideon in the opening lines of his story.

Judges 6 starts, like most of the stories of the judges, with the usual background information. The enemy changes names and faces, but the reason for their dominance is always the same. “And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD: and the LORD delivered them into the hand of...”

Another pattern is set for us when Gideon is introduced. Not in specifics but in principle.

What is the promise made to Gideon in Judges 6:12? What title is used of him?

From Judges 6-7, briefly list all Gideon's words or actions that make this title appear to be ironic?

From Judges 6:12 and 14, Gideon was given a promise of strength. In Judges 6:12, the reason for his strength is stated: God was with him. As we'll see with our other character studies this week, that was the only reason for the promised strength. In fact, the very reason God chose Gideon, Barak, Jephthah, and Samson for His purposes, I believe, was because of their obvious weaknesses. He likes the unlikely.

Take Gideon as a “for instance.” There had to be a small, wry smile playing around the lips of the Angel of the Lord as he addressed a man, hiding in a winepress to thresh out his wheat, as, “you mighty man of valour.” Gideon went on to give the lie to that title by requiring no less than three miraculous signs in order to believe it was really God who had spoken to him, by tearing down his family's false gods as commanded (but only at night), and by needing, immediately before going into battle, one final confirmation that he would indeed win the battle as God had promised. And yet, he did manage to drag himself into that battle, fought against ridiculous odds, and God did indeed give him a fantastic victory.

Gideon himself decried his valour in Judges 6:15, and I'd have been inclined to believe him. But God wasn't. The title, “you mighty man of valour” was only partially satirical. It tells us how God saw the man He could turn Gideon into. It tells us how the Promise-Keeper can keep any promise He makes.

Before we get to Gideon's more famous battle, let's look at his first one.

What was the first battle command the Lord, as general, gave to His soldier, Gideon (Judg. 6:25-26)?

Gideon's first battle has large relevance to the one in which we're all engaged. His first battle, like ours, was not against flesh and blood but against Baal — that “lord” who claimed to be the lord of the north — the lord of up. And Gideon's first battle involved a little tearing-down. It's the first battle and the one that, in a sense, encompasses all others that we all must fight: who is really God? If we're ever to obtain the Hebrews 4 promise — a promise of rest — it will only be obtained by faith. And faith begins with who is really God and who God really is. For us, rest can only be gained through that battle.

After Baal's altar was broken down and God's altar erected in its place, the Spirit of God came upon Gideon. He showed his first signs of turning into the mighty man of valour God saw him as and began to gather an army. Then, a little late in the game for second-guessing, Gideon put out his famous fleeces.

There's no record of God scolding Gideon for asking for signs when God had already clearly spoken. God knew the kind of “mighty man of valour” He was getting, and He gave Gideon what he needed.

Then, when Judges 7 opens, God expressly lays out the principle we've only seen hints of so far.

From Judges 7:2-3, what was the reason God saw fit to send home all the fearful?

(I can just imagine Gideon receiving this order from God, his eyes lighting up, and God saying to him, “No, Gideon. Not you.”) Judges 7:2-3 opens up tomorrow's subject — God requires willingness. He doesn't conscript. His soldiers are volunteers. Even the non-enthusiastic, like Gideon, must be willing.

But it's not the principle explicitly stated in Judges 7:2. That principle (and today's main point) is also found in 1 Corinthians 1:27, “But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;”

Thirty-two thousand was far too many for God to use to save Israel from the Midianites. He had in mind, oh say, three hundred. It is always of vital importance to Him that He gets the credit for the things He does. We saw it through the Red-Sea crossing. We saw it through His model battle plan given to Joshua at Jericho. Why is it vitally important to Him? Because it is vitally important to the all-relational God that everyone be given a chance to know Him. So it is vitally important to Him that He reveal Himself. And He starts by requiring that He gets the credit for the things He does.

When He reduced Gideon's little band from ten thousand to three hundred, He did so through a test that looks a little obscure to me. I remember hearing teaching to the effect that the men who scooped the water into their hands and “lapped like dogs” showed themselves better soldiers than those who knelt down and stuck their faces into the water to drink. The “lappers” kept their heads up, on the alert.

With the principle God seems to be emphasizing at every turn in Gideon's story, I strongly doubt that the men who “lapped like dogs” were retained for Gideon's army because they had showed themselves better soldiers. By connecting these soldiers' method of drinking to a dog's method of drinking (given the lowly place a dog had in Hebrew society), I believe 1 Corinthians 1:27 is again being reiterated. God uses the foolish to confound the wise and the weak to confound the mighty. Are you seeing the point? All pride in being chosen by God for any task of His should be peeled away, strip by painful strip, through this story of Gideon and his little army.

After God's drastic arithmetic in subtracting thirty-one thousand, seven hundred from Gideon's original army of thirty-two thousand, there can be little doubt that Gideon's confidence in the venture he was about to undertake again took a nose-dive. I say so because of Judges 7:9-11.

Though it plays it straight, I have to laugh a little at the comedy in the narrative of Judges 7:9-11. “If you're afraid...” God says to Gideon (as though there was a real possibility of an “if” in the situation), but Judges 7:11 reports matter-of-factly that Gideon went down to eavesdrop with his servant as though the “if” had been left unspoken and the decision required no thought-process whatsoever.

Of course he was afraid! Whadd'ya mean “if”? He was still the “mighty man of valour” we've seen him to be so far, and he was about to go up against a locust-like “host” of Midianite oppressors with an army of three hundred soldiers (whose only recommendation of which we're informed was their ability to drink doggy-fashion), armed with trumpets, torches, and clay pitchers.

What did Gideon and his servant overhear (Judges 7:13-14)? What did the dream mean and why?

Like so many of the very strange features of Gideon's strange story, I didn't quite see the point of the dream when I first learned this story in my tender years from the vantage point of a little, wooden Sunday-school chair. Why should a loaf of bread tumbling into a tent mean that the Israelites would beat the Midianites? The symbolism makes more sense to me now. In the dream, the loaf of bread was a sort of “team logo” for the Israelites and the tent for the Midianites because (as shown by the opening scene of Judges 6) the Israelites were landed farmers — wheat-growers — and the Midianites were raiding nomads — tent-dwellers. The real meaning of the dream, however, was (yup!) the principle of 1 Corinthians 1:27. A loaf of bread will not ordinarily collapse a tent by rolling into it. Now, I have slept in some tents that could have been collapsed by an errant loaf of bread (and I've eaten some loaves of bread that could probably collapse a tent). But we have to remember the kinds of tents the Midianites thought of as tents. They weren't the backpacker-friendly, nylon pup tents of my camping experience. They were heavy-duty, semi-permanent dwelling-places, impervious to stray loaves of bread.

Again, God would use the few and the weak to confound the many and the strong.

Now, we're getting to Gideon's second and more famous battle, and in the famous “weapons” used in that battle, I see (yet again) 1 Corinthians 1:27 (and finally, 2 Corinthians 4:3-11 and 12:1-10).

List the three “weapons” of Judges 7:16. From Judges 7:20, how were these “weapons” positioned?

What was the battle cry (Judges 7:20)? From Hebrews 4:12, what is the “sword of the LORD”?

This was the only “sword” Israel's army had easy access to. From Judges 7:20, every hand was full of a torch or a trumpet. If there were any swords of bronze or iron in their possession, they were in their scabbards, and there were no hands available to pull them out of the scabbards. God used torches, only revealed by the breaking of clay pitchers, and a battle cry to win the battle.

Do you see any of Gideon's weapons in 2 Corinthians 4:3-11? What do they symbolize there?

I see all of Gideon's weapons in 2 Corinthians 4. First, in 2 Corinthians 4:5-6, I see “the sword of the LORD” which is essentially the same as the trumpet. That “sword,” like the trumpet, is a proclamation — a battle cry. The “sword of the LORD” (and of Gideon) from Judges 7:20 was nothing more nor less than the words the army shouted. God's “sword” is His Word (Heb. 4:12), and it was that “sword” (as revealed to Gideon) that was exhaled from the mouths of Gideon's army as they shouted. But it was “the sword of the LORD, and of Gideon”! It was God's because it came from Him. It became Gideon's when it was echoed through his mouth. In 2 Corinthians 4:6, it's God who speaks first to reveal Himself. From 2 Corinthians 4:5, the proclamation of the revelation of God (Father and Son) is only being echoed.

But the “...and of Gideon” is a vital phrase to God. We've seen it before. It's not His plan to go into battle alone. The all-relational General wants His soldiers at His side. He makes His weapons ours.

I see Gideon's torches in 2 Corinthians 4:4 and 6. The light is God's light — His revelation of Himself. But how does He reveal Himself? Through “earthen vessels.” I see Gideon's clay pitchers in 2 Corinthians 4:3 and 7. The light is veiled or hidden. By what? By earthen vessels. The light is God's; the clay is ours. And the clay pitchers require a little breakage in order for the light to be revealed.

I see that breakage all over 2 Corinthians 4:8-11. And 2 Corinthians 12:1-10. In order for God to show that the excellency of the power is His and not ours, the clay pitchers have to endure some breaking. There has to be a little death of the clay pitcher.

2 Corinthians was written by the apostle Paul, a man who had little in common (by nature) with Gideon. If Gideon's “valour” was invisible to the naked eye, it was written all over Paul. When I think of Paul (or Saul, in his old life) I think of a strong character. Zealous. Fearless. Unstoppable.

God didn't find it necessary to discard Paul's natural strengths. He transformed them. But He taught Paul the principle that He chooses the foolish and weak things of this world to confound the wise and mighty. If the first and most important battle of our lives is, “Who is really God?” we must learn reliance on God rather than self-reliance. The clay pitcher must die a little death to its old, self-first life in order to shine out God's light. 2 Corinthians 12 is the record of how God taught this principle to Paul through Paul's acquisition of an unnamed weakness that he came to embrace for the God-reliance it taught him.

Are you seeing why God had to teach us through Gideon that any pride in being chosen for His army must be peeled away “strip by painful strip”? It's our very weakness that is opportunity for His strength.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 7: The Promise Keeper & The Sword Keeper — Heb. 4

Week 7, Day 3: Barak — Hebrews 11:32-34

Today's Readings: Hebrews 4:14-16, 11:32-34, Judges 4-5, Joshua 11:1-13

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

Barak. . . (Heb. 11:32a.)

A — . . .obtained p____________. . . (Heb. 11:33b.)

B — . . .escaped the edge of the s____________. . . (Heb. 11:34b.)

1 — . . .was made s____________ in b____________. . . (Heb. 11:34b., Judg. 4:6-7)

* * * * *

Of all the Hebrews 11 characters we've studied so far, which one reminds you the most of yourself?

I don't know if you've ever thought of yourself as a Bible character before, but if there's just one I could pick with whom I identify most closely, it would have to be Gideon. If I were allowed to pick two, my second choice would have to be Barak.

God and I repeatedly have a conversation where I ask Him what on earth He was thinking by making me out of such extremely non-valiant-warrior material and then sticking me into the middle of a battlefield. With every new battle I face, I find myself saying to Him, “How can you possibly think I'm up for this? You've got the wrong girl for the job this time.” If life weren't such a constant battle, I could handle being non-warrior material. Or if I had a little more “mighty woman of valour” in me, I might not mind the battlefield so much. But it's the combination of who I am and how life is that gets to me.

His answer to me never changes. “My grace is sufficient for you. My strength is made perfect in weakness.” He reminds me of 1 Corinthians 1:27 and how He chooses the weak to confound the mighty. He asks me, “Don't you think I'm big enough to turn you into a mighty woman of valour? And when I do, you know who'll get the credit, don't you? And you know why that's important, don't you?” Yes, I know.

And so I turn my reluctant feet back toward another round of fighting. They are reluctant, non-enthusiastic, non-visibly-valiant-warrior feet, but they are, surprisingly, willing.

God only accepts the willing in His army. Psalm 110:3 tells us that all God's soldiers are volunteers. Judges 4 (and my own experience) tells me that not all those volunteers are excited about volunteering.

We'll look today at Barak's reasons for being first unwilling and then, finally, willing to go into battle.

Before we do, I'll tell you my own reasons for my willingness. Every time I question my General's wisdom in chucking me out, seemingly unarmed, onto a muddy field with tanks and shells coming at me, I'm reminded me that life is a war. There's no avoiding it. We all have to choose one side or the other. I know a little too much about the other side to seriously consider rejoining it.

For one, I know which side wins. For another, I've seen a bit of life inside the enemy barracks; I know how that general treats his volunteers. They may have joined up on his side, but he's still their enemy. There is nothing to gain by going back. Not after knowing a little about the enemy and what he's like.

I suppose, though, ultimately, it's knowing a little of our God and what He's like that keeps me sticking out the battle on His side. He's too wise and too good to ask hard things of us if they aren't necessary.

And to help me in that decision, the promise Barak obtained is a promise that, from Hebrews 4:14-16, is available to all of us.

A — . . .obtained p____________. . .

B — . . .escaped the edge of the s____________. . .

1 — . . .was made s____________ in b____________. . .

Barak, like Gideon, obtained a promise that was his escape from the edge of the sword, and that promise was for strength in the battle. In Judges 4:6-7, he (like me) was told the outcome of the battle.

Not only in Judges 4:6-7 do we see the promise of strength for the battle. Barak could have looked back on his nation's history to learn a vital fact.

From Joshua 11:1-13, what was the name of the enemy had Joshua already fought and defeated?

Jabin, king of the Canaanites and of Hazor (along with all his horses and chariots) was a previously-defeated enemy. Of course, the Jabin of Joshua 11 was not the identical Jabin of Judges 4. The name, like the Charles and Georges and Henrys of England, was likely an inherited one. But the principle we can see from comparing Joshua 11 and Judges 4 has great relevance to us in our battles. Barak's General Joshua had gone before him to defeat the enemy. Our New Testament General “Joshua” has already defeated the enemy we face. It's one reason we can rely on the promises of victory given to us.

The promise Barak obtained was also one of victory and specifically strength for battle because that was the specific kind of strength that Barak (like myself) needed. That was the strength he lacked. That was what he (like myself) wasn't — a valiant warrior.

How do I know? Well, let's investigate Barak's reasons for unwillingness and then willingness to fight.

His unwillingness first shows up in Judges 4:6. Not all translations bring out this unwillingness, but in the King James, Deborah's words to Barak are in the past tense. “Hath not the LORD God of Israel commanded, saying...” There's a sense of, “C'mon, Barak. What are you playing at? You've heard this before. Why haven't you done anything about it?”

If all translations don't bring out Barak's unwillingness in verse six, it's unmistakable in verse eight.

From Judges 4:8, state Barak's reason for unwillingness to fight and then his reason for willingness.

He would be unwilling to fight if Deborah wouldn't go with him? He'd only be willing if Deborah went with him? What sort of a manly-man response was that? What kind of a valiant warrior was Barak?

Seeing it was Deborah's willingness that Barak's willingness hinged upon, why isn't Deborah listed in Hebrews 11 rather than Barak? Her faith, not Barak's, was obvious.

I believe there's a specific reason Barak is listed in Hebrews 11 instead of Deborah. From the names given of the others from the book of Judges, I think the author of Hebrews was making a pointed point. That point is the Key Thought of yesterday. God, through the author of Hebrews, let us know that He is able to turn our weakness into His strength. Deborah could never qualify for a list of weak characters. Deborah would not (and certainly also Jael, a little later on, would not) strike anyone as a helpless, clinging-vine type of woman. More like valiant-warrior material. Barak, on the other hand...

So we see from the text that Barak's un/willingness depended on Deborah's. We're still left with questions as to Barak's reasons. What was it about Deborah's presence that could turn his unwillingness into willingness? There's still more investigation to do into Barak's reasoning.

We're not told outright from the passage, but common sense tells us that Barak lacked confidence. He lacked confidence in two people, I believe.

Who were the two people in whom Barak lacked confidence?

It's obvious, isn't it? Barak lacked confidence in himself. Good first step. But he allowed his lack of self-confidence to turn into a lack of confidence in God. Bad second step.

I can just hear Barak sputtering, “I want to obey, Lord; you know I do. But how can I obey if I don't know what You're saying? So I need Deborah. She's the prophetess. She's the one who hears from You.”

Uh-uh! I've tried that one (or similar ones) on Him before. He doesn't let me away with it. Still a lack of God-confidence.

There's a saying I like. (I'm not sure; I may have come up with it which might explain why I like it.) Nevertheless, it's a true saying and one I've repeated to myself many times in many situations: “My faith must never be in my ability to hear from God — only in His ability to speak to me.” He will always guide the one seeking His guidance. We can step forward in confidence as long as we're seeking Him and willing to do what He shows us. If He doesn't show us, we can still step forward, confident of His unseen guidance as long as we're seeking it (Prov. 3:5-6).

God had told Barak what he needed to do and had given him the promise of the strength to do it. It should have been enough for Barak. Whatever the reasons he told himself that he needed Deborah's presence in order to obey God, they were excuses. God's presence would have been enough for him.

What looks like humility in Barak was really a lack of faith. Still, God gave him what he needed in order to get the job done. Deborah went with him. But the glory would not be Barak's.

And that's a good third step. Because of Barak's weakness, God would get the glory for the victory. It would be the LORD who would deliver the enemy (Sisera) into the hand of a woman — Jael.

Having dug as far as we can into the psychology of Barak, let's dig a little into the psychology of Jael. We will have to use our imaginations almost entirely here because we're given very few clues. But let's look at the clues we are given.

I'm an avid Agatha Christie reader, and one thing I've learned through my murder-mystery reading is that the key to the solution of the murder is always (nine times out of ten, anyway) going to be found within the character and back story of the victim. If you want to understand why a victim meets with a violent death, you have to understand a little about the victim. I'm speaking here of fictional murders, of course, but I believe the first thing a real live detective on a murder case does is to examine the person and life — and the relatives, friends, acquaintances, and possible enemies — of the victim, as well.

What do we know about the character of Sisera from Judges 4:2-3?

What do we learn about Jael and her (or her husband's) dealings with Sisera from Judges 4:17-19?

We know that Sisera was the kind of man who would “mightily” or “cruelly oppress” people just because he could. Just because he was the biggest and the strongest and had nine hundred iron chariots.

I don't know how close your dealings have been with a bully, but all my experience tells me that bullies have a hard time turning on and off their behaviour. Cruelty for its own sake seems to run, as the widest streak of ore, all through the character of a person cruel for cruelty's sake. There may be bullies who bully in the public arena but treat their wives and children well. Or there may be bullies who bully their wives and children but avoid public bullying. I've just never met with any (that I know of).

Whatever kind of bully Sisera was, he was at peace with Jael's husband and, he believed, with Jael, as well. There's no hint of distrust on his part as he goes into Jael's tent, drinks her milk, and falls asleep.

What caused Jael to do as she did? What powerful drive drove her to lure a man to his death? What powerful force forced her muscles to pound a tent peg through a man's head? Was it the driving force of a powerful emotion? Was it Sisera's violence and treachery that bred violence and treachery?

Another of God's principles is that we reap what we sow. I'm not suggesting, of course, that all victims of violence are violent people or that all the betrayed are betrayers. But on the other hand, how often do violent lives end in violent deaths? How often do the treacherous meet with treachery?

Whatever the history between Sisera and Jael, when I look at Jael and her actions, I can only come up with three motives. They're the same three motives I've mentioned as my reasons for being “willing.”

Could Jael see which side was destined to win? Was that her reason for switching loyalties?

Or had she come to hate Sisera and his cruelty? If Sisera was anything like his master (and I don't mean King Jabin), he couldn't turn off his cruelty in his dealings with those who had chosen his side and were supposedly at peace with him. His master can't do it because he's simply unable to. All that's left in him is cruelty, violence, and treachery. There's no goodness left.

Or ultimately, had Jael learned to understand a little of the character of Israel's God? Was that the reason she chose His side? I like to think so. I know that the goodness of the One is set off against the cruelty of the other, and that contrast is often the starting-point where God begins to reveal Himself.

Whatever her motivation, Jael is called “blessed above women” in Barak and Deborah's victory song in Judges 5 (v. 24). Why? Because whatever her motivation, she chose Israel's and Israel's God's side.

“Choice” or “willingness” is the key in which the song of Judges 5 is written.

Point out the themes of willingness and unwillingness from Judges 5. Who was willing to fight on God's side and why? Who was unwilling and why?

Do you find it just a little amusing? Barak (as one of Israel's “willing” people and leaders) is eulogized in Judges 5:2 and 9. And why not? However mustard-seed-like was his faith and whatever his reasons, in the end, it was faith he chose. However reluctant and non-enthusiastic his willingness, in the end, he was willing. Willingness, as the word indicates, is an act of the will. Not the emotions.

It may have been Jael's emotions that prompted her to act. Not so for Barak. From what we've seen of him, all his emotions ran in the other direction. But it doesn't matter. Both were blessed for their willingness. For their choices.

We're not always told the “whys” behind the willingness or the unwillingness, and the “whys” aren't the point, anyway. We often don't even know our own motives in the choices we make. What matters most is not the motive but the choice. What matters is that final turning of the will toward faith and obedience — toward joining God's side and deserting the enemy's side. In that willingness lies the blessing, the promise of strength for the battle, and ultimately, victory.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 7: The Promise Keeper & The Sword Keeper — Heb. 4

Week 7, Day 4: Jephthah — Hebrews 11:32-34

Today's Readings: Heb. 4:1-2; 11:32-34; Judg. 11; Gen 19:29-38; Ex. 20:3-6; Deut. 2:1-19; 7:1-10; 28:1, 7; Rom. 12:1

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

Jephthah. . . (Heb. 11:32a.)

A — . . .obtained p____________. . . (Heb.11:33b.)

B — . . .escaped the edge of the s____________. . . (Heb. 11:34b.)

2 — . . .put to flight foreign a____________. . . (Heb. 11:34b.; Deut. 28:1, 7; Judg. 11:32-33)

* * * * *

Of all the puzzling stories in the book of Judges and of all the puzzling choices of faith-heroes in Hebrews 11, Jephthah wins first prize in my books. The one thing made plain to me through the story of Jephthah, however, is our God as a Promise-Keeper.

A — . . .obtained p____________. . .

B — . . .escaped the edge of the s____________. . .

2 — . . .put to flight foreign a____________. . .

Interestingly, the first fact we learn about Jephthah from Judges 11 is his natural strength. In and of himself, he was “a mighty man of valour” (Judges 11:1). Jephthah's natural weakness or unlikelihood for which God chose him was of a different order than Gideon's and Barak's. He was a man with no family — no people. The people who should have claimed him had rejected him because of his illegitimacy.

Also interestingly, the promise made to Jephthah that I see from Judges 11 was not a promise made by God. It was a promise made by the ones who had rejected him.

From Judges 11:9-11, what promise was made to Jephthah?

But Jephthah did have a promise from God. It was a promise made long before the promise of Judges 11:9-11. It was a promise to put to flight foreign armies, and it was a promise given in Deuteronomy 28:1 and 7. Like all of God's promises, however, it was conditional. As usual, the condition for the fulfillment of all of God's good promises was faith (Heb. 4:1-2). The people of Israel were promised ascendancy over all the nations which came against them but only if they knew who God really was and who was really God. They were to worship none but the One True God (Ex. 20:3, Deut. 28:1).

In all of God's promises we've looked at so far this week, I see a reversal of natural conditions. I see a promise given for whatever is necessary. And whatever is necessary is made necessary by a natural lack. Gideon lacked natural strength and courage. The promise given him was for strength through his weakness. Barak lacked the same qualities — particularly as a solider. The promise given him was for strength for the battle. Jephthah lacked a family. He came to lack a nationality. He fled, like a foreigner to His own people, into “the land of Tob.” In the promise that came true for Jephthah, that condition was reversed. The foreigners fled from him, and he was rejoined to his own nation and people.

But there was another reversal — this one a tragic reversal — when it came to his own family-line. If the happy reversal in his family-line came about through his faith, the tragic reversal came about through un-faith. We'll see both in Jephthah. How grateful I am to discover, from Hebrews 11, that faith trumps un-faith. In spite of the weaknesses — even the faith-weaknesses — of the four judges, they are given a place among the faith-heroes of Hebrews 11.

Let's look now at the “foreign army” Jephthah put to flight and its history.

Before the joint history of the nations of Israel and Ammon recited in Judges 11:15-27, what was the start of their joint histories from Genesis 19:29-38? Who were the ancestors of the two nations?

If Jephthah's personal history was one of illegitimacy, Ammon's was one of incest. What a non-auspicious start to both of these lives! But Lot, the father of Ammon and Moab, was God's man. As was Isaac, the father of Esau/Edom. Exodus 20:5-6 and Deuteronomy 7:8-9 explain one puzzle of history.

From Exodus 20:5-6 and Deuteronomy 7:8-9, why would God have given the commands of Deuteronomy 2:4-5, 9, and 19 to the people of Israel?

Do you see why I say that I see the Promise-Keeper all over Judges 11? Through Jephthah's recitation of Israel's relations with the people of Edom, Moab, and Ammon (as told in Deuteronomy 2:1-19), I see the keeping of God's promises of love and mercy to the “thousandth generation” descended from those who are His own. Even when the descendants themselves have no relationship with the One True God.

The disputed territory in Judges 11 was not land God had taken away from Ammon to give to Israel. It had once belonged to the Amorites (no relation to the Ammonites). It had never been Ammonite land.

As long as the Ammonites, the descendants of God's man, Lot, didn't “meddle with,” “harass,” or “provoke” the Israelites (the descendants of God's man, Jacob) they would have kept their territory for Lot's sake. But they were in the process of meddling, harassing and provoking. And God was in the process of stripping them of some of what he'd given them. No one, with impunity, messes with the ones who call on His name for help. And His people had once again called out to Him (Judges 10:9-18).

The last part of Jephthah's response to the king of the Ammonites contains the crux of the matter.

Quote Jephthah's question and statement from Judges 11:24.

What a faith-statement! Down went the gauntlet! The dispute was ostensibly over territory. One of the armies would come away from the conflict with new territory. But which army? Jephthah stated the issue that was really the issue: Which God? Which God was really God?

The One True God had been the God of Lot. But Lot's descendants had decided for Chemosh. And Jephthah, as spokesman for his God, put the challenge out to Chemosh. So far, so good! In fact, so far, Jephthah looks like solid Hall of Faith material. But things get a little messy right at this point.

What was Jephthah's promise to God in Judges 11:30-31?

What happened to the man who spoke so confidently, addressing the king of Ammon? What happened to, “Whatever God gives us we'll possess”? The Ammonites were the ones picking the fight. Shouldn't Jephthah have known he'd be able to count on God's promise of Deuteronomy 28:1 and 7?

The problem was God's promise was a conditional one. And Jephthah doubtless realized that his side couldn't claim a conditional promise when the conditions had not been kept. God's grace! Time after time, He delivers His people from their enemies even though they haven't kept His conditions. He keeps His promises. But He does more than that. He acts even when He's not bound by His promises.

But Jephthah's promise to God was also conditional, as though God would look favourably on his cause only if offered a little something to sweeten the deal. It was one problem with Jephthah's promise.

God's promises are conditional. And so they must be. We're imperfect. We don't live up to God's commands or our promises. But our promises or offerings to Him never need to be conditional. Although fox-hole promises to God are common, the theology behind them is a little off. What underlies a conditional promise to God is the idea that He can be swayed into doing something He wouldn't be willing to do otherwise. In a sense, it's an attempt to bribe God. And I don't believe God can be bought. Nor that He would do for a bribe something that He wouldn't be willing to do without it.

The other problem with Jephthah's conditional promise was the promise itself. Jephthah did not offer God something He wanted. Who knows what Jephthah had in mind when he made his foolish promise to God? Did he have human sacrifice in mind all along? Or did he imagine that an animal — a sheep or goat or calf — would come out to meet him?

That's one unanswered puzzle: what did Jephthah intend? The other: what did he actually do?

In the little reading I've done on the subject, Bible scholars are divided on the subject. Some say that Jephthah's burnt offering to God was indeed human sacrifice, and he intended from the start that it would be (believing a servant or a slave would be the first to greet him on his return). Others say that the burnt offering Jephthah promised God was nothing more than an animal sacrifice. If the first one coming out of the doors of his house to meet him was human, he planned to redeem (or buy back) the human life (as instructed in Numbers 18:15-16). Money would have been paid to the priests, and an animal burnt offering would have been substituted for the human sacrifice. In Jephthah's case, so say the proponents of the second idea, his offering of his daughter also involved another step which comes in a little later. I've read both sides, and I don't know what to believe.

Along with all the other occult practices prevalent among the nations Israel was told to destroy (and didn't) was human sacrifice (Deut. 18:9-12). So perhaps it wouldn't be surprising to find that even one of Israel's judges had sunk to the level of the tragedy of human sacrifice. It was standard operating procedure for the nations the Israelites had learned to copy.

Yet Jephthah seemed to know his Torah. He could recite with accuracy for the king of Ammon the events of Israel's journey en route to the Promised Land. If Jephthah knew anything at all about the Law of God, he should have known that human sacrifice was forbidden. Human sacrifice (as in, a dying human sacrifice) was not an acceptable offering to God (except in one particular case).

So having heard both sides on this question of, “What really happened to Jephthah's daughter?” and not knowing which side has the truth, I won't come down hard on either side. I'll stick to what I know. And I know that Jephthah shouldn't have made his vow, one way or the other. Not only did he come to rue the vow, it wasn't helpful. It wasn't what God wanted from Jephthah. And it wasn't necessary.

Before Jephthah made his foolish vow in Judges 11:30-31, what happened in Judges 11:29a.?

God was already with Jephthah. The supernatural strength for putting to flight foreign armies, promised to God's people of faith in Deuteronomy 28:1 and 7, was already at work for Jephthah.

No, whatever the meaning of Jephthah's promise, it was unnecessary and unhelpful. I don't believe for two seconds that God gave a great victory to Israel through Jephthah because of the promise he'd made to God. God gave the victory to Jephthah and to Israel because He is a Promise-Keeper. Even when His people are unfaithful, He will be faithful.

“And his soul was grieved for the misery of Israel.” (Judg. 10:16) That was why Israel won the victory.

“Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess?” That was why Jephthah gained the victory. Jephthah had placed all his bets on the God of Israel, and God tends to reward that kind of behaviour. Hebrews 11 tells us that, at some point, Jephthah's actions grew out of his faith. I see that faith in Judges 11:24. And God rewards faith — sometime, somehow.

No, Jephthah did not need to bribe God to do what He was already willing to do. And the bribe Jephthah offered was not the offering God was looking for from Jephthah.

From Romans 12:1, what kind of human sacrifice is acceptable to God?

At the least, Jephthah's sacrifice was unacceptable because Jephthah had not offered himself. God is not opposed to human sacrifice but those sacrifices must be voluntary — the offering of oneself. God didn't desire Jephthah to offer his daughter. He desired Jephthah to offer himself.

At worst, Jephthah's offering was unacceptable because it was an abomination to God. Again, God is not opposed to human sacrifice. But those sacrifices are to be living ones. There has ever only been one dying human sacrifice acceptable to God. For one, it was a perfect sacrifice. The death of a sinful human could not pay for anyone else's sins. Then, for another, it was voluntary. God offered His own self as a human sacrifice. It was the ultimate promise kept by the ultimate Promise-Keeper.

But whatever the true picture of the fate of Jephthah's daughter, Jephthah's oath was a costly one. If Jephthah's daughter was redeemed and an animal offered in her place, then she was consecrated as a kind of Jewish nun, Judges 11:37-39 is clear. One way or the other, Jephthah's daughter died a virgin.

Jepthah's only hope for carrying on his own family-line was dashed. He began life without a name, without a family-line, and by his own foolishness, he ended life the same way.

And that's another major difference between Jephthah's costly-but-foolish sacrifice and God's costly-but-sublime sacrifice. Through His sacrifice, God was building His house, His family-line.

Through Jephthah's insistence that he keep his foolish promise, however, I am reminded again of our promise-keeping God. Did Jephthah realize that God's people keeping their promises is important to God because it's a reflection of His character as a Promise-Keeper? It's vitally important to God that His people reflect His image so the rest of the world can catch a glimpse of Him. It makes the tragedy that is the book of Judges doubly tragic. If Jephthah did kill his only daughter, it makes Jephthah's tragedy doubly tragic. The glory of God he was meant to reflect to the world was distorted into a horror.

But whatever he got wrong, Hebrews 11 commends him for his faith. On some level, he knew who God was, and he believed that what God said He would do He'd do because He is the God who keeps His promises. From his presence in Hebrews 11, my conclusion is that Jephthah's faith was rewarded with eternal rewards. Even if he committed one of the greatest evils we can imagine — the murder of his own daughter — there was one human sacrifice sufficient to cover the cost of his sin. God kept His costly promise and paid the one price that's high enough to cover it all. Our faith in that kept promise of His will unfailingly be rewarded. And Jephthah, I believe, knew his God was a Promise-Keeper.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 7: The Promise Keeper & The Sword Keeper — Heb. 4

Week 7, Day 5: Samson — Hebrews 11:32-34

Today's Readings: Hebrews 4:11, 11:32-34, Judges 13:1-5, 13:24-25, Judges 14, Judges 16, Numbers 6:1-6

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

Samson. . . (Heb. 11:32a.)

Part II — . . .was made w____________ through his s____________. (Judg. 16:18-21)

* * * * *

Although Samson obtained promises and also escaped the edge of the sword, it's neither of those Key Thoughts that will be the focus of today's lesson. It's that mirror-image principle, the exact reverse of the principle seen most clearly through Gideon's story, that will be today's lesson. Gideon, Barak, and Jephthah, through weakness and lack, were made strong with God's strength. Samson believed his strength was his own and, as a result, was made weak.

Part II — . . .was made w____________ through his s____________.

But let's open our investigation of Samson's life with a look at the promises regarding him before he was born, as those promises will play a large role in today's Key Thought and Samson's story.

The story of Samson's life differs from the stories of the other judges in that his life story started before the beginning of it. Even before his mother had conceived, Samson was set apart by God.

From Numbers 6:1-6, what were the three prohibitions of the setting-apart of the Nazirite vow?

God taught His people that when they wanted to consecrate themselves in a special way for His service, they could take a vow where they abstained, for the duration of the time of their vow, from drinking wine or eating anything grape-related, from haircuts, and from contact with dead bodies. Odd?

I think (like everything in this book we're studying) the three prohibitions were not random and arbitrary but had significance. They meant something.

What meaning can you find in the three separations of the Nazirite vow?

It requires some reading between the lines, seeing we're not told the meanings, but we can see from other Scriptures that “the fruit of the vine” was associated in the Bible (as it is now) with feasting and celebration. There was no general prohibition that God gave His people against the drinking of wine. But life is not meant to be one non-stop party. There should be times of feasting for God's people. There will also be times of fasting. A Nazirite vow was only for a certain time and for a special purpose, but during the time of the vow, it seems that there was to be a separation from celebration.

The prohibition against contact with dead bodies is a little easier to understand. Our world is subject to all kinds of corruption, physical and spiritual (Genesis 3 tells us), because of the decision the first humans made not to serve God. Nazirites, in their special service to God, were to separate themselves from the corruption of death as a sign, I believe, of their separation from the corruption of sin.

The prohibition against haircutting is obscure. The only hint I can find from Scripture as to the meaning of this separation is found in 1 Corinthians 11:14. “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?” Paul asked. Looks to me as though in the Jewish culture uncut hair on men was seen as slightly disgraceful. Maybe that was the point of the non-haircutting for the Nazirites. Taking a Nazirite vow not only meant separating oneself from corruption and taking a break from celebration but also volunteering for humility. Perhaps it was a time of, in a way, intentionally shaming oneself for a specific purpose. To satisfy my alliterative instincts, let's call this separation a separation from conceit. Or to get even closer to the heart of the prohibitions (while still keeping the alliteration going) the Nazirite vow meant a putting away of partying, pollution, and pride.

There were (at least) three factors that set Samson apart from the average Nazirite. 1) Other Nazirite vows were taken voluntarily. His Nazirite lifestyle was imposed on him before birth. 2) Other Nazirite vows were for a time only. His was for life. 3) Other Nazirites avoided pollution, partying, and pride. And then there was Samson...

His life's work began because he couldn't be bothered to avoid corruption (both kinds).

From Judges 14, where do you see Samson's disregard for the Nazirite separation from corruption?

Now, from Judges 13:1-5, there's no mention of avoiding contact with dead bodies in Samson's Nazirit-ism. Hardly shocking when you think about the life's work God had him picked out to do. But I feel certain that God meant for Samson (as for all His servants) to have at least a desire for the separation away from other kinds of corruption. There's no sign of that desire in Samson.

Where do you see Samson's disregard for the Nazirite separation from celebration?

Samson may (or may not, I don't know) have kept the prohibition against wine and grapes. But he didn't let that prohibition interfere with a good party. Samson was the original hard-partying playboy. The Nazirite vow took the focus away from the earthly to focus on service to God. Not Samson's focus.

As the story shows in the end, Samson was the kind of Nazirite who was more concerned about the externals than the internals. He may have kept the letter of the Nazirite law in certain areas, but the spirit of that law was conspicuous-by-absence in his life.

When I turn to the story of Samson, the quality of his that stands out the most to me is weakness. That may be surprising when he's famously remembered for his strength. But his strength was all external. On the inside, he was weak as a kitten. His weakness that led him down the path to his eventual destruction was, of course, his weakness for the fairer sex.

I think, though, that oversimplification doesn't get at the heart of the problem. His weakness for women grew directly, I believe, out of another weakness. It wasn't that Samson loved women too much. It was that he loved God too little. Isn't that always the way of it? It's not the other loves I cherish that are the problem. It's the place I assign them that's the problem. It's the place I assign God in relation to other loves that's the problem. When He's in His rightful place, all other loves fall into their right place.

Whatever the meaning behind the prohibition against haircuts during the time of a Nazirite vow, there must be a putting-away of pride for all God's servants. There must be a recognition of (you know what I'm going to say, don't you?) who is really God. There must be a voluntary death to the self-first life.

And that's the lack written all over Samson's story. That's the lack at the heart of Samson's weakness.

But as with Gideon, Barak, and Jephthah, God was able to use Samson's weakness for His purposes.

What does Judges 14:4 tell us about Samson's disobedient decision to marry a Philistine woman?

Huh? This verse exposes one of the most puzzling doctrines in all the Bible. In numerous Scriptures, God almost seems to take credit for human sin because of how He chooses to use our bad choices.

God had been very clear. His people were not to intermarry with those who worshipped other gods. Yet Judges 14:4 states that, “...it was of the LORD...” How puzzling!

I don't believe God ever prefers disobedience over obedience. But none of the results of disobedience are beyond His using. The sin is on our heads. But the results of that sin are in His hands.

Samson disobediently chose a Philistine wife. But it was through that decision that his defeat of the Philistines began. And freeing his people from the Philistines' oppression was God's call on his life.

Samson's marriage to his Philistine wife and the incident with the lion set off a chain of events I haven't had you read from Judges 15. But the chapter is one of retaliation after retaliation that resulted in a wide swath of carnage cut by Samson through the Philistine population.

This cycle of revenge-upon-revenge is also clearly not God's perfect plan for His people. Loving one's enemies is not a purely New-Testament concept. “If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink; for thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the LORD shall reward thee,” is the type of revenge recommended in Proverbs 25:21-22.

But again, Samson made his choices, and God worked out His plan through them.

Let's skip over Samson and the harlot in Gaza to arrive at the place in the story everyone knows.

Briefly retell the story of Samson and Delilah from Judges 16:4-20.

Does this story mystify you? Surely no one could be as thick-skulled as Samson showed himself to be.

How subtle Delilah was as she recited word-for-word the request of the Philistines to Samson! Were her questions asked playfully? Did he think she was only teasing him? Didn't Samson suspect a thing?

Certainly, after he answered her (untruthfully) the first time and instantly found the answer he gave her used against him, it would have been obvious what game Delilah was playing. Whatever he may have believed before, he must have known at that point that Delilah's affection for him was anything but genuine. Unbelievably (and yet believably), the same scenario was enacted twice more.

But more unbelievable (and yet terribly believable) was the moment when he finally told the truth.

Why do I find the whole story nearly unbelievable and yet so believable? Because I've seen it so often in real life. Because Samson looks so believably much like nearly-unbelievable humanity-at-large.

He was bound long before Delilah ever tried binding him with fresh bowstrings or new ropes or a loom. He said to himself that he had always managed to shake himself free, but from his behaviour patterns, his bondage was already complete. In the end, that invisible bondage simply became visible.

It's easy to look at Samson's behaviour with Delilah and say, “No one could be that ridiculously gullible. No man would trust a woman who had already openly betrayed him three times. He wouldn't keep going back to her. And he certainly wouldn't tell her the truth finally.”

Right! And no man would ever be ridiculously gullible enough to keep going back to a bottle (or a needle or a casino or any other kind of habit I could fill in the blanks with) after it's betrayed him and stripped him of everything and shown itself to offer no satisfaction.

Samson said exactly the same thing to himself in his situation with Delilah that all addicts say. “I'm bigger than this. I can handle it. Just once more won't hurt.” “I will go out as at other times before...”

It's called slavery. It's called bondage. And it's the normal state for humanity. Not all bindings are equally as visible and obvious, but they are the natural states to which our natural state eventually leads. Samson's particular addiction happened to be for horribly unsuitable women. But it started all because of his decision to dethrone the One True God from his life.

His most puzzling behaviour, certainly, was his telling Delilah the truth. It could have been no surprise that she would use the information against him as before.

I don't believe her betrayal was a surprise at all. I believe the surprise came in when Samson realized that his strength had left him. The way I see it, Samson didn't believe (any more than I do) that the secret of his strength lay in his hair. It's true, “...he told her all his heart...” or finally told her the truth. He'd never had a razor near his head. But I doubt that he believed this to be the source of his strength. I doubt his hair was the source of Samson's strength. No, I know it wasn't the source of Samson's strength.

The source of Samson's strength is revealed in verse twenty. “...the LORD was departed from him.” That, plain and simple, was the source of Samson's strength: God's presence with him.

The haircut simply finalized a process that had been going on all along. Samson had chosen against God's rule in his life. Samson revealed his Nazirite vow to Delilah, knowing full well she would break it for him. Yet he revealed it to her, anyway. In so doing, it was made obvious which god was on the throne of his heart. He rejected his service to God.

When Samson rejected even the outward aspect of his Nazirit-ism — the only part he'd ever really bothered with — God's Spirit left him to his own devices. And Samson discovered what he should have known all along. On his own, he was as weak as any other man.

What happened next is a powerful warning to all of us.

What happened to Samson when God's Spirit left him (Judges 16:21)?

Anyone who chooses another god for the throne of one's life other than the One who should rightfully be there will discover that serving oneself is not possible. What he thinks looks like freedom quickly becomes enslavement to the enemy. And the enemy is all about blinding and binding.

Through Samson's life, God was saying to His people, “Look! This man is you! I set you apart as a people for service to me. You could have had the strength that no nation on earth has ever had by relying on My power. But look at the choices you've made. Look at the choices Samson made. And look where he ended up! Do you, my people, like Samson, want to live your lives running through cycles of captivity and deliverance? Why not make up your minds to serve Me alone instead?”

In the midst of his slavery and through his death, Samson killed more of the enemy than he had in his life. More importantly, it looks strongly as though Samson chose service to God again over slavery to the enemy. Judges 16:22 tells us that Samson's hair began to grow again. Though we're not told that this was the source of Samson's strength, we can see that his uncut hair had become, for Samson, a symbol of his service to God. And it was his service to God that was the source of His strength.

Samson was a living object lesson to His people. Hebrews 4:11 tells us that God's Word gives us warnings-by-example. Samson's life was a warning. But it was also a trophy of grace. God's people needed to know that they were in the same position as their superhero. Yet like Samson, when they grew sick to death of their captivity, they could always turn back to God. God uses our weaknesses and our various captivities to show us the folly of serving the wrong god and to turn us back to Himself.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

WEEK 7 Group Study — Heb. 4, Heb. 11:32-34

Review Readings: Heb. 4; 11:32-34; Judges 4:6-7; 6:14-15, 11:32-33; 16:18-21; Deut. 28:1, 7

* * * * *

Key Thoughts for Review:

Gideon, Barak, Jephthah, and Samson. . . (Heb. 11:32a.)

A — . . .obtained p____________. . . (Heb. 4:1-11, 11:33b.)

B — . . .escaped the edge of the s____________. . . (Heb. 4:12-16, 11:34b.)

Part I — . . .were made s____________ through w_______________. . . (Heb. 11:34b. Judg. 6:14-15)

1 — . . .were made s____________ in b____________. . . (Heb. 11:34b., Judg. 4:6-7)

2 — . . .put to flight foreign a____________. . . (Heb. 11:34b.; Deut. 28:1, 7; Judg. 11:32-33)

Part II — . . .was made w____________ through his s____________. (Judg. 16:18-21)

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:

The Promise Keeper & The Sword Keeper

1 — Review the Key Thoughts to share new insights on the Promise-Keeper and the Sword-Keeper.

2 — What connections can you see from Hebrews 4 between this week's two portraits?

3 — Has any theme from this week's lessons emerged in a personal way for you?

4 — In what way did the themes of strength through weakness and weakness through strength show up in every lesson this week? Have you seen those themes from your own life?

5 — How does Hebrews 4:14-16 address that theme of this week's lessons and of our own lives?

And finally, one last time for the week, please share any of your own discoveries this week about...

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 8: The Promise Keeper & The Sword Keeper (Part 2) — Heb. 4

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

Samuel and David. . . (Heb. 11:32b.)

A — . . .obtained p____________. . . (Heb. 4:1-11, 11:33b.)

Part I — . . .l____________ for a k_______________. . . (Heb. 11:33a. , 2 Sam. 3:1, Matt. 6:33)

1 — The Builder and P____________ Keeper's k_______________, house, throne, city, and covenant will be built and kept forever. (2 Sam. 5:1-12, 7:11-16, 1 Chron. 22:10)

Part II — . . .l____________ for r_______________ . . . (Heb. 11:33a.; 1 Sam. 3:10, 15, 18; 2 Sam. 24:24-25; Matt. 6:33)

B — . . .escaped the edge of the s____________. . . (Heb. 4:12-16, 11:34b.)

Key words: promises, promise, sword, laboured, kingdom, righteousness

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 8: The Promise Keeper & The Sword Keeper (Part 2) — Heb. 4

Week 8, Day 1: The Promise Keeper and the Sword Keeper — Hebrews 4

Today's Readings: Hebrews 4, 6, Matthew 6:33

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

A — . . .obtained p____________. . . (Heb. 4:1-11)

Part I — . . .l____________ for a k_______________. . . (Matt. 6:33)

Part II — . . .l____________ for r_______________ . . . (Matt. 6:33)

B — . . .escaped the edge of the s____________. . . (Heb. 4:12-16)

* * * * *

With this week's lessons, we're moving out of the book of Judges and into the time-frame of 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. It's a period that covers the very last judge of Israel (although he's not to be found within the pages of the book of Judges) and the first two kings of the united-kingdom years. (I don't mean Britain. I mean the united kingdom of Israel before civil war split the nation in two.) The last judge was named Samuel, and the first two kings were Saul and David. (This week's lessons will briefly examine the transition of Israel from judge-dom to kingdom as that transition was a big event in both Samuel and David's lives.) Saul, though he's not mentioned in Hebrews 11 (as he was not a man of faith), will come into our lessons, also (as a warning-by-example). He falls between this week's two Hebrews-11 faith heroes, Samuel and David, and so will get a mention. The last king of Israel's united kingdom, David's son, Solomon, is also unlisted in the Hall of Faith; we'll only touch on his story. So this week will bring us to the end of the united kingdom for the purposes of this study. Next week, we'll jump right in to the lives of the unspecified “prophets” of Hebrews 11:32 which all belonged to the divided kingdom and the exile years. (We'll also study one New-Testament-era prophet in our last week together.)

This week's Key Thoughts may give you a sense of deja vu. Again, as this week's portraits of Christ are the Promise-Keeper and the Sword-Keeper from Hebrews 4, I'm recycling and reusing Hebrews 11:33-34's faith-experiences “...obtained promises...” and “...escaped the edge of the sword...” for Samuel and David. They apply equally as well to Samuel and David as they did to last week's four judges.

This week, we'll also get to see the start of the fulfillment of God's promise of an eternal house, throne, city, and covenant to David and His descendants, so I've recycled and reused another former Key Thought. I've added “kingdom” to that list as that eternal kingdom is part of this week's promises.

Let me say a quick word or two about Hebrews 11:32-34, and then we'll plunge into today's lesson. We're steadily using up the people and experiences of Hebrews 11:32-34. When we finish with Samuel and David, we'll have run out of faith-heroes listed by name and will then have to make decisions as to whom the author of Hebrews intended by the generic “prophets” of verse thirty-two (at least, I will).

To use up (most of) the rest of verses thirty-three and thirty-four, I've decided that Samuel and David, while they were obtaining promises and escaping the edges of swords, also “subdued” or “conquered” kingdoms and “wrought” or “worked” righteousness. (However your version translates these faith-experiences, they are the first ones listed in Hebrews 11:33.) That will leave only the lions' mouths to shut and the violence of fire to quench. These experiences appear so obviously to refer to the exile-years' prophets we'll be studying that we'll have to leave them alone till then.

Whew! It was a long introduction, but here we go now into today's lesson and Key Thoughts.

A — . . .obtained p____________. . .

Part I — . . .l____________ for a k_______________. . .

Part II — . . .l____________ for r_______________ . . .

B — . . .escaped the edge of the s____________. . .

You might be wondering what translation renders Hebrews 11:33a. as “...laboured for a kingdom...” and “...laboured for righteousness...” so I'll tell you. My own, of course. For the purposes of this study.

My English-Greek concordance tells me that the “subduing” of the kingdoms of Hebrews 11:33 is the Greek word “katagonizomai.” Do you recognize the “kata” prefix? I did. It's the “down” prefix we've run into before. But when you break off the prefix and see “agonizomai” left, you should see another word you recognize — our English “agonize.” “Agonizomai” is “to strive, fight, labour fervently.” It comes from the root “agonia” which means “violent effort” or (surprise, surprise) “agony.”

The “working” of the righteousness from the same verse is “ergazomai” which is from the root “ergon” which also can mean “a labour.”

We need to understand that the kingdoms subdued and the righteousness worked in Hebrews 11:33 didn't fall into the laps of the subduers and the workers. That subduing and working involved some effort. Some violent effort. Even some agony. At the very least, some labour.

With this week's pairing of “kingdom” and “righteousness,” I was put in mind of a famous promise.

What does Matthew 6:33 promise? What must God's kingdom and God's righteousness be in order for the condition of this promise to be fulfilled? How must they be sought?

God's kingdom and God's righteousness must be sought for this promise to come true. They must not only be sought; they must be sought first. Top priority. This promise doesn't speak of God's kingdom and God's righteousness as things that fall into laps. It speaks of God's kingdom and righteousness as things that require some effort. Even some violent effort. Some labour. The labour of battle.

Am I suddenly going to begin preaching salvation-by-works at this late date? Not a bit of it. We'll see it emphasized strongly through this week's lessons: God's righteousness is available to us only by faith. It is imputed, inherited righteousness, given to us in exchange for our unrighteousness (2 Cor. 5:21) only by grace. But it's given through faith (Eph. 2:8-9). And “through faith” unavoidably drags us and the decisions of our wills into the equation. And it's in those “through faith” decisions that the struggles — the “agonizomais” and “ergazomais” — come. Why? Because we have an enemy.

Those who initially embraced faith easily (say, as a small child as I did myself) will find that embracing faith doesn't stay easy. Those who fought their way into God's kingdom against powerful, opposing forces (Matt. 11:12) will find that the fighting doesn't stop once they're in through the narrow gate.

And now we're back around to Hebrews 4 and the promise of rest and the sword of the Word. Yes, the point of Hebrews 4 is still the raging battle. The rest is still a rest from battle. And none of us on earth are there yet. The sword is still that instrument of comfort and of judgment. Of comfort to those of us who have allied ourselves to the Sword-Keeper's side and need to know that He's got the only weapons we'll ever need. Of judgment to those who find themselves on the wrong end of the sword.

I need to interject another explanatory note here and tell you my plans for the remainder of the book of Hebrews. The “portraits” I've chosen will only take us through to Hebrews 5 and pick up again in Hebrews 12. Ignoring chapters six to ten (we're already taking an in-depth look at chapter eleven and you can read chapter thirteen — a chapter of important closing remarks— on your own) would leave five chapters of this fascinating book ignored. I'd hate to ignore five, fascinating chapters, so I'll be including them, from here on in, under the week's first lesson's required reading. There's so much in them, we won't be dissecting them, but this plan will give you a good overview of the book.

With that explanation, let's glance over today's “extra” Hebrews reading — chapter six.

Where do you see the Promise Keeper and the Sword Keeper in Hebrews 6?

I see the Promise Keeper all over the chapter. The last half speaks of the kinds of promises we like to receive. The warm-and-fuzzy kind. The first half speaks of the other kinds of promises which we'll be seeing this week: the, er, non-warm-and-fuzzy kind. I also see the Sword-Keeper all over the chapter. The first half of the chapter shows us the judgment side of that double-edged sword. The last half shows us the comfort we can find in God's Word and God's promises if we meet the conditions God sets out.

As we've seen all along, what makes the difference between the judgment of the first half of chapter six and the comfort of the last half?

As always, the condition to be met in order to claim God's good promises is faith, and the condition that merits the claiming of God's non-warm-and-fuzzy promises (promises of judgment) is un-faith.

And can you see from Hebrews 4 and 6 that faith is a kind of labour (4:11, 6:12)?

As an aside, I don't want to enter into the debate here of eternal security vs. non-eternal security, mainly because I don't know what to do with all the passages that seem so clearly to come out on one side or the other. Hebrews 6 is one of those passages that seem to come out clearly on the side of non-eternal security. We don't know how to look at the issue from God's perspective, so I solve the issue to my own satisfaction by simply clinging to the author's words in Hebrews 6:9, “But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation...” I'm persuaded of those things for myself, too. In fact, I'm clinging to God's good promises and His ability to fulfill them in my life.

But to continue with the topic of promises of judgment, notice that Hebrews 4 also shows the Promise-Keeper as the Keeper of non-warm-and fuzzy promises.

Quote the Hebrews 4 verse that shows God as a Keeper of promises of judgment.

You could have chosen more than one, but Hebrews 4:3 is clear. There are only promises of judgment — promises of losing out on God's rest — for those who choose un-faith.

But I'm persuaded of better things for myself, and I hope better things for you, too. And for those who “love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose...” there is only one promise that counts. “All things work together for good...” (Rom. 8:28). Whatever happens in this life, however hot the battle heats up on this earth, all things work together for good. To help us stick out the sometimes agonizing battles, we also have the promises of Hebrews 4:14-16. Jesus knows. And He fights for us.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 8: The Promise Keeper & The Sword Keeper (Part 2) — Heb. 4

Week 8, Day 2: Samuel — Hebrews 11:32-34

Today's Readings: Hebrews 4:11; 11:32-34; 1 Samuel 1; 3; Ezekiel 18:20-24; 18:30-32

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

Samuel. . . (Heb. 11:32b.)

A — . . .obtained p____________. . . (Heb. 11:33b.)

Part II — . . .l____________ for r_______________ . . . (Heb. 11:33a., 1 Sam. 3:10, 15, 18)

* * * * *

When seen back-to-back with the stories of Jephthah and Samson, the opening of Samuel's life echoes those stories. The reason Samuel's story turned out much differently than the stories of Jephthah's daughter and Samson, I believe, was Romans 12:1. Samuel offered himself to God.

Samuel's mother was a woman of faith. In her offering back to God of the thing she wanted most in the world, she showed where her priorities lay. She showed who had top spot. (There are also echoes of Abraham, Isaac, and Mount Moriah in Hannah and Samuel's story.) But all Hannah's faith wouldn't have done Samuel a lick of good if he had chosen un-faith. Let's look at the germination and growth of Samuel's own personal faith. It has quite a lot to tell us about the germination and growth of our own.

Samuel's name means “heard by God,” and there are four statements from 1 Samuel 3, having to do with hearing, that I'd like to point out. They carry large significance to this story and to our lives.

What do the first and last verses of 1 Samuel 3 tell us about how God makes Himself known to us? Where else in 1 Samuel 3 can you see this principle?

Notice verse seven: “Now Samuel did not yet know the LORD, neither was the word of the LORD yet revealed to him.” God makes himself known — He reveals Himself — by speaking. Through His Word.

Are you reminded of a verse we hovered over in many earlier lessons? Romans 10:17. Faith can only come about through hearing. And how does hearing come about? Through God's speaking. Because He is the God who speaks. Faith is knowing who is really God and who God really is. The only way we are able to know God (in that relational kind of way) is through hearing from Him.

Yesterday, I taught Samuel's story to my Sunday School class. We opened with a game of charades where we acted out Bible stories. “Have you ever watched a foreign movie without subtitles?” I asked them. “What's easier? To figure out a story with or without words to go along with what you can see?”

They could see that words make understanding easier. Then, I asked if any of them had ever had a friendship with a person who spoke a different language. How possible is it to get to know a person without words? I've had friendships where we've had very little language in common. They can't go far.

What can we know about God without hearing any words from Him? We've talked about it before. Romans 1:20 tells us that certain attributes of God are obvious just from looking around us. Just from what can be seen, we should be able to recognize that there is a God and that He's eternal and powerful. But like trying to make friends with a person with whom we share no words, knowing Him, really knowing Him, can't go very far without hearing from Him.

Samuel's mother talked to God. And when she was given her son, she had the confidence that He heard her. So confident that she named the son, “Heard by God.” But “Heard by God,” in turn, had to learn to hear from God. It was the only way in which he could know God for himself.

One more “hearing” statement to point out from 1 Samuel 3 — and here's the start of Samuel's faith.

Though God called to him, God didn't deliver His message to Samuel until Samuel responded with...?

In a sense, this is the only initial faith-statement any of us can make. If faith is built upon hearing from God — recognizing that He's been calling my name — then, answering, “Speak, LORD; for thy servant heareth,” is the only faith-response. It's the beginning of the recognition of who is really God: He is God, the One in charge; I'm the servant. And it's the beginning of the recognition of who God really is: the God who speaks. The God who strives to make Himself known. To us. To me.

And it's a response that indicates that I am finally ready to hear what He has to say.

How do we know that Samuel wasn't simply parroting words he'd been told to say? How do we know that he meant it when he said, “Speak, Lord. I'm Your servant. And I'm listening”? 1 Samuel 3:15 and 18.

How do 1 Samuel 3:15 and 18 tell us that Samuel listened to God and was, in fact, God's servant?

He heard what God had to say. And then he did as he was told. It was that simple. Did Samuel want to do what God told him to do? Not on your life. Obedience cost him possibly the first sleepless night of his young life. He was afraid. But he did it anyway. It was hard. But he went through with it.

Part II — . . .l____________ for r_______________ . . .

Yesterday, I told you that faith is a kind of labour. Working righteousness, even though it's Christ's righteousness working itself out through us, may still involve a little agony on our part. Anyone who preaches a gospel of “easy believe-ism” isn't preaching the right kind of “believe-ism.” “Believe-ism” isn't easy. Not if it's true faith. It calls for a little grit. It calls for some perseverance.

There's another aspect of faith I want us to look at today. This aspect arises from God's message to Samuel. It's come up already with our quick look at Hannah and Samuel and Romans 12:1. It's the aspect that faith is a purely personal possession. As much as godly parents wish it weren't true, faith must be a personal decision. It is non-transferable. A parent's faith may have a large impact on a child's faith, but if the parent's faith doesn't become the child's own faith, it doesn't do the child a lick of good.

Even though he wasn't raised by his mother who herself, through faith, “...obtained promises...” and “...laboured for righteousness...” the offering of Samuel to God likely impacted him deeply. When a parent puts God in top spot, even over and above her children (maybe especially over and above her children), instead of having a detrimental effect on the relationships, it may be the saving of them.

What was God's first message to Samuel (1 Samuel 3:11-14)?

What does 1 Samuel 3:13 tell us about how the situation behind the message had come to be?

Eli had allowed his sons to become more to him than God was. He had feared them more than he had feared God. The result was the self-destruction of his sons. So God promised to destroy Eli's house.

A — . . .obtained p____________. . .

Are you reminded that not all of God's promises are along the warm-fuzzy lines? The promise of God contained in Ezekiel 18:20 certainly isn't: “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.”

It's a promise. It's the first promise God made to the first humans back at the time of the first sin (Gen. 2:17). And I can see from the account of the first humans and their first sin, the “death” they died in the day they sinned was the “death” of separation from the only Life-Source. The soul that sins invariably dies that death. And the soul that sins and never repents — never chooses the path of faith— dies that death eternally. That, too, is a promise of God. He believes in giving us our freedom.

But there's more to the promise from Ezekiel 18:20.

Finish the promises of Ezekiel 18:20.

Righteous Hannah produced righteous Samuel, but the righteousness that came from her faith and from his faith had to be a personal choice. Righteousness is non-transferable.

Eli, a godly man, raised very ungodly sons. He did not bear their guilt. He bore his own in not restraining them. That guilt of his certainly had a result in his son's lives. Yet they were also responsible for their own decisions. The blame for their actions could not be laid entirely at Eli's door.

Righteous Samuel's own sons were unrighteous. (We'll see it tomorrow.) No father is perfect, even a godly one, but it should come as no surprise that even godly fathers can have ungodly sons. There has only ever been one perfect Father, and His sons and daughters are a very mixed bag. The faith or un-faith of the parent has a profound effect on a child's life, but ultimately, faith is a personal decision.

When we studied Jephthah's life, we looked at Exodus 20:5 which says that God “visits” the sin of the ungodly on the third and fourth generation of their descendants. Ezekiel 18 informs us that this “visiting” is not God punishing the children for the sins of the fathers (as Exodus 20:5 is often misinterpreted). What is the “visiting” then? God simply allowing cause-and-effect to run its natural course, I believe. All choices have effects. Sadly, bad choices carry effects down through generations.

But the promises of God from Ezekiel 18 don't finish with Ezekiel 18:20.

Answer the question of Ezekiel 18:23 with Ezekiel 18:32.

It's important to remember that, although God makes promises no one likes to hear, His desires all point in the direction of keeping the warm-and-fuzzy kind of promises. That's who is and what He's like.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 8: The Promise Keeper & The Sword Keeper (Part 2) — Heb. 4

Week 8, Day 3: Samuel and David — Hebrews 11:32-34

Today's Readings: Hebrews 4:11, 11:32-34, 1 Samuel 8, 16:1-2, 2 Samuel 3:1, 5:1-12, 7:1-16, Ezekiel 18:20, Isaiah 53:4-6

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

Samuel and David. . . (Heb. 11:32b.)

A — . . .obtained p____________. . . (Heb. 11:33b.)

Part I — . . .l____________ for a k_______________. . . (Heb. 11:33a. , 2 Sam. 3:1)

1 — The Builder and P____________ Keeper's k_______________, house, throne, city, and covenant will be built and kept forever. (2 Sam. 5:1-12, 7:11-16 )

* * * * *

There is no such thing as “easy believe-ism”; not if the “believe-ism” is true faith. Or so I've told you. And I believe it. Faith is a kind of labour. Seeking first God's kingdom and God's righteousness requires a little effort. There's one type of kingdom-seeking that requires a whole lot more effort, though.

Seeking first an earthly kingdom is a whole lot more work (in the end) than seeking first God's. Earthly kingdoms never satisfy. They cannot. So the earthly-kingdom seeker is driven on...and on...and on, endlessly striving to build his own kingdom. Seeking first God's kingdom, while it involves some labour, leads to eventual and perfect rest (Heb. 4:11). Seeking an earthly kingdom leads only to unrest.

Let's see that unrest from the transition of the nation Israel from a judge-dom to an earthly kingdom.

From 1 Samuel 8:7, who had been Israel's King from the start of the nation to the days of the judges? Whose reign were the Israelites rejecting by asking for a king “like all the nations”?

From 1 Samuel 8, sum up what the result would be for the people in having the king they asked for.

In a single word, unrest! Which kingdom would be more work for the people? Certainly the earthly kingdom. There is no king who asks so little of His people and gives back so much in return as the One True King. That being the case, why do earthly kingdoms look so attractive to us? Why the constant, internal struggle for us between God's kingdom and our own earthly ones? As I've said, because we have an enemy. No, we have two. One is the “king of Babylon” who thought he could take over God's throne and rule his own kingdom. And the other is the old self-first life within us which, astonishingly, still thinks that Satan's futile, losing attempt can somehow be a good example to follow.

From 1 Samuel 8, we've seen a little of the contrast between God's kingdom and man's. We don't have time to do all the reading on the subject, but I'd like to contrast Israel's first two kings.

From 1 Samuel 16:2, characterize the kind of kingdom Saul was most interested in building.

If you know the extended story, you'll understand what I'm getting at. Notice that Saul was so highly insecure about his kingdom that he would have killed God's man, Samuel, to protect it. Do you get the idea? What kind of kingdom was Saul most interested in building? Two words: his own!

And if you want to know what the unrest of building one's own kingdom looks like, read the full story of Saul. He spent years of his life, hunting David down like a wild animal in the wilderness; he attempted the life of his own son, Jonathan, when Jonathan stood against him to protect David; he spent his days being tormented by an evil spirit; he ended his life on a battlefield, still trying to build his own kingdom.

David, on the other hand, spent years of his life hiding out from Saul like a hunted wild animal in the wilderness. But when given repeated chances to take Saul's life, although he certainly could have pled self-defense, he refused. He took the kingdom God gave him only because God gave it to him. Building his own kingdom was not his priority. We'll see glimpses of it today. We'll see it even more clearly as the week goes on (although we'll see a major slip in this area, too) — David sought first God's kingdom.

If Saul and his kingdom are iconic of a self-first kingdom and David and his kingdom are iconic of a God-first kingdom, notice David's “labouring for a kingdom” and the reason for it from 2 Samuel 3:1.

Part I — . . .l____________ for a k_______________. . .

What two facts, relevant to our own lives, do we learn from 2 Samuel 3:1?

These are not new facts. It's Hebrews 4 all over again. The work from which we presently have no rest is the work of battle. Unlike David's, however, our battle is not against flesh-and-blood. Actually, our battle is against flesh — our own flesh; but not the flesh-and-blood of our physical, fleshly bodies. The battle is against the old, fleshly, self-first life.

The second fact, relevant to ourselves, that we learn from reading between the lines of 2 Samuel 3:1 is our other Hebrews 4 fact. We learn who wins. There will one day be a rest of completion for God's people. God's house and kingdom will get built. The other kingdom cannot stand against it. Even in the here and now, by fighting our battles through faith and dependence on God, the old, fleshly, self-first life grows weaker and weaker. Seeking first God's kingdom is possible for us because we are promised strength for battle through the strength of our perfect and sympathetic High Priest (Heb. 4:14-16).

A — . . .obtained p____________. . .

And on the topic of promises, let's look at the promises or their fulfillments that today's passages contain. Some are the warm-and-fuzzy kind. Some are not. Through these promises, we'll return to the topic of fathers and sons and non-transferable guilt or righteousness that we began to look at yesterday.

From today's readings, what was the first promise that God gave to David on record?

1 Samuel 16:1 — the promise of David's kingship — came first to Samuel. Like the very first promise Samuel “obtained” from God, this was not a promise Samuel wanted to hear. The first promise God gave to Samuel was that He would destroy Eli's “house.” The promise of 1 Samuel 16:1 carries the implication that He would also destroy Saul's “house.” And from 1 Samuel 16:1, Samuel mourned over that promise.

Samuel mourned over Saul's destruction. So did God. We know so from Ezekiel 18.

But we also know from Ezekiel 18 that the destruction of Saul's “house” was not a punishment on Saul's sons for Saul's sin. Jonathan, the very righteous son of an unrighteous father, did not bear his father's guilt, though his father's sin affected his life. Jonathan died with his father and died young and in battle. Neither Jonathan nor his sons went on to become kings. Saul's sins had major consequences on his sons' lives, but his sons did not bear their father's guilt. Just the natural consequences.

And God ended the reign of Saul's house because He had another plan in mind. So David, to Samuel's initial disappointment, became the second king of Israel as God had promised.

2 Samuel 5:1-12 tells of the fulfillment of this promise of God to David. But the passage has more significance to this week of lessons than simply narrating the beginning of David's reign over his kingdom. It tells us the beginning of David's reign over his kingdom in Jerusalem — aka: Zion. (I'd like you to remember this piece of history for our last lesson of the week.) For today, notice the struggle required in taking the city of Jerusalem. This city was a “stronghold.” It didn't fall into David's lap.

This passage is the reason I've included the “city” in one of today's Key Thoughts.

1 — The Builder and P____________ Keeper's k_______________, house, throne, city, and covenant will be built and kept forever.

And that Key Thought introduces the promises of 2 Samuel 7:1-16 — promises not only about kingdoms, houses, and thrones but promises about fathers and sons.

These promises apparently came in direct response to David's desire to build a house for God.

From 2 Samuel 7:5 and 16, what was God's response to David's desire?

Quite the promise! Definitely a warm-fuzzy kind! In effect, God said to David, “You think you're going to build Me a house? How about this! How about I build you a house?”

Are you seeing in David's desire to build a house for God that seeking-first of God's kingdom that characterized David's kingdom? And from Matthew 6:33 we know the promise that follows the condition of seeking first God's kingdom and righteousness. “All these things” will be added to the one who seeks to build God's kingdom rather than his own. All what things? From Matthew 6, all the things we have need of. All the things we have need of for our earthly lives but also treasures in heaven.

And God's promises of 2 Samuel 7 were all about the treasures in heaven kinds of “all things.”

How many times does God use the word “forever” in 2 Samuel 7:11-16?

So understanding that the promises we're seeing from 2 Samuel 7 are bigger than earthly-kingdom kind of promises, let's look at the promises involving father and sons in light of God's heavenly kingdom.

Which son of David do the promises of 2 Samuel 7:11-16 refer to?

These promises are among those promises God seems to delight in making — dual-fulfillment promises. Plays on words. In fact, kind of sanctified puns. On the one hand, God was speaking of Solomon, the son who would sit on David's throne after him. He was the son of David who built the first temple. On the other hand, God was speaking of a Son of David much greater than Solomon. The “forever”s in the passage tip us off to the dual-fulfillment intended.

And from this time on, the idea grew up among the nation Israel that there would be One coming — the Anointed One, the Messiah, the Promised One. His common title became “the Son of David.”

And point after point that God made in His promises to David found their true fulfillment only in the “Son of David” that came along many years after Solomon.

What are the two fulfillments of 2 Samuel 7:13a.?

Solomon built a house for his God, but it was destroyed many years ago. Jesus built a different kind of house for His God. The gates of hell could not destroy it, and it spread out into a worldwide house which continues on, growing and growing.

What are the two fulfillments of 2 Samuel 7:14a.?

The “I will be his father, and he shall be my son..” is applied to Solomon. God gives us a chance to choose our Father, and He calls those who choose Him His sons. But there is only one begotten Son.

What are the two fulfillments of 2 Samuel 7:14b. (see also Isaiah 53:4-6)?

“If he commit iniquity...” has reference only to Solomon because Isaiah 53 (another chapter of God's promises) informs us that the Messiah, “...had done no violence, neither was any deceit in His mouth” (v. 9). But this is the part that I find the most interesting — the phrasing of the next part of God's promise to David in reference to his Son. “...I will chasten him with the rod of men and with the stripes of the children of men.”

Copy out Isaiah 53:4-6 and underline the personal pronouns.

Wow! It was the rod of men and the stripes of the children of men that the Son of David would bear. It was their punishment — their rod, their stripes —that He would take on Himself. There was a single instance of God not keeping His promise of Ezekiel 18:20. But it was for the sake of keeping His promises of 2 Samuel 7:14 and Isaiah 53. He overrode Ezekiel 18:20 for the sake of a greater promise. There was an occasion when the One who died had not sinned and the Father bore the guilt of His sons, giving them His righteousness in exchange. And those promises of 2 Samuel 7:14 and Isaiah 53 — from our perspective, the warmest, fuzziest promises imaginable — are ours through faith. But as we'll see again this week, they were costly promises to keep. Costly both for the Promise Keeper and for us.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 8: The Promise Keeper & The Sword Keeper (Part 2) — Heb. 4

Week 8, Day 4: David, Part I — Hebrews 11:32-34

Today's Readings: Hebrews 4:12-13, 11:32-34, Numbers 25:1-9, Joshua 9, 2 Samuel 21:1-14, 2 Samuel 24, 1 Chronicles 21

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

David. . . (Heb. 11:32b.)

B — . . .escaped the edge of the s____________. . . (Heb. 11:34b.)

Part II — . . .l____________ for r_______________ . . . (Heb. 11:33a., 2 Sam. 24:24-25)

* * * * *

“...laboured for a kingdom...” and “...laboured for righteousness...” could (and probably should) have fallen under both “...obtained promises...” and “...escaped the edge of the sword...” Through the obtaining of promises, Samuel and David “worked righteousness.” But then, through his labour for righteousness — through seeking first God's kingdom — David also escaped the edge of the sword. We'll be looking at one particular escape today and tomorrow.

Under “...escaped the edge of the sword...” there are many stories I could have chosen for David, but to me, the most “intriguing” (read, strange) is told in 2 Samuel 24 and then again in 1 Chronicles 21.

If you read carefully when you read through today's readings, you may already have noticed one of the most “intriguing” aspects of this “intriguing” story: its glaring discrepancies. They'll be today's focus.

If the Bible is true, there are no contradictions in it — only discrepancies; differences. Truth can't contradict itself. But actual contradiction and mere discrepancy are not the same animal. They're not even the same species. Contradictions are differences between two or more statements where no reconciliation is possible. If reconciliations are imaginable, then, the statements don't contradict. They simply differ. That's not to say every imaginable solution is the right one or that non-contradiction proves truth. It's just to explain the difference between contradiction and discrepancy.

I haven't noticed every discrepancy in the Bible, but let me tell you about my experiences with the ones I have noticed. So far, I've never found any in the Bible beyond the power of my imagination to reconcile, showing that none of the discrepancies I've noticed are true contradictions. Of course, I don't believe I've imagined out all the true solutions behind the discrepancies, but this is what I have discovered: in wrestling with discrepancies and imagining out solutions, the picture of the total story emerges from a new angle in a more lifelike and multidimensional way. In fact, the discrepancies teach.

For a very simple example, John states that Jesus carried His own cross; the other Gospels speak about a man named Simon of Cyrene who carried the cross. The obvious answer is that they both carried the cross. (But that is always the answer to seeming-contradictions if the Bible is God's Word: “Both!”)

How does the discrepancy between John and the other Gospels teach? Both Jesus and Simon carried the cross. We talk about Simon of Cyrene helping Jesus carry Jesus' cross. But Simon didn't carry Jesus' cross. Jesus carried Simon's cross. And mine. He bore it for Simon. And me. But like Simon, I'm also called to carry my own cross (Luke 14:27). What a lesson that discrepancy teaches! (Hang onto it!)

The lesson plan for today is to work through the discrepancies between 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 (the four I've noticed, at any rate) to imagine out possible solutions. Along the way, they'll teach us.

Through the opening and closing discrepancies, I see the two points of the passage. Through the two discrepancies in the middle, I see the two problems — the reasons the story fell out the way it did.

Point out the discrepancy between 2 Samuel 24: 1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1. Do you see any solutions?

Whose idea was the incident that happened in 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21: God's or Satan's? If the Book we're studying is the Book written by a truth-telling God, then, “Both!”

This opener, which looks like incontrovertible contradiction (after all, how could God and Satan both be responsible for the same act?), ends up being one of those discrepancies that teaches volumes.

It goes back to the question that troubled me with the story of Samson. How could God possibly be willing to take the blame (or credit) for something Samson did which was clearly against God's commands? This story of David opens with the same dilemma. How could 2 Samuel 24 proclaim loud and clear that God moved David to do something which the context makes plain was sin?

1 Chronicles 21 clears up the issue in the main. It was Satan, directly, who tempted David to take a census. God was acting only indirectly. Like we saw through the lesson on the Passover, God uses Satan as His instrument to accomplish His work. God cannot be tempted with evil nor tempt anyone to evil (James 1:13). Yet where Satan tempts and man falls, God can use the results. He's the One in control. He allows Satan only as much leeway as He can use for His own, good purposes.

But 2 Samuel 24:1 holds other large, theological quandaries (and a discrepancy with Ezekiel 18:20).

The good purpose God used David's sin to accomplish was the deaths of seventy thousand people? Whatever happened to Ezekiel 18:20 and the non-transferance of guilt? One thing of which we can be sure: Ezekiel 18:20 stands true, and God took the lives He took for a reason.

There are several mentions of swords in today's passages, but even where they're not mentioned, I can see a sword all over the story. God's sword is a sword drawn wherever it finds evil, but it is drawn only against evil. The sword is an instrument of judgment and death. And the soul that sins must die.

2 Samuel 24:1 makes it plain that the plague that follows in the chapter was a judgment on sin. And not primarily David's sin. I think it's a safe bet that when God took seventy thousand lives in today's story, He did so to stop the terrible spread of some deadly sin. That was the good result He was after.

Notice the precedent from Numbers 25. In Numbers 25, God used a plague to halt the spread of sin that was marauding through the nation. I see God's sense of irony at work in Numbers 25. He used a sword (spear) to halt the sword of plague. And He used the sword of plague to halt a worse plague.

Sin is more contagious, more destructive, and more horrifying than any other plague. I didn't have you read it, but the end of the book of Judges depicts the logical outcome of “...every man did that which was right in his own eyes...” Judges 19 is so stomach-turning, Sodom looks good by comparison.

“...great are his mercies...” David said of God (1 Chron. 21:13), and the destruction of a body to spare a soul can be a great mercy. I don't know how accurate this idea is, but I often think of God's ultimate judgment on sin as a lack of action on His part. I think of His final destruction of sin as Him allowing sin's destructive nature to run its course. I think of hell as God permitting the separation between Himself and the one who has chosen that separation to become permanent. When I see God's judgment on sin in action (such as in today's story), I see His mercy. I see Him taking drastic steps to stop the progression of sin before it reaches the stage where He ceases to act because there's nothing more that can be done.

Given the opening discrepancy of the story, I've read it through, wondering if there might not have been two “angels” (one a fallen angel) and two “swords” (one, a sword of destruction and the other, a sword of protection) involved in the account. As I discovered while studying the Passover, it's Satan who's the destroyer. True, God states in 1 Chronicles 21:12 that the sword of the plague would be His sword, that it would be the Angel of the LORD doing the striking. (The Angel of the LORD is always God's angel; in many passages, context reveals that the Angel of the LORD in the passage is really God Himself.) But as we saw in Exodus, God claimed the destruction of the firstborn because He used the destroyer as His instrument for His purposes. Did something similar take place in today's story? Was the Angel of the LORD, parked at the threshing floor of Ornan, holding up His sword to say to the destroyer, “You shall not pass this threshing floor!”?

It takes reading between the lines in very fine print to read two “angels” and swords into the passage. Why would a surface reading (even an in-depth reading) reveal only the fact of God's destruction against sin in the story, though the opening discrepancy lets us in on the fact of Satan's involvement?

I've said that I see the point (one of them) of the passage from the opening discrepancy. What's the point I see? Though God may use Satan and his destruction to do the job, God will and must destroy sin. God is willing to take the credit for the destruction of sin, even when He's allowing the destroyer or sin's self-destructive nature to do the destroying, because sin must be destroyed, and He must destroy it.

This story is about the price tag attached to sin. Sin always has a price tag. And that tag reads “death.” “For the wages of sin is death...” (Rom. 6:23a.). Death — destruction — is the logical, natural, inevitable, necessary, ultimate outcome of sin. Forever without perfection is simply nightmare. So sin must bring death. Today's story is about the seriousness of sin and its consequences.

Point out the discrepancy between 2 Samuel 24: 9 and 1 Chronicles 21:5. Do you see any solutions?

2 Samuel lists three hundred thousand fewer men of Israel and thirty thousand more men of Judah. The exactness of the numbers suggests to me that there were two different counts or divisions. Perhaps the two divisions comprised those who were in active army duty and those who could be conscripted if necessary. Joab may not have bothered counting the regular soldiers — their numbers would already be known — but he included the regular army in his report, both as a separate entity and as a part of the total of fighting men. The report would reflect both the total of men who could draw the sword and the men who already did. The writer of 2 Samuel (preferring rounder numbers) chose one number for one division and the other number for the other. The writer of 1 Chronicles did the same (but opposite).

Besides the fact that Joab had more moral sense on this occasion than David did, here's what I learn from the side note that Joab stopped counting when he got to the tribes of Levi and Benjamin: the Levites had duties in service to God that would exempt them from army duties. And perhaps the tribe of Benjamin wasn't counted because of their connection to Saul. There was civil war between this tribe and Judah after Saul's death and before David's reign (2 Sam. 2-5). Perhaps Benjamin and Levi were not counted because Joab knew they could not be expected to fill up the ranks of David's fighting men.

But if Levi and Benjamin were not counted among the tribes who contributed or could contribute soldiers to David's army, it would leave ten tribes of fighting men. If the difference in numbers between 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 shows that Judah sent thirty thousand soldiers to the regular army, perhaps every tribe (except the two) sent thirty thousand. And thirty thousand times ten tribes? Three hundred thousand men. And three hundred thousand (possibly the number of the regular army) is the number included in 1 Chronicles and excluded in 2 Samuel.

If using a little imagination to solve discrepancies can be an instructive process, what do I learn from this one? Just this: whatever the solution, I believe it lies in the phrase, “...men that drew the sword...” (2 Sam. 24:9) Joab was not counting people of all types. He was counting soldiers or potential soldiers.

It was un-faith that made David's census sin. Was David counting his back-up plan? But faith needs no back-up plan. What happened to the lad with a sling, five stones, and a big faith, going up against a giant? What happened to the man who penned the words, “Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God” (Ps. 20:7). Those were the words of a man more interested in God's kingdom than his own. When David began numbering his back-up plan, he showed that his priorities had momentarily shifted to the building of his own kingdom. He closed his faith-eyes to the unseen of God's chariots (Ps. 68:17) and rested his weight on the visible of a back-up plan.

What's the problem of today's story that I see through trying to work out this discrepancy? It's an obvious one: the problem was David's sin. And that sin (as always) grew from the root of un-faith.

What's the discrepancy between 2 Samuel 24: 13 and 1 Chronicles 21:12? Do you see any solutions?

Did God offer David three years of famine or seven? If the Bible's true, then, “Both!”

2 Samuel 21 records three years of famine in Israel. The next major happening in 2 Samuel was David's census. With the offer of seven years, was God was counting “time already served” as part of the sentence? There was the unspecified “striking” of Israel (1 Chron. 21:7) after the census. Could that “striking” have been a year of famine? Then, four years of famine would have been served of the seven. There would be only three more to wait out. And so the offer of three years and yet seven.

What lesson do I learn through trying to work out this discrepancy? The second problem of the story.

The first problem was David and his sin — personal guilt. The second problem was corporate consequence. Guilt is always personal (Ezek. 18:20), but consequences may be corporate and far-reaching (Ex. 20:5). It's one of the horrors of sin and its destruction. Personal sin can hurt so many.

Here's my reasoning: if God, by offering David three and seven years of famine (with four previously served), was pointing him back to 2 Samuel 21 and the Gibeonites and Saul's sons, I believe He was saying to David, “What happened there is not a closed book. I cannot sweep innocent blood under the carpet. There's a connection between what's happening now and what you did then.”

From Joshua 9, Joshua made a promise without asking for God's input. In 2 Samuel, I see David starting off well in 21:1 but making Joshua's mistake in 21:3-4. All over 2 Samuel 21:1-14, I see decisions of human “justice” which are the opposite of God's justice in Ezekiel 18:20. And God wants injustice dealt with. God struck Israel with three years of famine because of innocent blood shed by Saul. But David's foolish promise only compounded the injustice by shedding the blood of Saul's sons.

I see the opposite of Ezekiel 18:20 through 2 Samuel 21, but I see the truth of Exodus 20:5. I see that sin has consequences — not only on the sinner but on those around him. Joshua's failure affected future generations. Saul's violence affected the Gibeonites and his whole nation. David's foolish promise affected Saul's sons and the nation. Sin's consequences fall on a wider circle than the immediately guilty. Personal guilt that produces corporate consequences (and vice versa) is a key to today's story.

What's the discrepancy between 2 Samuel 24:24 and 1 Chronicles 21:25? Do you see any solutions?

Did David give Ornan six hundred shekels of gold or did David buy the threshing floor for fifty shekels of silver? “Both!” Perhaps David started by giving Ornan the larger sum which Ornan gave back, accepting only fifty shekels of silver in the end. David and Ornan came from a bartering culture. I imagine they couldn't agree on a purchase price without a little backward bartering. Ornan's beginning asking price was...free. David's beginning offering price was six hundred shekels of gold. If they met nowhere near the middle with fifty shekels of silver, Ornan was by far the more stubborn of the two.

Why do I say that I see the second main point of the story in this final discrepancy between the two accounts? We'll have to talk about it tomorrow when we take another look at this story and its results.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 8: The Promise Keeper & The Sword Keeper (Part 2) — Heb. 4

Week 8, Day 5: David, Part II — Hebrews 11:32-34

Today's Readings: Heb. 4:14-16, 11:32-34, Gen. 22:8-14, Joshua 9:27, 1 Chron. 20:1-3; 22; 2 Chron. 3:1; Isaiah 56:6-7

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

David. . . (Heb. 11:32b.)

B — . . .escaped the edge of the s____________. . . (Heb. 11:34b.)

Part I — . . .l____________ for a k_______________. . . (Heb. 11:33a.)

1 — The Builder and P____________ Keeper's k_______________, house, throne, city, and covenant will be built and kept forever. (1 Chron. 22:10)

* * * * *

Let's review yesterday's points and problems, emphasized through discrepancies, to pick up where we left off. I see those points and problems not only in the discrepancies but all throughout the story.

The point that God will and must destroy sin, even when He uses Satan and sin's own destructive nature to do it, is made very clearly all through the story and through many, many other Scriptures.

Then, there are the joint problems of personal guilt and corporate consequence. These two problems are key, and there's a whole lot more to be said on the subject that I didn't have time to say yesterday. So let's dig deeper. (Before we get to today's passages, we need to go back to yesterday's.)

Comment on the personal vs. corporate consequences from 2 Samuel 24:13, 14, and 17?

What behind-the-scenes information (2 Sam. 24:1), regarding the personal and the corporate, do we have that David didn't in 24:17? How does that information affect the total picture of the story?

Did you notice, from the three choices God gave David, two would have affected David, personally and directly, very little? Two choices would have primarily affected David's land (2 Sam. 24:13). Three more years of famine would not hit the palace very hard. In times of recession, government cuts seldom include government salaries. If such is the case in our day and age, such was certainly the case in David's. In times of famine, the king's wages would still have been paid.

With the three days of plague, there was little reason for David to believe he would have been hit with illness. There's no mention of David himself succumbing to sickness.

But there is one offer where the language and the pronouns used are, from David's perspective, terrifyingly personal. David had already experienced the second offer: first with Saul and then with his son, Absalom. It was a warfare that was intensely personal, directed against David. It was a warfare David was desperate not to endure again — fleeing for his life from an enemy who should have been his nearest ally. The most painful experiences of his life must have been the ones when those close to him turned on him. And the one offer David rejected outright was the one where he alone would have borne the consequences of the lapse of his faith in God. “...let me not fall into the hand of man” (v. 14).

Did David, after seeing the corporate consequence he'd chosen by default (the plague God sent), change his mind about the choice he'd made? I think he did. In 2 Samuel 24:17, he said (in effect), “I chose wrongly, Lord. The guilt was mine; let me take the punishment that will affect only me.” He'd learned a hard lesson about the corporate consequences of personal guilt. But that is the hard truth about personal guilt. It affects so many more than just the guilty, and there is no reversing those effects.

Still, from 2 Samuel 24:1 we know what David didn't. The plague was a judgment on sin but not primarily David's sin. “...these sheep, what have they done?” (v. 17). Like the sheep of Isaiah 53, they had all gone astray and turned their own way. God keeps His promises. He upholds His justice of Ezekiel 18:20. Though personal guilt may produce corporate consequences, He does not assign corporate guilt. The soul that sins dies. Yet all have sinned, and all die. It's up to Him to determine the day and the hour.

But the second time around, David made the right choice. He accepted full responsibility for his own sin. He understood that, by rights, he should have borne the full brunt of the consequences of his sin.

With what result? How did God respond? “Right, then! Let the three months of fleeing before your enemies commence! Start running!”? Not at all. In fact, God commanded that a substitute pay the price for David's sin. He commanded a burnt offering. There was no renewal of any offers to let David pay for his sin by running from his enemies. Why? I would say because the price had been paid. The price of the sin of the sheep who had turned their own way and had held on to their sin for dear life (and eventually costly death) had been paid. They had paid the price of their sin themselves. But David had repented. As a result, a substitute would pay the price for his sin. That's the deal God offered David the second time around. In fact, it's the only deal God offers the repentant. And David was repentant.

And here we are back around to David and Ornan, Ornan's threshing floor, and the second main point of the story. If the first main point is, “Sin has a price tag — and that price tag reads 'death,'“ the second main point is, “Who pays the price?” Who bears the consequence? Corporately and personally, we're all guilty. But one Person who bore no personal guilt at all bore our consequences.

Seventy thousand unrepentant “sheep” of Israel had paid the price of their own sin. David repented of his sin. God commanded that a substitute pay the price for the repented sin. But David paid, too.

What was Ornan/Araunah's asking price for the threshing floor and the burnt offering (1 Chron. 21:23)? What was David's response? Draw a parallel to your own life and faith.

The main point I see through the last discrepancy in this story is the two payments made for David's sin. If David offered six hundred shekels of gold but Ornan accepted only fifty shekels of silver, it's obvious who got the better deal in the end. Whatever the real solution to the discrepancy, the text tells us that Ornan was willing to pay the full cost of David's offering but that David also paid something.

The cost to Ornan of losing his threshing floor, his animals, his equipment, and his crop in a single blow is hard to imagine. Yet he wanted to give it free of charge to David to offer to God. The only reason I can imagine for his offer is that Ornan was a man who knew and worshipped the God of Israel. With his whole heart. He was a man who understood that nothing could be more important to him than the One True God. He had no other gods. That's what I see from Ornan's offer.

And in David's unwillingness to offer to God what cost him nothing, I see a man who had repented of having any other gods, even in a small way, even if his only other god was a number that he had momentarily put his trust in. He was done with other gods. He was done with building his own kingdom.

God gave us another Man, like Ornan, willing to give it all. Like David, I have to accept God's provision. I have to accept His substitute. Unlike David, I can do nothing to pay for the sacrifice that God accepts. Yet I believe He's pleased with the attitude that recognizes that I deserve to pay the price tag on my own sin and which says, “I will not offer to the Lord that which costs me nothing.”

In fact, as was the case with Ornan and David, there is a price both parties must pay.

There is a price I must pay before I'm willing to accept God's free gift. That cost is the cost of repentance. That cost is a mere nothing compared to the price Jesus paid — the Man who said, “I give it all,” — but it is a necessary price to pay. It's the cost of seeking God's kingdom over and above my own.

Remember that Jesus and Simon of Cyrene both had a cross to carry. The cross was really Simon's, but Jesus carried it for him. And the cross was really mine, but Jesus carried it for me. Yet He calls me to carry it with Him. He calls me to participate in the price He paid. The call to life is a call to death.

“The soul who sins shall die.” It's a promise. All have sinned. All must die. But there are two ways to die, and one of them leads to life. We can pay the price for our own sin and let it destroy us. We can die eternally by refusing to be parted from our sin. Or we can die a little death that the Bible calls repentance and go on to live eternally.

David, by faith, escaped the edge of God's sword, that instrument of death and judgment. The escape came about by grace but also through David's labour; not for his own kingdom but for God's. Self had to be dethroned and God restored to the throne of his life. That act is called repentance, and repentance is a (somewhat agonizing) costly labour for us — a little death— because of our inner enemy.

The threshing floor of Ornan is the spot where all the action takes place for the last piece of today's lesson when we'll finally get around to today's required readings.

From 2 Samuel 24:16 + 1 Chronicles 21:15 and Genesis 22:8-14 + 2 Chronicles 3:1, name two significant events that took place at the site of the threshing floor of Ornan/Araunah the Jebusite.

Do you see a parallel between 2 Samuel 24:16 /1 Chronicles 21:15-16 and Genesis 22:10-12?

Why might God have chosen the site of the threshing floor for His house?

That last question is the one where we'll spend the bulk of our remaining time together today. I didn't see it until God began teaching me a little history lesson that I'll share with you.

First, let's visualize together Abraham with his arm upraised, knife poised over his son's chest, the sun glinting off the blade, and tears glinting in the father's eyes. And then, the stay of execution. “Abraham, stop! Restrain your hand! A substitute has been found. In the mount of the Lord, it has been provided.”

Now, picture what David saw at the very same site: God's arm upraised, sword poised over His city, the sun glinting off the blade, and tears glinting in the Father's eye. (From Ezekiel 18, we know how He feels about the death of the wicked.) Then, the stay of execution. “Restrain your hand! The price of those who will not repent has been paid, and for the repentant, a substitute has been found. In the mount of the Lord, it has been provided.”

What's the event that happened at the threshing floor of Ornan that made it God's choice for the location for His house? It was where His sword was stopped. And when that substitutional sacrifice was offered there, God's sword, drawn only against unpaid-for sin, was sheathed (1 Chron. 21:26-27).

Now, to that history lesson: I had you read all of Joshua 9 yesterday because I wanted you to have the context for Joshua 9:27. Notice the work the Gibeonites were put to. The grunt work of the tabernacle was drawing water and cutting wood. The Law required ceremonial washing upon ceremonial washing, calling for large amounts of water, and the wood, of course, would have been for the burnt offerings.

Then, look at 1 Chronicles 20:1-3. Depending on your translation, you may have found this the strangest passage I've assigned you yet. The meaning of the original in verse three is apparently vague enough to go in two different directions. The King James' translators believed that David cut the people of Ammon with saws, picks, axes and the like. The translators of newer versions mercifully allowed the people of Ammon to do the cutting with the saws, picks, and axes. I'm going to take a stand here and state for the record that I believe (sorry, King Jimmy) the newer translations got it right. Why? Because of the context of 1 Chronicles 20. All the last chapters of 1 Chronicles are entirely focused on David's preparations for the building of the temple (including 1 Chronicles 21 which tells the “intriguing” but terribly meaningful story of the choosing of the site). David was a man with a mania. He was so done with the building of his own kingdom by the end of his life, all he could think about was building a house for God. In 1 Chronicles 17, David got the idea to build God a house. He wasn't allowed, but he wasn't about to forget about the idea, either. The wars and “subduings” and plunder-takings we read about from 1 Chronicles 18-20 pave the way for 1 Chronicles 22 — the all-out preparations for the temple.

The chapters on the subduings and plunder-takings explain one mystery of 1 Chronicles 22: where did David get all his loot? Where did he get all the labour? The loot was literally loot. Plunder. The labour, to some extent, was foreign labour (like the Gibeonites). I'm 99.9% positive that the proper translation of 1 Chronicles 20:3 is the one where the people of Ammon are doing the hewing and the cutting, rather than being hewn and cut, because of 1 Chronicles 22:2 which states in black-and-white that much of the labour (the kind that requires saws, picks, and axes) for the temple was foreign labour.

Now, one more piece of history. I hope you've been able to hang onto it for two days.

What was the history of the city of Jerusalem when David made it his capital (2 Sam. 5:6-9)? From whom did David buy the property that became the site for the temple? What was the man's nationality?

An apparently-redeemed Jebusite, surely a man who should have counted David among his bitterest enemies, tried to donate the land to David that became the building site for the temple.

What's the point of today's history lesson? Isaiah 56:6-7: God's house as a house for all nations.

Given Isaiah 56:6-7 and the point of today's history lesson, elaborate on 1 Chronicles 22:7-10.

God's house would be a house for all nations. The Gibeonites (spared by the faithful Promise-Keeper through their fear of Israel's God) drew the water for washing and cut the wood for the offerings. The Ammonites (those descendants of God's man, Lot) helped in the building of it. Ornan, the redeemed Jebusite, gave the site to God and to David. But David would not be allowed to build God's house. Why? Because He was a man of war. And the sword stops when it gets to God's house.

Solomon's name meant “peace.” He would be the one to build God's house — a house for all nations, a house of peace. But David, the man of the sword, made all the preparations for God's house of peace. Both David and Solomon are types — portraits — of Christ. The Sword-Keeper is also the Peace-Keeper. The King of Peace. But the preparations for God's house were done through a little sword-swinging. Before Christ could be the Peace-Keeper, He had to be the Peace-Maker. And because of sin, peace could only be made by His sword. Sin and peace simply cannot coexist. Sin must be destroyed.

But God's sword, drawn only against sin, stops at His house! The price has been paid. There was a Man who gave it all. He turned His sword of judgment and death on Himself and paid the price for us.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

WEEK 8 Group Study — Heb. 4, 11:32-34

Review Readings: Heb. 4; 11:32-34; 1 Sam. 3:10, 15, 18; 2 Sam. 3:1; 5:1-12; 7:11-16; 24:24-25; 1 Chron. 22:7-10; Matt. 6:33

* * * * *

Key Thoughts for Review:

Samuel and David. . . (Heb. 11:32b.)

A — . . .obtained p____________. . . (Heb. 4:1-11, 11:33b.)

Part I — . . .l____________ for a k_______________. . . (Heb. 11:33a. , 2 Sam. 3:1, Matt. 6:33)

1 — The Builder and P____________ Keeper's k_______________, house, throne, city, and covenant will be built and kept forever. (2 Sam. 5:1-12, 7:11-16, 1 Chron. 22:10)

Part II — . . .l____________ for r_______________ . . . (Heb. 11:33a.; 1 Sam. 3:10, 15, 18; 2 Sam. 24:24-25; Matt. 6:33)

B — . . .escaped the edge of the s____________. . . (Heb. 4:12-16, 11:34b.)

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:

The Promise Keeper & The Sword Keeper (Part 2)

1 — Review the Key Thoughts to share new insights on the Promise-Keeper and the Sword-Keeper.

2 — Has any theme from this week's lessons emerged in a personal way for you?

3 — If the only way we can know God is through hearing from Him, how can we better learn to listen to Him? Describe the various methods God uses to communicate with you.

4 — Explain and give examples of building God's kingdom and building our own earthly kingdoms.

5 — I was overwhelmed this week, thinking about the beauty of God and the “house” He's building, using such a variety of colours, shapes, personalities. Comment on what Isaiah 56:6-7 — God's house as a house of all nations — means to you personally. Comment on, “God's sword stops at His house.”

And finally, one last time for the week, please share any of your own discoveries this week about...

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 9: The Sword Keeper & The Author — Heb. 4:12-16, 5:1-10

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

The Sword Keeper and the Author. . . (Heb. 4:12-16, 5:1-10)

Part I — . . . who is the K__________ of r_______________. . . (Heb. 5:6, 10; 7:2)

Part II—. . .and the K__________ of p____________. . . (Heb. 5:6, 10; 7:2)

Part III—. . .a____________ d_______________. . . (Heb. 5:9, Gen. 14:18-20)

. . .for the prophets. . . (Heb. 11:32b.)

Part IV— . . .who escaped d____________. . . (Heb. 5:9, 11:33-34)

1 — . . .who shut the mouths of l____________. . .(Heb. 11:33b., Dan. 6:22)

2 — . . .who quenched the violence of f____________ . . . (Heb. 11:34a., Dan. 3:27)

Part V — . . .who saw the d____________ raised. . . (Heb. 11:35a., 1 Kg. 17:22)

Part VI — . . .who didn't escape d________ and didn't see the d________ raised. (Heb. 11:35b.-37)

1 — . . .but still shut the mouths of l____________. . .(1 Kg. 13:28)

2 — . . .and still quenched the violence of f____________ . . .(Isa. 43:2)

3—. . .and will see the d____________ raised. (Heb. 11:35b., John 11:25)

Key words: King, righteousness, peace, authored, deliverance, death, dead, lions, fire

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 9: The Sword Keeper & The Author — Heb. 4:12-16, 5:1-10

Week 9, Day 1: The Sword Keeper and the Author — Hebrews 4:12-16, 5:1-10

Today's Readings: Hebrews 4:12-16; 5; 7-8; Genesis 14; Psalm 110; Matthew 26:26-28

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

The Sword Keeper and the Author. . . (Heb. 4:12-16, 5:1-10)

Part I — . . . who is the K__________ of r_______________. . . (Heb. 5:6, 10; 7:2)

Part II—. . .and the K__________ of p____________. . . (Heb. 5:6, 10; 7:2)

Part III—. . .a____________ d_______________. . . (Heb. 5:9, Gen. 14:18-20)

* * * * *

As the writer of Hebrews said in 5:11, I have many things to say to you, and those many things are things “hard to utter.” They're “hard to utter” because I'm not hearing them clearly. I know God's been teaching me on today's subject, but either He's whispering or my own spiritual hearing is a little dull. The hard-to-utter things, like the things of Hebrews 5 and 7-8, are lessons to be learned on a mysterious and fascinating personage from Genesis 14 — the priest and king, Melchizedek. Genesis 14 plus Hebrews 5, 7-8 is certainly some “strong meat,” and I'm not sure my baby teeth are up to the challenge.

With that disclaimer, let's dig in. I hope you're ready for a little tough chewing today.

My first difficulty with today's lesson (in fact, all of this week's lessons) was the “Author” that I was sure I was supposed to be using for this week's portrait. Depending on your translation, you might not see this portrait from Hebrews 5, but the King James renders Hebrews 5:9 as, “And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;” Thus, the Key Thought...

Part II—. . .a____________ d_______________. . .

Christ authored our deliverance (or salvation). This “authorship” is linked by Hebrews 5:10 with Melchizedek as a portrait of Christ, and for days on end, I could not see the connection. I could see a connection between the Sword-Keeper and Melchizedek; I could see a connection between the Sword-Keeper and the prophets of Hebrews 11:32b. But where did the “Author” of our eternal salvation fit in?

Before I could attempt to solve the difficulty of linking my two portraits and linking my portraits to my faith-heroes, I had to know what it meant that Christ is the Author of our salvation. Of course, I turned to my trusty (and by now, well-used) Greek-English dictionary/concordance.

“Aitios” (“prime mover, causer”) is the Greek word translated “author” in Hebrews 5:9 in the King James (“source” in other translations). When I did a little research into the word, I suspected the translators found themselves a little baffled to know what to do with it. At least, I found myself baffled.

There is a whole series of words that grow out of the same root as “aitios,” but these words end up with meanings like, “accusation, complaint, crime.” All legal prosecuting terms. Huh? What kind of “authorship” is this “aitios”? I came to the conclusion that the “aitios” of Hebrews 5:9 is also a legal term. The intent behind the Hebrews 5:9 “authorship” is to point toward some sort of prosecution. The “prime mover” or “causer” in Hebrews 5:9 is the “author” or “source” of, well, of a lawsuit. What did it all mean?

The first answer that occurred to me is that the “Author” of Hebrews 5:9 is an Author. In our usual sense. He wrote a Book. And that Book is a Book of Law. We typically think of the first five books of the Bible as “the Law,” but in a way, the whole Book is a Book of Law (we'll come back to the subject).

That gave me a weak link (better than none) between the Sword-Keeper and the Author. In Hebrews 4:12-13, we learn that the Book the Author wrote is also compared to a sword.

Still, how could a prosecutor author our eternal salvation? Wouldn't a defense lawyer be needed for that purpose? That is Jesus' legal role on our behalf. 1 John 2:1 calls Jesus our “advocate”— our defense lawyer. The prosecution He's, er, prosecuting, then, is not against us — His own saved, delivered ones.

The legalish-ness (legalosity? My English is only slightly better than my Greek) of the authorship of Hebrews 5:9, when linked to the Sword-Keeper of Hebrews 4, reminded me that every legal action is a form of battle. And in every battle there are (at least) two sides. In the battle we're all in, there are only two sides — faith vs. flesh; God vs. God's enemy. There are no other options available to us. There is no middle ground. We are all joined up on one side or the other.

The idea then occurred to me that the Author of Hebrews 5:9 has gained us our eternal salvation, our eternal deliverance, by prosecuting the enemy's side. I've seen it before: Jesus, the Mighty Warrior, gained our salvation by hanging a lickin' on the enemy's side. Hebrews 5:9 and my word study brought home the idea that the battles fought for our salvation are legal battles. Our salvation is a legal issue.

I must just add here a mention of the method through which our Mighty Deliverer hung a lickin' on the enemy and his side. As we've seen all study-long, Jesus conquered evil by submitting to it and to all it could do to Him. Through evil's apparent victory over our Champion, our Champion won the final victory. Fantastic plot twist, wouldn't you agree? Did the enemy see that one coming?

That plot twist is the subject of Hebrews 5:7-9. It was the suffering He endured that was the means of victory. Those battles He fought also presently enable Him to advocate for us — to plead our defense (the subject of Hebrews 4:14-16 and 5:1-10). Remember that Jesus' High-Priestly role is that of intermediary — go-between. He's the Son of God and the Son of Man — the perfect bridge between the two. His High-Priestly mediation is tied into His advocacy on our behalf, and that High Priesthood, all throughout the book of Hebrews, is tied into His experience of the experiences that we experience.

With that intro, we'd better tackle the subject of Melchizedek before we're out of time for the day.

From Genesis 14:17-18 and Hebrews 7:1, after what event did Melchizedek make an appearance?

Fascinating! The only place in the Bible Melchizedek shows up is after a battle! Psalm 110, which introduces the concept of the Messiah as a Priest after the order of Melchizedek, also shows us the Messiah as a Mighty Warrior, hanging a lickin' on His enemies. When I realized this fact, I was instantly thrust back in time to last week's lessons and David and Solomon as types of Christ. Because David was a man of the sword, Solomon could be a man of peace. The Sword-Keeper is also the Peace-Keeper, but because there can be no real peace with evil on the loose, our Prince of Peace is still a Mighty Warrior.

This realization from Hebrews 7:1 linked in my mind two facts about Melchizedek learned in 7:2.

Part I — . . . who is the K__________ of r_______________. . .

Part II—. . .and the K__________ of p____________. . .

Because our Melchizedek is the King of righteousness, He can be the King of peace. Because He cannot tolerate — cannot make any kind of truce with — evil itself, there can one day be true rest.

I can see the truth of it for myself, having some knowledge of the nature of evil by living in enemy-occupied territory (both this world and this body — Satan occupies this world, and the old, self-first life still occupies this body). Given the horrifically horrific, contagious, and destructive nature of sin, if one morsel of sin were permitted through heaven's gates, how long would heaven stay heaven? But because our King's throne is built on righteousness and justice — His Law — His rule will be one of peace.

Ah, but there's the rub. It's the rub Joshua must have felt when faced with the dilemma of Rahab and the promises of mercy made to her. It's the rub Jesus must have felt before the woman caught in adultery. It's the rub the King of Righteousness and Peace must always feel. He must do justly. But He loves mercy. He must keep His own Law. He can make no truce with evil. How can He make a truce with the Law-breakers He loves madly when they do evil?

I've said that our salvation is a legal issue. There's the issue. How can the King of Righteousness be at peace with those who commit evil? I've said that God's book is all Law. There's the Law — the conditions for peace. The biblical term for a peace treaty is “covenant.” God's Law consists of two different parts. We call them the Old and New Covenants (or the Old and New Testaments).

Did you happen to notice that the Old and New Covenants are the topic of Hebrews 7-8? Hebrews 7 brings up Melchizedek to say, “Look! Even in the Old Covenant (from Psalm 110), we see that there's a priesthood — this one an eternal one — that is far superior to the Levitical priesthood. How much greater is Melchizedek than Levi if Melchizedek was greater than Levi's father, Abraham?” (7:4-10). Then, the writer of Hebrews draws the conclusion, “Where there is a change of priesthood, there must also be a change of law” (7:12). And Hebrews 8 deals with the change of law — or the institution of a New Covenant (again predicted in the Old Covenant — Heb. 8:7-13; see also Jer. 31:31-34).

Let's work through Genesis 14 to come out right where we're going in — at the New Covenant.

For starters, notice the first of the enemy kings listed in Genesis 14:1 — Amraphel, king of Shinar.

From Genesis 11:2 and following verses, what city and tower is the plain of Shinar associated with?

This little fact flew over my head every time I read it until I happened to glance down at the margin notes in my Bible for Genesis 14:1. “That is, Babylonia,” they read. Here, in Genesis 14, is Abraham going up against — you know it — that old king of Babylon. Some things never change!

To make it clear to the discerning reader that this historical account is yet another of those historical allegories the Old Testament is full of, my margin notes also inform me that Melchizedek's Salem is associated with Jerusalem — “vision of peace.” There they are! Our two iconic cities and their kings.

Another significant fact — the reason Abraham went into battle:

From Genesis 14:14, why did Abraham go to war?

Abraham's brother, Lot, had been taken captive. I'm reminded of Moses and his “brothers” who were being abused by the Egyptian overseer. I'm also reminded of Hebrews 2:17 and another who just couldn't bear to see His “brothers” in trouble without doing something to help.

From Genesis 14:1-17, Abraham is the deliverer. With a little sword-swinging, he “authors” a deliverance for Lot. In Genesis 14:20, we learn that Abraham was the delivered rather than the deliverer. It was God who had authored Lot's deliverance through Abraham. I couldn't help but think about our all-relational God and His work He calls us to join Him in. We're called to a little warfare not just for our own sakes but because God's work is a house-building work. But He first plunders the enemy's house (Luke 11:21-22) and frees his captives in order to build His own house. He wants to use us in that work.

At Genesis 14:18, Melchizedek enters the picture. But why, I wondered. Why of all passages of Scripture is this the only one where Melchizedek appears as a historical figure? What's the significance?

From Genesis 14:18, why did Melchizedek come to meet Abraham after Abraham's battle?

That's it? To bring Abraham bread and wine after his battle? It's too simple. Is there any deeper significance? I think there is. Knowing, as we do from Hebrews 5, 7-8, that Melchizedek is a portrait of Christ, I believe there's deep significance to the bread and wine Melchizedek brought to Abraham.

First, let's think about the reason Abraham needed bread and wine after battle. Another simple one.

Comment on Psalm 110:7 when compared to Genesis 14:18.

We saw it with Sisera and Jael. I can imagine that fighting battles must be hot, dusty, tiring, thirsty, hungry work. In Psalm 110:7, the Mighty Warrior needed refreshment after His battle (interesting that some of Jesus' last words on the cross were, “I thirst!” — John 19:28). Melchizedek came to refresh and bless Abraham after the hot, dusty, tiring, thirsty, and hungry work Abraham had undertaken for Lot (and God). Though Abraham swore not to take any gifts of plunder from the king of Sodom, God did not expect His soldier to fight without some remuneration — at least some refreshment.

Having introduced the subject of the refreshment of the bread and wine Melchizedek brought Abraham, let's look at Matthew 26:26-28. Here's where we come back around to the New Covenant.

What did Jesus say the bread and wine, given to His soldiers before their battle, was?

I want to point out two significant statements here: the bread and wine represented Jesus' body and blood. He Himself is our refreshment, our necessary food, all we need for life. Through that breaking of His body and the shedding of His blood that was to follow Matthew 26:26-28, we can take Him into ourselves. We can take His never-ending life into ourselves and live through His death.

The second statement to notice is that the bread and wine (His body and blood) are the bread and wine of the New Covenant. His death was the means of making peace with us. Through death, He hung that lickin' on the enemy but also purchased our salvation — our deliverance. He satisfied the righteous requirements of the Law through His death for our sin and so solved the legal issue of our salvation.

Paul calls the Old Covenant “the ministry of death” and “the ministry of condemnation” (2 Cor. 3:7, 9). In 2 Corinthians 3:6, he speaks of being a minister of the New Covenant: “...not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” It's the New Covenant that brings refreshment, that gives life. Christ's never-ending life is lived out in us through His Spirit that we take into ourselves.

The Old Covenant was a ministry of death and condemnation; it never could make anyone perfect (Heb. 7:18-19). It was never intended to. Not because there was something wrong with God's Law or Covenant. The fault lay in the people God made it with. The Old Covenant was ever only meant to demonstrate the impossibility of keeping God's Laws and Covenant. His Law is a sword — an instrument of death and judgment. It's a revealer of hearts. It brings us to the point of saying, “It's impossible. I can't live up to God's standards.” And it's at that point that God can begin His work in us.

I've told you that there are two ways to die, and one of them brings life. The sword of the Law leads us to the death of repentance so the bread and wine of the New Covenant can refresh us after the battle.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 9: The Sword Keeper & The Author — Heb. 4:12-16, 5:1-10

Week 9, Day 2: Elijah and Elisha — Hebrews 11:32, 35

Today's Readings: Hebrews 4:12-13; 5:9; 11:32, 35; 1 Kings 17; 2 Kings 4:1-37; John 11:1-45

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

The Sword Keeper and the Author. . . (Heb. 4:12-13, 5:9)

Part III—. . .a____________ d_______________. . . (Heb. 5:9)

. . .for the prophets. . . (Heb. 11:32b.)

Part V — . . .who saw the d____________ raised. . . (Heb. 11:35a., 1 Kg. 17:22)

* * * * *

This week we'll be seeing the Author of our salvation as the Sword-Keeper. He holds the power of life and death in His hands (and His words). He alone makes His sovereign decisions about life and death. We're also going to see that those who believe in Him will always be delivered from death.

Some will escape death, some will see the dead raised, and some will apparently not escape death or see the dead raised (yet). But nevertheless, all His own will be delivered from death.

We'll be looking at a tough question this week: why does He make the sovereign decisions He makes? The short answer is, of course, “I don't know.” We will, however, see the first, faint glimmerings of some answers through some precedents where we get to see a little of what God was doing through the lives (and the deaths) of this week's faith-heroes — the “prophets” of Hebrews 11:32b.

I have one more definition of faith to give you. I've told you that faith is the sight that sees the unseen, that faith is knowing who God really is and who is really God, that faith is dependence on God. I love this one because it's the simplest yet it covers all the rest: faith is believing the truth.

Hebrews 11 is full of hope because faith and hope are inextricable. Faith is believing the truth, and the truth is, for God's people, there is always hope. Sometimes hope in the midst of extreme darkness.

Today's study is about extreme faith, extreme hope, and extreme light from extreme darkness. Today's faith-heroes are the prophets who saw the dead raised.

It doesn't get much darker than death. And it doesn't get much brighter than seeing the dead raised.

“Women received their dead raised to life again....” It seems to me that the one who wrote those words had two particular prophets in mind. At least, there are two Old Testament prophets who saw this particular experience and only two that I can think of. In terms of chronology, they fall next in line. So the two best-known prophets to the nation of Israel will be the subject of our explorations today.

When I say, “prophets to the nation of Israel,” I'm referring to the northern kingdom that became known by that name. Solomon took over the throne from his father, David, and for the wisest man who ever lived, made some very unwise choices. As a result, his kingdom split apart after his death. His son, Rehoboam, made a few unwise choices of his own and lost ten of the tribes of Israel. He reigned over only the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. His kingdom became known as “Judah” and was the southernmost kingdom in the land. The other ten tribes called themselves “Israel” and lived in the north.

Israel was unquestionably the more depraved of the two. Judah had a number of good kings who worshipped the One True God. Israel had none. They fell immediately into idol worship under their first king, Jeroboam. He fashioned two golden calves for Israel to worship and set them up in his border towns. Jeroboam was anxious to keep the northern tribes from finding their way to Jerusalem to worship the One True God in the temple Solomon had built. Worshipping in Jerusalem could cause a transference of loyalty back to the king in Jerusalem, the king of Judah. Jeroboam's outward idolatry was a deliberate political manoeuvre that revealed his inward idolatry. His god was Jeroboam, and he was determined to keep his god seated on his throne.

With a beginning like that one, it can't be surprising that the northern kingdom of Israel did not do well morally. What might be surprising is that God sent two of his greatest prophets to many of His worst kings during some of the worst times of His nation.

That's the background info on Elijah and Elisha and today's stories of the raising of the dead.

Elijah came first. Elijah was the teacher, and Elisha was the disciple. So we'll start with the occasion from the life of Elijah when, “Women received their dead raised to life again.”

Summarize Elijah's first encounter with the widow of Zarephath from 1 Kings 17:8-15.

Can you imagine giving your last handful of flour and last few drops of oil to a man you don't know from Adam just because he asked for it? What prompted the widow's obedience? 1 Kings 17:9 tells us.

From 1 Kings 17:9, why was the widow willing to give Elijah the last of her food?

God had spoken. The One who holds the power of life and death in His words had spoken life over His servant, Elijah, and over a woman who didn't yet serve Him, a woman who was not even an Israelite. But to save her life, God, unbeknownst to her (or so it seems from her answer to Elijah) had spoken to her. Likely, she hadn't yet learned to hear Him speaking. (And faith comes in when the hearing begins). But God was doing His part by speaking.

From 1 Kings 17:24, at what point did the widow begin to hear, believe and know God?

Do you believe her statement in 1 Kings 17:24? Do you believe that she didn't begin to know and believe God and His Word until she saw the dead raised? The miracle flour and oil hadn't convinced her that Elijah was a man of God who spoke God's truth? I doubt that the widow's words in 1 Kings 17:24 express a first-time faith. She was a woman of such astonishing and seemingly-unreasonable faith that, nearing death by starvation, she ran to use what could have been the last of her flour and oil to make a little loaf for a man she didn't know from Adam who spoke to her in the name of a God she likely didn't know from Adam (notice the “...as the LORD your God lives...” in 17:12. He was only Elijah's God. Not hers. Not yet. But she was sure He lived, at least.)

But her faith had been shaken between the miracle of the flour and the oil and the resurrection of her son. Whose wouldn't be? What would you make of a God you didn't know from Adam who went out of His way to save your life and your son's life in a miraculous fashion, only to take away the life of that son a short time later? I imagine I would conclude, “I don't know this God. He's not who I thought He was. Did He ever care? Or was it all a cruel joke? Is He really no better than Baal, after all, then?”

That's the feeling behind her question to Elijah, “What have I to do with thee, O thou man of God? Art thou come unto me to call my sin to remembrance, and to slay my son?” (v. 18).

It's the feeling behind Elijah's question to God, “O LORD my God, hast thou also brought evil on the widow with whom I sojourn, by slaying her son?” The question they're really asking is, “God, who are you? Do I even know You from Adam?” Don't we all at times wonder if it's even possible to know God?

It's a false feeling, however. God wants to be known. He strives to make Himself known to us. He sent Elijah to the widow and saved her and her son's lives because He was reaching out to make Himself known to them. Faith (knowing God) comes by hearing from Him. And hearing from Him comes about because He is the God who speaks. And He is the God who speaks because He wants to be known.

And He is good. He doesn't go in for cruel jokes.

Yet I love the honesty both the widow and Elijah approach God with. They turn to God with their disappointment in Him. The widow turns to God through His servant, and His servant turns directly to his God. Then, His servant asks his God for something unprecedented. And receives it.

In fact, it was what God had planned all along. He wanted the widow, her son, and Elijah to know Him in a new way. He is not afraid of seeing true faith shaken. He knows it will only come out stronger.

Now. On to Elisha and his experience with seeing the dead raised.

Point out the similarities between 1 Kings 17 and 2 Kings 4:1-37.

It's interesting to note the echoes of Elijah's experiences in Elisha's. The disciple strongly resembled the teacher. First, there was an incident where God saved a widow and her family with a jar of oil that just wouldn't run out. Then, there was another incident involving a foreign woman, one whom God used to provide His servant's needs, who lost a son to death but had him restored to her.

Elijah's widow received her son back to life again the first time in a figurative sense when he was saved from starvation. In Elisha's case, the woman received her son to life in the first place as the result of a miracle. She was barren and conceived through the word of God. Then, her son was taken from her.

Quote the words of the woman in Elisha's story (1 Kings 4:28). Compare the two women's reactions?

As with Elijah's story, the same reaction from the mother — the same feeling expressed in different words. “Who is this God I thought I knew? Is He the kind of God that plays cruel jokes?” But like Elijah's widow, she turned in the right direction. Rather than turning against God, she turned toward Him. She turned in disappointment and questioning and with a shaken faith, but she turned toward God with her disappointment, her questions, and her bruised faith. He desires truth in the inward parts. The God of truth seeks honesty. He can handle our disappointments, our questions, our bruised and shaken faiths.

Elisha, however, did not react by looking for something unprecedented. He was Elijah's disciple. He'd spent time with his teacher. He undoubtedly knew all about the widow who had received her dead raised to life again in the days of Elijah. And he reacted in a manner quite unlike Elijah had reacted. Elisha apparently expected God to raise the dead back to life.

Compare or contrast 1 Kings 17:20-22 and 2 Kings 4:29-35.

In Elisha's case, it wasn't as easy as he seemed to expect. His staff laid on the child produced no effect. At that point, perhaps, he realized the case was going to call for a little earnest intercession. It would call for a little desperation before his God. Twice, he stretched out his own body on the body of the child before he saw a complete healing.

God planned to raise the child. In that case, why didn't He do it instantly as soon as Elisha asked? (As with Elijah, is there, perhaps, a little foreshadowing in the “three” before the dead is raised?)

There's no way to know, but I can't help wondering if God wasn't looking to shake up Elisha's faith.

He shakes a faith only to strengthen it. He disappoints only to reveal more of His glory in the end. He brings extreme light out of extreme darkness because the light shows up brighter in the darkness.

I'm reminded of another faith-shaking experience. This one also involving women receiving their dead raised to life again; this one also showing a faith that was shaken but came out stronger.

Whose faith was shaken in John 11:1-45? Whose faith was strengthened? Whose faith was begun?

There's the shaken faith of the two sisters in the, “Lord, if You'd been here, my brother wouldn't have died.” The disappointment, the questioning, the wondering if maybe He hasn't made a mistake.

But then, there's Martha's hopeful, “But I know that whatever You ask of God, God will give You.” Martha hardly dared to hint in the direction her hopes were running. She was thinking of the unprecedented. Could He even raise the dead? Right here and now?

And Jesus took her up on her hint and spoke the words she didn't dare. “Your brother will rise again.”

Then there was Martha's tentative probing to discover what He meant: “Sure, I know he'll rise again in the resurrection.” But Martha and Mary were women who knew their Lord from Adam. Adam was the death-bringer. Jesus is the life-bringer. And Martha believed. She knew Him. “Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God.”

Yet she wasn't sure what He could or would do. Can you see her doubts resurface at the graveside?

In John 11:39, what statement reveals Martha's doubts? What is Jesus' response?

And Martha believed. She saw the glory of God. And she received her dead raised to life again.

Then, she and Jesus' disciples (and all the readers of this account) understood that there never was a mistake. God and His Son had not planned a cruel joke for Martha and Mary. They had planned a way for Martha, Mary, Lazarus, and all who heard about Lazarus' resurrection to know God a little better. It was all part of a plan. And that plan (as always) was all about God revealing more of Himself.

Quote the statement from John 11 where Jesus revealed this plan to His disciples in advance.

How wonderful for us to have these three precedents to study in the midst of our own faith-shaking experiences to know that God shakes faith only to strengthen it. We need to know that while God does not always work strictly according to former precedent, His plan for revealing more of Himself and His glory — for working all things together for good to those who know and love Him — is always the same.

The temptation for Elisha would have been to look to precedent and rely on Elijah's experiences with God. It's a grand thing to be able to learn from precedents and others' experiences. It can save a lot of wrong-turnings and heartaches. Yet when it comes to knowing God, there are no secondhand faith-experiences. He is the all-relational God. If I am to know Him myself, I must have my own experiences with Him. Even a few faith-shaking ones. If I am ever to see the dead raised, I have to go through the valley of death with Him. Extreme light shines only in the midst of extreme darkness.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 9: The Sword Keeper & The Author — Heb. 4:12-16, 5:1-10

Week 9, Day 3: Daniel, the Man of God, and Samson — Hebrews 11:32-33

Today's Readings: Hebrews 5:9; 11:32-33; Judges 14:1-8; 14:14; 1 Kings 12:25-33; 13; Daniel 6, Matthew 27:62-66

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

. . .the prophets. . . (Heb. 11:32b.)

Part IV— . . .who escaped d____________. . . (Heb. 5:9, 11:33)

1 — . . .who shut the mouths of l____________. . .(Heb. 11:33b., Dan. 6:22)

* * * * *

The obvious choice of prophets who “...stopped the mouths of lions...” is, of course, the prophet Daniel. Daniel in the lions' den is one of the best-known of Old Testament stories.

There are two other men we'll be looking at who also shut the lions' mouths. We'll be studying them in thematic rather than chronological order today. So let's start with the most famous biblical lion tamer.

Daniel lived well after the time of Elijah and Elisha. When Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, captured Jerusalem, destroyed the city, and took many of the citizens of Judah away to Babylon, Daniel (and his three friends who will get their moment in the limelight tomorrow) were among those citizens.

I've said it before. In some way, every piece of the Old Testament points us to Christ.

Compare Daniel 6:17 to Matthew 27:62-22. How does Daniel's story foreshadow Christ's?

On the subject of lions, let me quote for you from Psalm 22 — “The Psalm of the Cross.” “They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion...For dogs have encompassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog. Save me from the lion's mouth...” (Ps. 22:13, 16, 20-21).

You might be interested to learn that the part about the piercing of the hands and feet actually contains the word “lion” in the Hebrew. There's no direct translation. A literal translation of the piercing of the hands and feet might read something like, “They lionized my hands and my feet.”

It's not hard to guess who are the lions that are doing the raging and the roaring and the “lionizing” of the hands and feet from this “Psalm of the Cross.” And who, in the end, get their mouths shut.

1 Peter 5:8 lays it out in black and white. “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.”

Psalm 22 lends new meaning to the story of Daniel in the lions' den. Daniel is certainly another of those “types” or portraits we keep seeing. Throw him in a pit, put a big ol' rock at its mouth and seal that up with official seals, then sic the lions on him, but because of his innocence, none of it can hurt him. He'll just rise from the dead. The lions have no power when God decides to shut their mouths.

It was certainly the lions (the adversaries, God's enemies, the forces of evil) that drove the nails through Jesus' hands and feet. They mauled and pierced Him. Yet it was all part of God's plan and happened only with His permission. They could not devour Him. The lions could maul and pierce, but God shut their mouths. No devouring allowed. They could kill Him, but they couldn't keep Him dead.

If faith shuts the lions' mouths, any who trust in Him cannot be devoured.

In light of this understanding of the “lions” of Psalm 22 and 1 Peter 5:8, let's look at 1 Kings 13 and the second prophet who shut a lion's mouth. This story ends quite differently than Daniel's.

I've called him the second prophet, but in terms of chronology, he came before Daniel. This prophet (simply called “the man of God”) prophesied to Jeroboam, first king of the divided kingdom Israel. King Jeroboam was the one who started his kingdom down their path to destruction (1 Kings 12:25-33).

Retell Jeroboam's dealings with “the man of God.” Why would God give the command of 13:9?

What an odd command for God to command! But the story gets much stranger!

Retell the old prophet's dealings with the man of God. Why are we told the information of 13:18b.?

The information of 1 Kings 13:18b. is important information. Perhaps the key to this strange story.

The old prophet is a true mystery in this story. His mourning over the death of the man of God was explicable. He felt responsible for the man of God's death. The question is, if he had no intention of harming the man of God, why tell the lie in the first place?

From the ending of the story and the old prophet's mourning, he must have believed the lie he told to the man of God to be, “just a little, white lie.” Perhaps he was so desirous of enjoying the company of the man of God for a short while that he thought a little, ol', white lie couldn't hurt much. What difference could it possibly make if the man of God ate bread at his house?

I'll leave that man of mystery alone for now. It's the equally mysterious behaviour of the lion that I'd like to zoom in on. I'd like to focus on it not only because it's mysterious but because it's significant.

In what way was the lion's behaviour in 1 Kings 13:28 mysterious? In what way significant?

I believe the lion's behaviour here means the same thing the lions' behaviour meant in Daniel 6. The meaning is found in the phrase from Hebrews 11: “...stopped the mouths of lions...” Faith shuts the lions' mouths. The lion had been allowed to kill the man of God. It had not been allowed to devour him.

But in this case, the man of God bore some responsibility in the lion being allowed to kill him.

I want to examine this story a little closer because it can allow us to entertain questions about the God we serve, like, “Who is this God I thought I knew? Is He unjust? Is it even possible to know Him?”

Why was the lion allowed access to the man of God? Why the punishment of death-by-lion for him?

Likely, the question is an unfair one. Did the fact that the man of God was killed by a lion mean he was being punished? Were the early Christians being punished when they were killed by lions? We just don't know why the Sword-Keeper (and the Lion-Keeper) makes the sovereign decisions He does. Jesus was, in a sense, killed by “lions,” and He was truly innocent. Death-by-lion is not necessarily punishment.

I don't think we have to see in the 1 Kings 13 story a punishment for sin. But we must see it as a warning. The man of God did bear some responsibility for his death-by-lion.

The story is, perhaps first and foremost, a warning against believing lies. Particularly lies told in the name of God. It's a warning against gullibility. That stands out loud and clear. It was important enough to God to warn His people against believing everything spoken in His name, especially when something spoken in His name blatantly contradicted something spoken in His revealed Word, that He allowed a lion to kill His man as a warning to all those who would hear about it.

From 1 Kings 12:28a., what prompted Jeroboam's decision to make two golden-calf idols?

The warning, for one, was given for Jeroboam's sake. The man of God had been sent to Jeroboam in the first place. And Jeroboam was in the process of being misguided — listening to lies. The warning was clear, and it was (at least partially) to Jeroboam. “Be careful whom you listen to. Don't be misled.”

But the warning is also for all of God's people. We have to know how to listen to God's voice for ourselves. And we have to know that when something has already clearly been revealed to us from His Word, God will not contradict Himself. We can't give in on what He's already spoken.

It occurs to me that it's the lions' mouths that faith stops.

Review Week 9, Day 2's lesson, and record the definition given yesterday of faith.

A lion's primary weapon (at least the kind of “lion” I'm talking about) is his mouth. It's the mouth of the lion that devours. His claws can maul and pierce, but they can't devour. What is that “mouth” — that primary weapon — of the “lion” who walks about “...seeking whom he may devour”?

John 8:44 says this about the devil: “...he is a liar, and the father of it.”

All that comes out of that lion's mouth are lies. His mouth is his weapon, and that mouth is all about speaking lies. It's all his mouth can do. Faith, combating the lies by believing the truth, stops his mouth.

I can see that the story of the man of God in 1 Kings 13 is a story about the danger of believing lies.

God had given the man of God the command that he was not to eat bread or drink water or return to his house the same way in which he had come (1 Kings 13:9). Everything God does He does for a reason, whether or not we can always see the reason. The command God gave the man of God was a command for his own protection. In this case, I believe I can see part of the reason God gave His man this particular command of protection. The tip-off is the “...nor turn again by the same way that thou camest...”

It reminds me of the dream God sent to warn the wise men after they had found the child Jesus. They were not to return to Herod, and they journeyed back to their country a different way from the way in which they had come (Matthew 2:12). Returning to their country the way in which they came could have made the wise men targets for an ambush. It was for the protection of the child, Jesus, and the wise men that God sent the warning to them. Herod was ruthless. He intended to kill any obstacles in his way.

As soon as Jeroboam heard the message of the man of God, he stretched out his hand to him and commanded his arrest. What did he have in mind? I think it's safe to say that Jeroboam was very willing to eliminate any threats to his reign.

Jeroboam was not permitted to touch the man of God then and there. His hand was paralyzed on the spot. But after his healing, he invited the man of God back to his house. Was it just a friendly little invitation? I doubt it. Not keeping in mind the warning God had given: “Don't eat bread; don't drink water; don't return to your house the same way you came.” If I was warned not to eat the food of my enemy, I would immediately catch a whiff of treachery in the warning. In God's words to the man of God, there is a warning against treachery. I would imagine the treachery to be Jeroboam's primarily.

And the man of God was on guard against Jeroboam's treachery. It was the treachery he never looked for that brought him down in the end.

The lies of the old prophet were a different kind of treachery. And from the old prophet's point of view (seeing the end of the story), they were doubtless unintentional treachery. But any lie that pulls a man of God away from the path of God's protective commands is treachery.

It's a plain fact that if the man of God had not stopped at the old prophet's house, he would not have crossed trails with the lion. God's command to him would have continued to be his protection. However unintentional his disobedience, it was believing and acting on the truth (in other words, faith) that would have been his safeguard against the lion.

Yet the lion was allowed to kill him; it was not allowed to devour him. The lion's mouth was stopped.

The man of God had believed a lie. Believing that lie took him out of safety and into the territory of the lion. But he was God's man. 1 Kings 13 is clear on this fact in its title it gives to the prophet: “the man of God.” He was God's man. It's a point of honour with God that the “lions” will not be able to devour those who trust in Him. The “lions” may be allowed to touch His people, even to harm them — especially when they fall into non-faith and start believing lies instead of truth. But in the lives of all of us who are God's men and women, the lions simply do not get to win in the end. They cannot devour.

Now, I want to go back to an earlier Hebrews 11 character — one who also, through faith, stopped the mouth of a lion. Samson certainly fell into non-faith and spent a great deal of his life there. Yet God claimed him as His own.

And when a lion crossed paths with Samson, even though Samson was on his way to disobey one of God's commands by taking a Philistine wife, God in His grace stopped the mouth of the attacker. Permanently.

Quote the words of Samson's riddle in Judges 14:14.

Can you see a picture of Samson's life from the words of his riddle? His adversary (“the eater”) prowled, seeking to devour Samson. And it looked like a close thing. Samson certainly fell prey many times to the attack of the lion. He believed and acted on the lies of the tempter over and over.

But this is God's view on the situation, even of Samson's disobedience, as recorded by the author of Judges through the inspiration of God:

Quote the words of Judges 14:4a.

The enemy seeks occasion to devour us, and God turns it into occasion to “move against” the enemy, to shut his mouth, and to feed ours at the same time.

“Out of the eater came something to eat; out of the strong came something sweet.”

God's enemy simply does not get to devour any of God's own. God gives the “lions” only enough leash to use them to work out His own good purposes. Think about the ultimate example that we saw through Psalm 22. God's plan for the saving of the world incorporated the greatest act of evil ever committed. God takes the enemy's attacks and turns them into something sweet that was His plan all along.

Bottom line: Don't be allied with God's enemy. There is just no winning for that side. We see it through Daniel 6 and the ending of the story of Daniel's enemies. The Sword-Keeper authors our deliverance through the use of His living and powerful sword. He will prosecute the enemy and his allies.

Then, He takes the attacks against His people and turns them into occasions for victories against the enemy. And it's faith, believing the truth, that shuts that lion's mouth.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 9: The Sword Keeper & The Author — Heb. 4:12-16, 5:1-10

Week 9, Day 4: Daniel's Friends — Hebrews 11:32, 34

Today's Readings: Heb. 5:7-9; 11:32, 34; Daniel 3, Isaiah 43:1-5; Hebrews 12:4-29; 1 Peter 1:3-7

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

. . .the prophets. . . (Heb. 11:32b.)

Part IV— . . .who escaped d____________. . . (Heb. 5:9, 11:34)

2 — . . .who quenched the violence of f____________ . . . (Heb. 11:34a., Dan. 3:27)

* * * * *

“And what more shall I say? for the time would fail me to tell of...the prophets: who through faith...quenched the violence of fire...”

It reminds me of some words written by Peter in 1 Peter 4:12: “Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you:”

I wonder if Peter had in mind Daniel's three friends when he wrote those words as the author of Hebrews undoubtedly did when he wrote about the prophets who “quenched the violence of fire.”

We'll get around to the three friends today, but first we need to know a little about Nebuchadnezzar.

One of the most interesting records of a progression from complete and utter un-faith to faith — that recognition of who God really is and who is really God — to be found anywhere in Scripture is Nebuchadnezzar's journey in three short chapters (Daniel 2-4). We have no way of knowing how long these chapters took to live out in real-time, but the way they're recorded for us, they intentionally, I believe, show us the progression.

I won't ask you to read them all, so I'll summarize chapters two and four. You've already read the midpoint of Nebuchadnezzar's journey.

In Daniel 2, God began revealing Himself to Nebuchadnezzar — speaking to him through a dream and then through the prophet Daniel. This chapter is the account of Nebuchadnezzar's dream about a statue with a head of gold, arms and chest of silver, midriff and thighs of bronze, legs of iron, and feet of iron mixed with clay. In the dream, a little rock “cut out...without hands” came and struck the statue on its feet and demolished it into dust. Then, the little rock grew into a huge mountain that filled the whole earth. Nebuchadnezzar learned, through Daniel, that the different pieces of the statue were different kingdoms and his kingdom was the head of gold. The point of the dream was surely the little rock — the little kingdom made “without hands” which demolished all the others and then filled the earth. Daniel explained the meaning of the little rock clearly to Nebuchadnezzar. “And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever” (Dan. 2:44).

That was the part Nebuchadnezzar needed to know. But it was “in one ear and out the other.”

If faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God, Daniel 2 is the starting-point. Daniel 2 shows us God speaking to Nebuchadnezzar. It doesn't show Nebuchadnezzar starting to learn to listen to God. But is shows God beginning to speak to him.

Daniel 4 shows the completion of the progression: through the humbling of a period of insanity, Nebuchadnezzar arrived at the mental state where he penned these words, the last we hear from Nebuchadnezzar in the book of Daniel: “Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honor the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase” (Dan. 4:37).

There it is! Nebuchadnezzar learned to understand who God really is and who is really God.

Today's passage shows an important turning-point in the progression. Nebuchadnezzar hadn't quite arrived at a position of faith, we realize when we keep reading on into the opening of Daniel 4. At that point, he still hadn't figured out he didn't rule the universe. But by the end of Daniel 3, Nebuchadnezzar was beginning to take his fingers out of his ears. He was beginning to hear what God had to say to him.

From the context of the statue with the head of gold in Daniel 2 (and what that head of gold represented), what do you think the statue of gold in Daniel 3:1 meant to Nebuchadnezzar?

Apparently, Nebuchadnezzar's attention had wandered when Daniel was explaining the little rock part of the dream to him and its meaning that there is only One True King and that the king of Babylon ain't Him! All that sank in to Nebuchadnezzar's consciousness was, “You are this head of gold.” It's a safe bet that Nebuchadnezzar envisioned himself as the golden statue of Daniel 3:1. He tested his officials' loyalty to his headship in a novel way. He requested (strongly — very strongly) nothing less than their worship.

It's the old test, the one all of us have failed at one point or another in our lives: “Who will be God? Whose is the kingdom?” And like another king of Babylon before him, Nebuchadnezzar answered the question with a resounding, “ME, ME, ME!” and, “MINE, MINE, MINE!”

Among his officials required to worship him, Nebuchadnezzar had three Hebrew captives. Their names were Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. (He also had an official named Daniel, but he is absent from this story for unknown reasons.) Those three became better-known as Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego. And this story is the reason their names became well-known for anything at all.

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego knew who was really King. They knew who was really God. As an expression of their faith — recognizing who was really God — they refused to bow to the statue of gold. And an informer gleefully ran tattling to the king.

In response, Nebuchadnezzar brought the three men before his august presence and mercifully gave them another chance to prove their loyalty by worshipping him. If they refused, they would be fuel for Nebuchadnezzar's fiery furnace.

Paraphrase the response of the three Hebrews in Daniel 3:17-18?

In effect, “The Author of deliverance is able to deliver us. But if He chooses not to deliver us, we still know who's really God!”

Nebuchadnezzar accepted their answer as final and commanded the fire to be heated seven times hotter. I imagine he could have accomplished the task himself just by standing near it. Daniel 3:19 records that he was “full of fury.” I can imagine! The answer from the three young men does not smack of the kind of respect a man would think he deserved who thought the right and proper thing was for himself to be worshipped.

The three friends were not delivered from their fiery trial. At least, not in one sense. They were indeed bound and thrown into the furnace. They knew it was a serious possibility as soon as they had decided what answer to make to the king. It was a well-thought out decision for them.

But I don't think they could have foreseen what happened next.

What did Nebuchadnezzar see after the three friends were thrown into the fiery furnace (Dan. 3:25)?

Very astute of Nebuchadnezzar! I don't know quite what he meant by, “...the fourth is like the Son of God,” but he was dead on! The fourth was not only like the Son of God. He was the Son of God.

What are the promises of Isaiah 43:2? From Isaiah 43:5a., what's the reason behind these truths?

That's the reason the waters won't overpower and the flames won't scorch: God and His Son's presence with His people in the midst of their fiery trials.

Do you imagine Daniel's three friends were caught off guard by their fiery trial? They shouldn't have been. All the precedents point toward fiery trials for all of God's people. Peter tells us not to be surprised by them. They will come. They must come. The experience of the three friends in the furnace is yet another of those literal, historical allegories that has applications to our lives. Their literal, historical experience will happen to all of us (for most of us, in a non-literal fashion).

For the three friends, the scorch-proof promise of Isaiah 43:2 was fulfilled literally. But many of God's own down through the centuries have lost their lives in a fiery trial where they were forced to choose who would be their God. The fire was literal, but God's promise that it would not burn them wasn't. At other times, lions (literal ones) devoured God's people. But the fire that has no power to scorch because of God's presence with His people is like the lion that has no power to devour His people. What do those promises mean, then? (More on that subject tomorrow.)

There are reasons God allows all of His people to be thrown into the fire (sometimes literally and sometimes not). I want to mention two reasons, and the first reason I want to mention is Nebuchadnezzar's faith.

In all of the precedents we've seen so far this week of faith-shaking experiences, God had an eye toward making Himself known. Not just revealing Himself in a deeper way to those who already knew Him but revealing Himself to those who didn't. He revealed Himself to a woman of Sidon, a Shunemite woman, a king of the Medes, a Babylonian king, even a godless Israelite king (who refused to take warning). I'm reminded that my life is not all about me. And the all-relational God wants to use me in His house-building work.

But that house-building work starts off with a little tearing-down work — the tearing down of the false gods. It begins with a little battle. And that battle will involve some fiery furnaces for all of God's soldiers.

The second reason we'll look at today for the faith-shaking, fiery-furnace experiences of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego is Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego's faith.

This reason has great relevance to our lives and our own fiery trials, and we see it through our last required readings for the day.

From 1 Peter 1:7, what is tested and purified like gold through fire?

It's because faith, genuine faith, is incredibly precious to God that He allows us into the fire. Faith, like gold, needs to be refined. Those things we cling to when we think we're clinging to God must be stripped away so only faith in only Him is left. We must know who is really God and who God really is.

From 1 Peter 1:3-7 and Hebrews 12:4-29, which things are consumed or shaken? Why are they consumed or shaken? Contrast them with the things that cannot be consumed or shaken.

Our God is a consuming fire. But He consumes only to consume the things which need to go. Our faith is precious to Him. So precious that He is willing to allow us to go through a little fire with Him in order to take away the dross, the things we cling to instead of to Him. He shakes only in order to remove the things that aren't eternal. And the things that are left cannot be shaken.

I'd like to point out one more snippet of truth from the story of Daniel 3. This snippet of truth may be the size of a snippet, but it contains a great truth we need to know about our fiery trials. (I didn't notice this snippet on my own, by the way — these thoughts don't originate with me, but I'll borrow them.)

Compare Daniel 3:21, 25, and 27. What one thing was consumed by the fire in Daniel 3?

Our God is a consuming fire, but the only things the fire consumed in the case of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego were the things that bound them.

If the account in Daniel 3 is historical allegory (as I believe it is), do you see how it is for us in the midst of our fiery trials? If we are God's true children, we will, at some point, get chucked into the middle of a fire. We will experience His chastening — His pruning-shears lopping off the things that need to go. And we will feel the hand of chastening to be a heavy one. But because He's with us in the midst of the fire, sharing every moment of it with us, faith will quench the violence of the fire. Oh, we'll feel the flames, all right, but we'll come out the other side of the furnace, knowing a little more freedom and knowing a little more faith — the truth about who God really is and who is really God. As a bonus, He may have a Nebuchadnezzar or two whose ears He's in the process of opening and whose lives He's in the process of touching through the things He allows us to go through.

This lesson is, “...to be continued...” Through the lives of the other prophets of Hebrews 11, we'll build a little more on these principles tomorrow.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 9: The Sword Keeper & The Author — Heb. 4:12-16, 5:1-10

Week 9, Day 5: The Martyred Prophets — Hebrews 11:32, 35-37

Today's Readings: Heb. 4:12-16; 5:1-10; 11:32, 35-37; 1 Kg. 13:28; Isa. 43:1-5; Matt. 26:39, John 11:25-26; Rom. 8:33-39

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

The Sword Keeper and the Author. . . (Heb. 4:12-16, 5:1-10)

Part III—. . .a____________ d_______________. . . (Heb. 5:9)

. . .for the prophets. . . (Heb. 11:32b.)

Part VI — . . .who didn't escape d________ and didn't see the d________ raised. (Heb. 11:35b.-37)

1 — . . .but still shut the mouths of l____________. . .(1 Kg. 13:28)

2 — . . .and still quenched the violence of f____________ . . .(Isa. 43:2)

3—. . .and will see the d____________ raised. (Heb. 11:35b., John 11:25)

* * * * *

This study, up to this point, has not taken on much of a personal flavour. I mean, I haven't told you much about myself. Most of the lessons have meant a great deal to me personally, but I've had so much to say about the lessons themselves I haven't had time leftover to talk about me — to tell you what I've been learning through the lessons. With today's lesson, that's about to change.

But first, we should discuss the remaining “prophets” of Hebrews 11:32 and the faith-experiences of Hebrews 11:35b.-37a. to try to decipher whom and what the author of Hebrews meant by them.

Through the lives of Gideon, Barak, Jephthah, Samson, Samuel, David, Elijah, Elisha, Daniel, and Daniel's three friends, we saw the triumphant, “...who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. Women received their dead raised to life again...” (vv. 33-35a.) At the midpoint of verse thirty-five, the tune changes from one of triumph to non-triumph. Boy! Does that tune change!

Today, the faith-experiences from Hebrews 11 that we'll be talking about will be, “...and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection: And others had trials of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: They were stoned, they were sawn asunder...” (vv. 35b.-37a.). We'll leave the last half of Hebrews 11:37 until next week when we look at a New Testament prophet named John the Baptist. Today's lesson (as Hebrews 11:35-37 does) will encapsulate the lives of the majority of the Old Testament prophets.

As we've seen, some of the Old Testament prophets lived triumphant lives. They shut the mouths of lions, they quenched the violence of fire, and they saw the dead raised. But most of the prophets down through the ages have fallen into today's category — the martyred prophets.

Who did the author of Hebrews have in mind for, “...others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection”? Who knows? This description applies to so many of God's people down through the centuries, did the writer of Hebrews have anyone specific in mind?

I'd like to take this opening statement of the non-triumphant descriptions as a sort of thesis statement to cover all the rest that follow. The mockings and beatings, the imprisonments, the stonings, and the being sawed in two can all fit nicely within this opening description.

As to the mockings and scourgings and the imprisonments, these experiences were so common to the suffering prophets, I would be hard-pressed to pick out any specific prophet to wear those tags.

The writer of Hebrews may have had a prophet of Judah named Zechariah, son of Jehoiada, in mind for the prophet who was put to death by stoning. From 2 Chronicles 22-24, you can read the story of the death of Zechariah by the command of King Joash, his foster brother and cousin, whom, when he was a baby, Zechariah's mother saved from death at the hands of Joash's power-loving grandmother. (It's better than Shakespeare for dramatic tragedy and treachery. But sadly, it's all true.)

As to the prophet who was sawed in two, extra-biblical tradition holds that the prophet Isaiah suffered this fate under the reign of a particularly depraved king of Judah named Manasseh.

Isaiah? Yup! Isaiah. The man through whom God gave the promises of Isaiah 43:1-5 that we looked at yesterday and that we'll be looking at again today.

What “exceeding great and precious promises” (2 Pet. 1:4) Isaiah 43:1-5 contains, doesn't it?

And now it's time for me to get personal and tell you my own experience with these “exceeding great and precious promises.” I won't bore you with the details, and I think there's been a turnaround lately, but let me just tell you that I'm only now coming off of possibly the most intense two years of my life — a two-year, daily battlefield. On one of the days when the battle was the fiercest, searching for help for the fight, I randomly flipped open my Bible to Isaiah 43 and read the promises of the first five verses. “What do these promises mean?!” I demanded, more than a little rebelliously, of the Giver of the promises. “You promise Your presence to Your people in the midst of flood and fire. You promise the flood and fire can't do anything to hurt — really hurt — those who go through them with You. But down through history, lots of people died in Your name, even through drowning or burning. And Your presence with Your people certainly didn't (and doesn't) protect them from feeling as though they were (and are) drowning or burning. So these promises mean...what, exactly? I suppose it was Your presence with Your people in the midst of the waters that kept them from denying Your name as they went under for the last time. I suppose it was Your presence with Your people in the midst of the fire that kept them gasping out hymns of praise while the flames licked around their feet. That's what these promises mean? Then, I'd rather not hear about them at the moment, thank You. Not helping!” And I closed the Bible.

Although I'm no longer in the frame of mind I was in on the day I'm recounting, I still wince over Isaiah 43:1-5 in my present understanding of it. I know these promises are “exceeding great and precious promises,” but they're not exactly the warm-and-fuzzy kind. It is a precious promise to know true faith will stand the test of fire in the end, but it's not comforting to know it must go through fire.

Although these promises have applications to all of God's people, they were spoken originally to Israel, and when you look at Israel's history, you can understand the application these promises have for all of God's people. That application is, “You will go through flood and flame. You will feel as though you're drowning and burning. But because I'm with You, you're gonna make it out the other side! The floods and flames have no power to conquer Me, and they can't conquer you when I'm with you.”

At present, I'm reading a book about the very recent history of Israel, and I see this application fleshed out through its pages! How could one tiny nation endure so much and still be standing?

And in a small way (but a large way for me), I see this application in my own recent history. At times, I wasn't sure I would make it out the other side of the flood and flame, but while there will be other floods and flames, I believe I have made it out the other side of the ones of the last two years. And in fact, God gave me a hymn to sing, gasped out between gritted teeth while the flames licked around my feet and the waters seemed to close over my head. It was a song of praise. Not a song from my emotions but a song from my will. He made it possible for me to say to Him, “I praise You. You're in control, and You're good! I don't feel it just now! But I don't choose to listen to my feelings. I believe it. I know it!”

I suppose, although I still don't feel the promises of Isaiah 43:1-5 to be exceeding great and precious (at least, certainly not warm-and-fuzzy), I can state with the authority of an eyewitness that they are true!

That's all you need to know about me for now. I'm sure I'll come up again, but let's talk about you.

What do the promises of Isaiah 43:1-5 mean to you, personally?

I want to draw the conversation back now to the One whose portraits we're examining. I talked about the the Sword-Keeper and the Author (as a Prosecutor) of our salvation at the beginning of the week. As we close off our week together, where does the Sword-Keeper and the Author come in?

This week through Hebrews 4:12-16 and 5:1-10, I've seen all over again how it was that the Sword-Keeper and the Author hung a lickin' on the enemy and bought us our salvation.

Hebrews 5:9 states that it was through being made what that Jesus became the author of salvation?

Through being made perfect? What could it mean that Jesus had to be made perfect? Wasn't He perfect before He ever stepped foot on our diseased planet? Wasn't He perfect every step of the way He walked on it? Why would He need to be made perfect? Yes, He always was (and is) perfect. Morally perfect. He, as the King of Righteousness, was the only human to ever keep His own Law perfectly. But the “perfect” of Hebrews 5:9 has an interesting meaning that we'll be investigating more closely next week. For now, I'll sum up and say that it carries the meaning of completion. It's the “perfect” of the accomplishment of an end or a purpose. What end? What purpose?

From Hebrews 5:7-8, how was the “perfection” of Hebrews 5:9 accomplished?

In two words, through suffering. The end or purpose of the “perfection” or completion of Hebrews 5:9 was the salvation of all those willing to be saved. The means to that end was Jesus' suffering. Are you seeing the connection between this week's faith-heroes and the Sword-Keeper and Author?

We've seen various experiences this week that were all battles — but battles of a different kind than we've seen previously: battles against death and lions and flames. And up until today, we've seen battles fought triumphantly. We've seen Elijah and Elisha as they watched God win over death, Daniel as he watched God overpower the lions, and Daniel's friends as they watched God beat the fury of the flames. Today, we see the same kinds of battles, but we don't get to see the triumph. Through God's suffering servants like Zechariah and Isaiah, we're reminded of countless others throughout history who went to their graves because of the God they chose; who became lion-bait in the Roman circuses, who became torches at Nero's garden parties. What of the triumph promised in Isaiah 43:1-5?

But we have precedents to look back on! We have the precedents of Elijah, Elisha, Daniel, and Daniel's friends. These precedents tell us that faith (knowing one's God and experiencing the reality of His presence) conquers death, shuts the mouths of lions, and quenches the violence of fire. But we have a greater precedent. We have the precedent of the Sword-Keeper and Author Himself. He, too, faced death, lions, and fiery trials. And He, at one point in time, looked non-triumphant.

Point out the apparent contradiction between Hebrews 5:7 and Matthew 26:39.

“Wait a second, here,” I thought when I first read Hebrews 5:7 for the purposes of this study. “What does Hebrews 5:7 mean when it says that Jesus was 'heard' when He asked to be saved from death? I always thought His prayer in the garden on the night before His death was one of the most famous cases of unanswered prayer. Now Hebrews 5:7 is telling me that His prayer to be delivered from death was heard?” Right! Jesus' prayer was answered. I was forgetting the end of the story. Jesus was delivered from death as certainly as God's promises of Isaiah 43:1-5 are true. They don't look true when we forget to watch the other side of the flood or the fire (or the tomb) to see God's own ones emerge from it.

In fact, Matthew 26:39 is seemingly-unanswered answered prayer. “Your will be done; not mine,” Jesus concluded. And that prayer was assuredly answered. What followed was most certainly God's will.

Jesus conquered death, the lions, and the flames. But He didn't do it by escaping them. He did it by enduring them. By submitting to them. Through His submission came His triumph.

On Day 1, I opened up a subject I didn't half get time to finish. I stated that the Author is a Prosecutor. The document He authored to secure our salvation is a writ of law. Our salvation is a legal issue. And Jesus fought His legal battles on three fronts for our salvation — our deliverance from death.

First, He perfectly kept His own Law. Then, He prosecutes the enemy and his allies according to His Law He wrote. We've seen it before. It's His Word that will one day judge the world (John 12:48). It's the sword of the Word from His mouth that judges and make war on the enemy (Rev. 19:11-15).

But His enemy knows how to wield that sword, too, and to turn it against God's people. He's called “the accuser of our brethren” (Rev. 12:10). And he has a point. No human (but One) has kept God's Law. As in Narnia,* by right of law, all traitors belong to the destroyer. All sinners deserve to die.

How did the Author prosecute the enemy and so purchase our deliverance? Using His Law. He prosecutes the enemy by disarming him of the sword the enemy would turn against us. And He does so by using that same sword. “The soul who sins must die,” is an old, deep law. But there was a deeper Law the enemy didn't see coming. Aslan could take Edmund's place.*

There's a precedent the Author wrote into His Law — the precedent of blood covenants. Right from the start of sin (Gen. 3:21), when the Author began revealing His Law to mankind, He set up a system where an innocent life could take the place of a guilty life. The animal sacrifices all pointed toward the one, great precedent. The one, truly perfect sacrifice. And so the plot twist where, by submitting to evil and to all it could do to Him, Jesus authored our deliverance. There's our great precedent.

Isaiah 43:1-5 may not be warm-and-fuzzy promises. But Hebrews 4:12-16, 5:1-10 are! In the midst of the fire and flood, I'm so glad to know that the One going through them with me gets it! He felt (and feels) the flames just as I do! But He led the way down the path of triumph through suffering anyway.

Through the review readings I've had you do today, I hope you've been able to see that the precedents of Elijah, Elisha, Daniel, and his friends, with their seeing the dead raised, shutting the mouths of lions, and quenching the violence of fire, all apply to us. And also to the martyred prophets who hung on through torture, mockings, beatings, imprisonments, stonings, and sawings-in-two for “...a better resurrection.” While I don't exactly understand what the writer of Hebrews meant by “a better resurrection,” the one fact I see clearly is that all the trials will seem as nothing in light of that resurrection. God's martyrs, and we, too, will be delivered from death and see the dead raised. Our great precedent shows us this truth. Can we trust that precedent to believe that God's perfect plans are somehow worked out through our suffering, even though we can't yet see the triumph of the other side?

The prophet-martyrs of Hebrews 11 were precedents with terrible relevance to the original audience of the book of Hebrews. Those readers would face their own lions and flames. And some would die martyrs' deaths. We don't always get to see or feel the truth behind the precedents. But Romans 8:33-39 sums up that truth. Those promises held true for the original readers of Hebrews. And for us.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

WEEK 9 Group Study — Heb. 4:12-16, 5:1-10, 11:32-37

Review Readings: Heb. 4:12-16, 5:1-10, 7:2, 11:32-37, Gen. 14:18-20, 1 Kg.13:28, 17:22, Isa.43:2, Dan. 3:27, 6:22, Jn. 11:25

* * * * *

Key Thoughts for Review:

The Sword Keeper and the Author. . . (Heb. 4:12-16, 5:1-10)

Part I — . . . who is the K__________ of r_______________. . . (Heb. 5:6, 10; 7:2)

Part II—. . .and the K__________ of p____________. . . (Heb. 5:6, 10; 7:2)

Part III—. . .a____________ d_______________. . . (Heb. 5:9, Gen. 14:18-20)

. . .for the prophets. . . (Heb. 11:32b.)

Part IV— . . .who escaped d____________. . . (Heb. 5:9, 11:33-34)

1 — . . .who shut the mouths of l____________. . .(Heb. 11:33b., Dan. 6:22)

2 — . . .who quenched the violence of f____________ . . . (Heb. 11:34a., Dan. 3:27)

Part V — . . .who saw the d____________ raised. . . (Heb. 11:35a., 1 Kg. 17:22)

Part VI — . . .who didn't escape d________ and didn't see the d________ raised. (Heb. 11:35b.-37)

1 — . . .but still shut the mouths of l____________. . .(1 Kg. 13:28)

2 — . . .and still quenched the violence of f____________ . . .(Isa. 43:2)

3—. . .and will see the d____________ raised. (Heb. 11:35b., John 11:25)

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: The Sword Keeper & Author

1 — Review the Key Thoughts to share new insights on the Sword-Keeper and the Author.

2 — Has any theme from this week's lessons emerged in a personal way for you?

3 — Discuss the ties between the Sword-Keeper and the Author from Hebrews 4:12-16, 5:1-10.

4 — What are the connections between this week's portraits of Christ and this week's faith-heroes?

5 — How do this week's “precedents” apply to your own life right now?

And finally, one last time for the week, please share any of your own discoveries this week about...

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 10: The Author & The Finisher — Heb. 12:1-3

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

The A_________ and F___________ f___________ what He s__________. (Heb. 12:1-3)

1 — The A____________ and F____________ is the F____________. (Heb. 1:6, 2:10-11)

2 — John the Baptist paved the way for the B____________. (Heb. 11:37b.-39, Mal. 3:1)

3 — The P____________ K____________ kept His p____________ to “us.” (Heb. 11:39-40, Mal. 3:1)

4 — For us, the S________ K__________'s s________ separates only to unite. (Heb. 11:40, 2 Cor. 5:6)

5 — The A_________ and F__________ is the W________ and the I_________. (Heb. 12:1-3, 2 Cor. 5:7)

Key words: Author, starts, Finisher, finishes, Firstborn, Builder, promise, sword, keeper, Word, Image

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 10: The Author & The Finisher — Heb. 12:1-3

Week 10, Day 1: The Author and the Finisher — Hebrews 12:1-3

Today's Readings: Hebrews 12:1-3, 1:6, 2:10-11, Hebrews 9-10, John 19:30

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

The A_________ and F___________ f___________ what He s__________. (Heb. 12:1-3)

1 — The A____________ and F____________ is the F____________. (Heb. 1:6, 2:10-11)

* * * * *

By now, you know the routine. As usual, I'd like to start the week by explaining where we'll be going (Lord willing) and how we'll be getting there. You may have noticed from the Key Thoughts that, along with the Hebrews 12:1-3 Portraits of Christ as the Author and the Finisher (Perfecter, in some translations) of our faith, this week we'll be revisiting every one of the earlier portraits of Christ we've looked at so far in this study.

Today's revisited portrait is “The Firstborn.” On Day 2, we'll look at the faith-hero, John the Baptist, and the Author and Finisher as the Builder. Day 3's faith-heroes are “us,” and we'll see the Author and Finisher as the Promise-Keeper. Day 4's faith-heroes are us, and the portrait is the Sword-Keeper.

Here I need to explain the difference between “us” and us, so you'll understand what I mean when you run into these two this week. When I speak about “us” (in quotation marks), I am quoting. I'm referring to the same “us” the writer of Hebrews addresses. “Us” is the first-century, Jewish-Christian reading audience to whom the book of Hebrews was first written. When I speak about us (no quotes), I mean, well...us. You know who we are. (At least, I know who I am, and you know who you are.)

All right, that brings us to Day 5 and the ultimate faith-hero — the Author and Finisher of our (and “our”) faith. In a wrap-up lesson, we'll look at the Author and Finisher along with all the faith-heroes whose faiths He authored (and will finish). And also on our last lesson together, we'll double back around to where we started and see once again the portraits of the Word and the Image.

One more explanatory note: I've been having you read the, er, surplus chapters of Hebrews at the start of the week to give you an overview of the whole book. (There are no “surplus” chapters in Hebrews, of course, but I mean the ones that aren't Hebrews 11 and the ones that I didn't choose to pull Portraits of Christ from). I've assigned you Hebrews 9-10 today which will catch us up to Hebrews 11, but the meanings of these chapters will become clearer through the faith-hero lessons as the week goes on, so I'll divide Hebrews 9-10 up throughout this week and reassign them for reading then.

All clear in your mind? If not, you'll figure it out as we go along. Let's get into the meat of the lesson.

The A_________ and F___________ f___________ what He s__________.

This Key Thought is the main idea I want you to take away from this week. “The Author and Finisher finishes what He starts.” It will come up every day this week.

But what does it mean that Jesus is the Author and Finisher (or Perfecter) of our faith?

By now, you also know this routine. Yup! It's time to break out the Greek-English dictionary again.

First Greek lesson of the week: the “author” of Hebrews 12:2 is a different Greek word than the word translated “author” in Hebrews 5:9 (in the King James) which I chose for last week's portrait. The “author” of Hebrews 12:2 is the word “archegos” (“a prince, a captain, an author”), and its root is “arche.” It's a word you might recognize from some of our English usages of it — archangel, arch-enemy. It's a word (that you'll have to drag your mind a lo-o-ong way back to remember) like “prototokos” in that they both carry the literal meaning, “first,” which ends up carrying the implication of “top spot, highest.”

With the “first” meaning in common, perhaps you can see where today's Key Thought comes from.

1 — The A____________ and F____________ is the F____________.

“The Author and Finisher is the Firstborn.” The “archegos” Author is the “prototokos” Firstborn. Both portraits show us Jesus as the One who came before all. And they show us Jesus as the One over all. But the “archegos” adds a different shade of meaning that we wouldn't see just from the “prototokos.”

Jesus is the “archegos” Author. He not only came first; He's the Beginning, the Source, the Fountainhead. As we understand from our English word “author,” the “arche” is the originator from whom a thing (in the usual sense of “author,” that “thing” is generally a book) derives its existence. We talked a little last week about the Author as an Author of a Book — a Book of Law, in fact. This week we learn that the Author is the Beginning, the Source, the Fountainhead, the Originator of faith.

Well, now! That is a highly relevant fact to learn in a study on Hebrews 11, the Hall of Faith chapter.

We saw a hint toward this meaning of Jesus as the First when we discussed Jesus as the “prototokos” prototype. He's the original model. It's in His image we're being made.

This week, through the “archegos” of Hebrews 12:2, we learn that He's not only the model. He's the Sculptor. It's He Himself molding us into His image.

Let's look at this connection of the “archegos” Author and the “prototokos” prototype-Firstborn through the Hebrews passages we studied in some detail in earlier lessons — Hebrews 1:6 and 2:10-11.

As you may have guessed by now, I chose Hebrews 1:6 and 2:10 to connect the dots between the “prototokos” Firstborn and the “archegos” Author because Hebrews 1:6 contains the word “prototokos” and Hebrews 2:10 contains the word “archegos.” The King James' translators opted for “captain of their salvation” instead of “author of their salvation” as newer translations have it, but whatever the translation, the idea of Jesus as the originator of our salvation is the intent of Hebrews 2:10. Jesus (and His Father) as the originator of every good thing is also brought out by Hebrews 2:10 (“For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things...”) I also included Hebrews 2:11 along with Hebrews 2:10 to remind us of the prototype aspect of the “prototokos” Firstborn. The Firstborn is the One whom all the other born-laters will take after.

The Author and the Firstborn are not the only portraits to show up in Hebrews 2:10-11, however. The Finisher shows up, there, too, but He shows up first as the finished — the perfected.

And now it's time for Greek Lesson # 2 for the day: in Hebrews 12:2, the “finisher” or “perfecter” is the Greek word “teleiotes.” This word, in a different form, appears in several other Hebrews passages that have important connections to today's lesson and this week's portraits. “Teleioo” is the “perfect” of Hebrews 2:10 (which we're looking at), 5:9 (which we looked at last week), and 11:40 (which we'll look at later this week). There's another important passage I want us to examine now that uses the word “teleo.”

Pick out the word “teleo” from John 19:30. Does John 19:30 make the meaning of “teleo” clearer?

I mentioned the last time we met together through these pages that the “perfection” of Hebrews 5:9 which Jesus attained through His suffering is not referring to a moral perfection but a perfection of completion — the completion of the accomplishment of an end or a purpose.

When Jesus, from the cross, used the last of His waning breath to say that “it” was “teleo,” He wasn't wasting time telling the listening crowd that He was about to die. He was making an important announcement of completion. What He had come to do was done. A purpose was accomplished.

And of course, we know what that purpose was. It was the “authoring” of our salvation of Hebrews 2:10 and Hebrews 5:9. To use last week's terminology, He “authored deliverance” for us through the finishing or perfecting of His work that He accomplished through the cross.

What He starts, He finishes. What He authors, He perfects. To massacre a little Greek grammar, what He “arches,” He “teleos.”

And from Hebrews 12:2, what has He begun? Right! Our faith. Does that fact fill your lungs with a sigh of relief? It should. It's an important fact to bear in mind as we briefly overview Hebrews 9-10 now.

First, I'll explain the breakdown as I'll break it down on Days 2, 3, and 4 this week. Hebrews 9:1-14 has a great deal to do with the tabernacle or temple and so will fall under Day 2's subject of the building of God's “house.” Hebrews 9:15-28 and 10:1-25 zero in, once again, on the New Covenant and will come into Day 3's lesson on the Promise-Keeper and His kept promise. Hebrews 10:26-39 is a companion piece to Hebrews 6:1-8 — another of those passages of stern warnings (and another passage I don't quite know how to understand, but I'll give it a shot on Day 4). It's the piece of Hebrews 9-10 I've assigned to Day 4 and the topic of the Sword-Keeper who also keeps His non-warm-and-fuzzy promises.

Now. Your turn.

From the breakdown above, what relation does the Author and Finisher bear to Hebrews 9-10?

I don't know how you answered the above question (maybe you couldn't understand what I was getting at), but here's a simple summation of my answer: The Author and Finisher is also the Builder. He started building a house, and He will unfailingly complete it. The Author and Finisher is also the Promise-Keeper. The promises He's made He will unfailingly keep (and has kept already). The Author and Finisher is also the Sword-Keeper. He has also made some promises of judgment. Those promises will unfailingly be kept, also. He will unfailingly deal with sin. And that's a very good thing.

You'll hear it a lot this week: the Author and Finisher finishes what He starts. What He starts, He starts with a purpose in mind. And don't forget. He's the Author and Finisher of our faith. If He's started His molding work on you, He won't stop until He's turned you into the likeness of His Firstborn. He's the Finisher and Perfecter. The work He does is a perfect and a perfecting work.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 10: The Author & The Finisher — Heb. 12:1-3

Week 10, Day 2: John the Baptist — Hebrews 11:37-39

Today's Readings: Hebrews 12:1-3, 11:37-39, 9:1-14, Malachi 3:1-4, Matthew 3:1-12, 11:1-11, John 2:13-21

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

The A_________ and F___________ f___________ what He s__________. (Heb. 12:1-3)

2 — John the Baptist paved the way for the B____________. (Heb. 11:37b.-39, Mal. 3:1)

* * * * *

Of course, there's no way of knowing if the author of Hebrews had in mind John the Baptist for his final descriptions in Hebrews 11:37b.-39. But I say, if the dust-caked sandals and camel-hair robe fit...

Match up the Hebrews 11:37-39 description with the corresponding reference for John the Baptist.

____ 1 — Tempted

____ 2 — Killed by the sword

____ 3 — Wore clothing of animal skins

____ 4 — Destitute

____ 5 — Persecuted and mistreated

____ 6 — The world was not worthy of him.

____ 7 — Wandered in the desert (etc.)

____ 8 — Obtained a good report through faith

____ 9 — Did not see the promises fulfilled

a — Matt. 3:1, 3; 11:7

b — Matt. 3:4a., 11:8

c — Matt. 3:4

d — Matt. 11:2, 14:3

e — Matt. 11:3, 6

f — Matt. 11:9, 11a.

g — Matt. 11:9, 11a.

h — Matt. 11:11b.

i — Matt. 14:1-10

From the information above, draw a brief character sketch and personal history of John the Baptist.

Here are my answers: 1—e, 2—i, 3—b, 4—c, 5—d, 6—f or g, 7—a, 8—f or g, 9—h. And here's my character sketch (which will help to explain my answers in case they're not very clear): John spent the days of his ministry hanging out in the desert (Matt. 3:1-3, 11:7). From Hebrews 11, the prophets who dwelt in the desert were homeless — wandering about, sleeping wherever they could hole up. Besides being a man of “no fixed address,” as a desert-dweller, John also lived hand-to-mouth; eating whatever strange, unpalatable foods were available in the desert; wearing whatever was available to wear.

Who knows why John chose his odd, uncomfortable lifestyle? Hebrews 11 tells us that “the prophets” who lived in this self-denying, ascetic, destitute manner did so “through faith.” Somehow, although his lifestyle was a choice John made, it seems it was also the lifestyle God had for him. Perhaps John could hear God's voice more clearly in the desert away from the distractions of busy, daily life.

As part of his radical, no-holds-barred personality, John shot straight from the hip. And because of his tell-it-like-it-is communication-style, his days in the desert ended abruptly, and he found himself in the king's prison. And it was here that his “tempting” apparently began (not all translations include “tempted” as a faith-experience in Hebrews 11:37b., but in the King James, it's the first one listed after “...sawn asunder...”). We often see God sending His servants into the desert for a time of testing. And that's not surprising, considering the hardship of the desert-life. But the desert was John's normal environment. It was from prison that John sent to ask Jesus, “Who are you? Do I know you at all?”

Didn't John know who Jesus was? Sure, he did. It was John who had testified that Jesus was the Promised One, the Lamb of God, and the Son of God (John 1:29-34). But prison had shaken his faith.

All the same, we have Jesus' testimony of John that he was the greatest of the prophets and more than a prophet. God shakes a true faith only to strengthen it, remember. We don't need to worry that John didn't pass his faith-shaking time of testing. He “obtained a good report” from Jesus' mouth.

And as the greatest of the prophets, the world was surely not worthy of John the Baptist.

But Jesus follows His statement about the greatness of John the Baptist with the very mysterious, “notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he” (Matt. 11:11b.). How could that be? I can only account for Jesus' mysterious statement in Matthew 11:11b. by turning to Hebrews 11:39-40: “And all these, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.” There's that “perfection” of completion again. We'll look further into this subject again this week, but I can only guess that the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than the greatest forerunner of that kingdom because we, in the kingdom, get to see the completed picture. We know more about God's plans for the world than John got to see (on this earth).

We know how John's story on this earth ended. He was “slain with the sword” before Jesus' death and resurrection, before the founding of the church on the Day of Pentecost, before the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on all believers. It was in God's plans that the greatest of His old-order prophets would finish out his days in a dungeon without seeing the fulfillment of all that he had pointed the way toward. Why? I don't know, of course. But we'll come back to the question this week.

What I'd like to do now is look at today's readings in light of today's Key Thoughts. I chose today's readings not only because they give us a character sketch of John the Baptist that matched up with Hebrews 11's character sketch in verses thirty-seven to thirty-nine. But each of today's readings has something to say about God as the Builder of His house and John as the ground-breaker for the Builder.

2 — John the Baptist paved the way for the B____________.

Although there is no direct mention of God's house in Matthew 3:1-12, this was the passage that was the station where today's train of thought started off on its journey. Two words almost at the end of the passage got me thinking in a particular direction — a direction we've taken before in this study.

From Matthew 3:12, what does John state that Jesus came to do? Where have we seen a “threshing floor” earlier in this study?

One of the tasks the Messiah came to accomplish was the cleansing of His threshing floor? Was John playing with words here? Did he have in mind the threshing floor that became the temple? Whatever John had in mind, the God who remembers everything all at once all the time must have had that threshing floor in mind and, through John, was making another of the divine puns in which He delights.

The instant I remembered the threshing floor of Ornan after reading the words of Matthew 3:12, the image presented itself to my mind of a Man, brandishing a rope-whip, overturning tables, scattering money boxes, emptying cages, and just generally wreaking a little havoc at the erstwhile site of Ornan's threshing floor. What brought on the rampage? Matthew 21:13 lets us in on the fact that those who were selling animals and changing money were cheating people. They had turned God's house of prayer into a den of thieves. And John 2:17 lets us in on the fact that Jesus had a passion for His Father's house.

So John the Baptist prophesied that one of the tasks the Messiah set out to accomplish was the cleansing of God's house — the cleansing of His threshing floor? Yes, he did, and in so doing, I believe John the Baptist's words show us that the cleansing of the temple in John 2 had a whole lot more meaning than just the clearing-out of the overpriced merchandise being sold there. We'll get back to it.

Moving right along now to Matthew 11:1-11 — again, there is no direct mention of God's house or God (Father and Son) as a Builder. But Matthew 11:10 sends us back to Malachi 3, and Malachi 3 is all about God as the Builder (and Cleanser) of His house.

Putting together Matthew 11:10 and Malachi 3:1, what was John the Baptist's role?

There is a highly-significant pronoun used in Malachi 3:1 that assumes its proper significance only when seen in conjunction with Matthew 11:10. In Malachi 3:1, the “messenger” would prepare the way before whom? Before “Me.” And who is the speaker in Malachi 3:1? “...the LORD of hosts.”

Then, from Matthew 11:10, we learn that the prophecy of the “messenger” of Malachi 3:1 was fulfilled by John the Baptist. And whose forerunner was John the Baptist? Whose way did John prepare? Who did John come before? Not a trick question. Jesus. Or maybe it was a trick question. According to Malachi 3:1, John would be the forerunner of “the LORD of hosts.” There's no possibility of circumventing the fact that Jesus is God when these two passages are compared. And believed.

But notice also from Malachi 3:1 the spot upon which “the Lord, whom you seek” would arrive. He would suddenly come to His temple. And here comes another of those divine puns.

Compare John 2:21 with Malachi 3:1. Name two different kinds of “temples” to which God came.

We've seen this divine pun in an earlier lesson. God's house (His people) are also His temple. And His body. The puns all begin to roll into one. Are you starting to believe that God delights in wordplay?

So, of which “temple” is Malachi 3:1 speaking? The temple in Jerusalem made of stone, Jesus' body made of flesh and blood, or God's house made of people? To me, the answer is obvious: all three. But it's not until we stop to think about the temple of stone and what it meant or about the body of flesh and blood and what it meant that we begin to understand Malachi 3:1-4 and what it means. Let's brainstorm.

What was God saying to His people through His instructions to them on building a tabernacle and later a temple? (Revelation 21:3 can give you an idea.)

Are our brains riding the same wave? Did you say that the tabernacle and the temple were God's symbols to His people of His dwelling-place? And by instructing His people to build Him a dwelling-place, He was revealing to His people His deep, deep desire to dwell with them? By coming to earth and taking on a body of flesh and blood, God revealed the same deep, deep desire to dwell with His people.

It's what I see through all the Old Testament instructions on the building of the tabernacle and the temple. Yet there is certainly another emphasis I see through those instructions — a less warm-and-fuzzy emphasis. And this emphasis is also the emphasis I see through Hebrews 9:1-14.

Every piece of the old tabernacle or temple had symbolic significance, I believe. And Hebrews 9:1-14 mentions many of those pieces (without commenting on their significance). But the significance of the pieces of the tabernacle it dwells on reveals a non-warm-and-fuzzy significance.

The Most Holy Place (the Holy of Holies) with the Ark of the Covenant and its contents (representing God's throne, as I'm sure you remember) then represented God's throneroom — His very presence.

Hebrews 9:7 tells us how the throneroom could be entered and by whom. Describe this occurrence.

The “...not without blood...” is a key phrase in Hebrews 9:7. Much of Hebrews 9 recurs to this theme. Only the High Priest could come before God and then only with a sacrifice for sin. Through His instructions on the tabernacle, God had revealed to His people His deep desire to be with them and to have them with Him. But He also had to remind them this desire was an impossibility. Except for one thing — blood sacrifices. The price of sin had to be paid for a sinner to enter God's presence.

And here we are, back to Ornan's threshing floor. And Matthew 3. From John's words in Matthew 3:1-12, can you see that dividing line of that threshing floor where the sword stopped? The dividing line was between the repentant and the non-repentant; between those who refused to be parted from their sin and so had to pay the price of sin and those whose sin-price was paid by Another.

And that offering that was sacrificed on the threshing floor and halted the plague of sin brings us back to Hebrews 9:1-14 and the offerings required to enjoy the intimacy of God's presence.

Animal sacrifices could never pay the price of sin. They could only foreshadow.

Hebrews 9:8 may be another of those divine puns and a kind of theme verse for today's lesson.

From Hebrews 9:8, why wasn't the throneroom accessible to the general public at one point in time?

Intriguing! What did the author of Hebrews mean by stating that only the High Priest could enter the Holiest Place “...while as the first tabernacle was yet standing”? The tabernacle had to be torn down and replaced by the temple before any other than the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies? But only the High Priest (and only once a year) could enter into the Holy of Holies in the temple, as well.

I don't know what the author of Hebrews meant in Hebrews 9:8, but I'd be willing to bet that the Holy Spirit (who really authored Hebrews and who remembers everything all at once all the time) had in mind Jesus' words in John 2:19. The tabernacle that must be torn down to open up the way to the Holy of Holies was a body! The veil guarding the throneroom had to be torn in two to allow in all of God's people (Matt. 27:51), and Hebrews 10:20 tells us that the veil which was torn was Jesus' flesh.

Now, let's get back to John the Baptist's words on the threshing floor and how those words showed us that John 2 has deeper meaning than Jesus chasing a bunch of crooks out of the temple. Remember, we're told in John 2 that Jesus cleansed the temple because of His passion for His Father's house. Remember also, Jesus followed His cleansing of the temple in John 2 with His words about the destruction of a different kind of temple. Are you seeing it? The meaning is glorious! Because of His passion for one kind of temple, because of His deep, deep desire to dwell in the midst of His people, Jesus would cleanse His house. He would scatter their sin as far as the east is from the west. And how would He accomplish that work? Through the destruction of a different kind of “temple”— His body. Are you goosebumping yet? The offerings of Hebrews 9 and the tearing of the veil are the same picture.

John 2:19 was prophetic in more ways than one. The temple of stone in Jerusalem was destroyed about forty years after the temple of flesh and blood was hung on a cross. It had stopped being a symbol of God's deep desire to dwell with His people. It had become a den of thieves. A one-time cleansing didn't do the trick. But the stone temple had also stopped being necessary. God was dwelling with His people in a different way. Their bodies had become His temples. Jesus' death tore down all the barriers.

The Builder will finish the work He's doing; even if He does some tearing down work to accomplish it.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 10: The Author & The Finisher — Heb. 12:1-3

Week 10, Day 3: “Us” — Hebrews 11:39-40

Today's Readings: Hebrews 12:1-3, 11:39-40, 9:15-28, 10:1-25, Isaiah 61:1, Malachi 3:1-4, Matthew 11:1-6, Luke 4:14-21

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

The A_________ and F___________ f___________ what He s__________. (Heb. 12:1-3)

3 — The P____________ K____________ kept His p____________ to “us.” (Heb. 11:39-40, Mal. 3:1)

* * * * *

I feel as though I only scratched the surface of yesterday's lesson and John the Baptist. Fortunately, yesterday's lesson flows into today's, and I'll get another swing at the ball today.

Yesterday, I asked the question, why would it be God's plan for John the Baptist to finish out his days without seeing the final fulfillment of all that he had pointed the way toward? And I admitted I don't know the answer. But it's a question that Hebrews 11:39-40 speaks to. When I look at, not just John the Baptist, but all the faith-heroes of Hebrews 11, few of them saw the final fulfillments of God's promises. Abraham saw a handful of his descendants and lived like a stranger in his Promised Land. The same goes for Isaac and Jacob who inherited the promises made to Abraham. Joseph's dead body returned to Canaan. He didn't live to see the return. Moses peered into the Promised Land, but he didn't enter it with the people he had led for forty years. Joshua couldn't give his people rest. The judges' battles won only temporary rest. David craved seeing God's house built but died before it happened. If fulfilled promises are one theme of Hebrews 11, partially-fulfilled promises are another strong theme. And yet...

3 — The P____________ K____________ kept His p____________ to “us.”

Seeing I don't feel quite finished with John the Baptist yet and he will lead us into the subject of the “us” who saw promises kept, let's back up to John — in prison but still with a good head on his shoulders.

From today's readings, which Old Testament prophecy may Jesus have been referencing in His answer to John when John sent his disciples to ask Jesus if He was the Promised One (Matt. 11:2-5)?

Isaiah 61 is one of the clearest of the Old Testament prophecies regarding the Messiah. We don't see it in the English, but in the Hebrew, it contains a form of the word “Messiah.” Our English word “Messiah” comes from the Hebrew word for “anointed.” So Isaiah 61:1 would literally begin, “The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath Messiah-ed me...” It was a passage any Scripture-loving, first-century Jew would have known and would have known to be Messianic prophecy.

In Luke 4:14-21, what was Jesus claiming when He read from Isaiah 61 and applied it to Himself?

Jesus' listeners in the synagogue in His hometown of Nazareth could hardly have missed His point. He stood up and declared, “Here I am! The Messiah is here! God's Promised One has come!”

I haven't had you read the reaction of His hometown to this announcement, but I'll sum it up (and paraphrase it). His listeners to Jesus' stupendous announcement immediately said, “Isn't that Ol' Joe's boy? Who does He think He is?” Jesus then made a few inflammatory statements about prophets always being rejected by their own. And Jesus' revelation of His true identity to His own hometown ended with His old neighbours riding Him out of town on a metaphorical rail and attempting to throw Him off a cliff. Quite the reaction to the fulfillment of one of God's biggest and best promises!

But when John the Baptist sent to ask, in effect, the same question, “Are You who I thought You were?” can you understand why Jesus again responded with Isaiah 61? Or at least a hint toward it? He was flashing His credentials and demonstrating how He was in the very act of doing Isaiah 61.

And then He finished up His answer to John the Baptist with a statement I can only hear spoken with a tinge of sadness in His tone, “And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me” (Matt. 11:6). Oh, but it's hard not to be offended! Why? Because of His promises! Even because of their fulfillments!

The townspeople of Nazareth looked at the fulfillment of God's promises of Isaiah 61 and said, “That's the fulfillment?!!! Couldn't be! That fulfillment doesn't look how we imagined it would!” They were offended at the Fulfillment of God's promises, and they rejected Him.

John the Baptist hadn't rejected Jesus, but he had been offended. Wouldn't you have been?

Compare Isaiah 61:1, Luke 4:18, and Matthew 11:5. Which pieces are the same? What is one very relevant omission in Matthew 11:5 from Isaiah 61:1?

Do you see the irony? Why would Jesus have chosen, to use as His answer to John, a Messianic prophecy that dwelt on the Messiah's role of setting prisoners free while John sat in a stinking cell? Why didn't Jesus include that relevant piece of the quote from Isaiah 61:1? Again, I don't know, but here's my speculation: He answered John's message-bearers by pointing them to what they could witness first-hand. He said, “Watch! Look at what I'm doing! Go and report it to John.” But then, He tacked onto His answer a phrase that would have instantly raised the flag of Isaiah 61:1's Messianic announcement in John's mind. “...the poor have the gospel preached to them” (Matt. 11:5). He didn't mention the part about setting the prisoners free. He didn't need to. By pointing out His preaching of the good news to the poor, He pointed the way toward Isaiah 61. And John would have filled in the blanks.

What was Jesus saying between the lines to John? Here's what I hear between the lines of Jesus' answer: “Look! See the visible things I'm doing? Through these visible acts, I'm really doing an invisible work. And that invisible work is setting prisoners free.” If John was any good at listening between the lines, he could have heard Jesus say, “The kind of prison doors I came to open are invisible ones, John. My primary mission on earth is not to spring you from the pokey. At least, not Herod's prison. The good news I came to preach to the poor is all about setting Satan's prisoners free.”

The prisons Jesus delivers His own from are like the lions whose mouths He shuts and the flames whose violence He quenches and the graves He conquers. They're invisible. To all outward appearances, the prisons, the lions, the flames, and the graves may look as though they win in the end.

Now, it's time to get around to the “us” that saw God's promises fulfilled. It occurred to me, preparing for this lesson, that there were perhaps first-century readers of Hebrews who would have known Jesus and John the Baptist, who would have seen with their own eyes the Fulfillment of Isaiah 61.

Those who didn't have the privilege of meeting Jesus in the flesh and watching Him do all those things He described in Matthew 11:5 would have been only one believer-generation away from those who did. They would have known some of the apostles. They would have heard the first-hand stories. Consider that the book of Hebrews was written to Jewish Christians very likely before the fall of Jerusalem forty years after Jesus' death. Till that time, Jerusalem was still a headquarters for Christianity.

Can you imagine being among the first generation of believing Jews who witnessed the fulfillments of the promises made to their ancestors thousands of years in the past? Can you imagine watching the meanings of the portraits — all those portraits we've seen in this study — unfold before your very eyes? Imagine the excitement of the mental light bulb switching on and the significance behind Abraham's offering of Isaac or the Passover being disclosed through the life (and death — and resurrection) of a Person who lived and walked where you lived and walked! I've found it awe-striking this study to see the meanings disclosed through the pages of history and of Hebrews. I can't begin to imagine what the fulfillment of all these promises and portraits would have meant to a first-century Jew.

Let's turn now to Malachi 3:1-4 and Hebrews 9-10 and try to see them through the eyes of “us,” the original reading-audience of the book of Hebrews.

From Malachi 3:1, name the two “messengers.” How does Malachi 3:2-4 connect to the second?

From Malachi 3:1, I see not only the Builder; I see the Promise-Keeper. God, as “the messenger of the covenant,” would come to the temple He had built. Covenants, remember, are promises. The purification happening in the rest of the chapter (particularly verses two to four) is set against the background of a covenant. And Hebrews 9:15-28 and 10:1-25 inform us that there's only one covenant able to make truly clean; there's only one offering truly acceptable.

Hebrews 9:15-28, 10:1-25 may be old news to us. The sign and seal on the New Covenant — Christ's blood — is easy for us to take for granted. The New Covenant promises, spoken in Jeremiah 31:31-34 (and reiterated in Hebrews 10:16-17) have likely lost their novelty for us. But to “us,” Jewish baby Christians (Heb. 5:12-13), the New Covenant must have been thoroughly and thrillingly new!

Understanding every day new meanings in the prophecies, seeing every day new fulfillments of “...Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me)...” (Heb. 10:7) must have been astonishing for the “us” of Hebrews 11:40. The Author and Finisher had done it! He'd written the Book all about the time He Himself would come to His “temple,” and then He'd come! His promises were kept. His New Covenant was a reality. And the first readers of Hebrews were privileged to be part of it all!

The experience of being a first-century, Jewish believer in Christ must have been more exciting than anything we can imagine. At first! But something had happened to dampen the original excitement.

As with John the Baptist, the faith-shaking had begun. By the time of the writing of the book of Hebrews, the promises had lost their lustre. The fulfillments didn't look like they were supposed to.

Why did God allow John to suffer and die in prison instead of seeing the fulfillments that the “us” of Hebrews 11:40 saw? Because John (and all the faith-heroes of Hebrews 11) are examples to “us” (and us). They saw promises fulfilled only partially. The “us” of Hebrews 11:40 saw more. Perhaps, we (you and I, I mean), see even more of the picture. We have two millennia of church history under our belts.

But the examples of Hebrews 11 speak to all of us. None of us get to see God's promises fulfilled perfectly on this earth. All of us will go through times of, “That's the fulfillment? It doesn't look the way it was supposed to! Who is this God I thought I knew?” All of us will have our faith shaken. It must happen. But in those times, we can look to the examples of those who held on through the shaking.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 10: The Author & The Finisher — Heb. 12:1-3

Week 10, Day 4: Us — Hebrews 11:39-40

Today's Readings: Hebrews 12:1-3, 11:39-40, 4:12-13, 10:26-39, 2 Corinthians 5:1-8

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

The A_________ and F___________ f___________ what He s__________. (Heb. 12:1-3)

4 — For us, the S________ K__________'s s________ separates only to unite. (Heb. 11:40, 2 Cor. 5:6)

* * * * *

Today's faith-heroes are us — as in, you and me. You know who you are, but I don't know who you are. Unavoidably, then, I'll be talking about the “me” part of us a whole bunch today. You can do the talking for the “you” part of us.

If the lesson on John the Baptist flowed into yesterday's lesson, today's lesson is the overflow from Days 2 and 3. Then, tomorrow's lesson will contain the overflow from all three. But today, with us as our own faith-heroes, the lesson will take a sharp turn for the personal. What do John the Baptist and the original reading audience of Hebrews and their faith-struggles have to say to us? Let's find out.

We're still not finished with the question of why God would allow John the Baptist to die in prison and not see all the fulfillments of the promises he proclaimed. Tomorrow, we'll talk about one very specific reason I think God planned that plan for John the Baptist and other Hebrews 11 faith-heroes (and that reason is us). But let's go back to the reason I closed with yesterday (which reason is also us).

John and the other Hebrews 11 faith-heroes are examples to us. In our faith-shaking times, we can look to those examples and know we'll make it through. Why? Because if it's true faith, the same Author who authored their faith authored ours. He finished His work with them. He'll finish His work with us.

And here's where this lesson takes its sharp turn for the personal. I've told you a little about my recent, past, two, faith-shaking years. I've confessed that I didn't want to hear the “exceeding great and precious promises” of Isaiah 43:1-5 at one particular low point. Like John, I was offended at Jesus. Why? Because of His promises! Even because of their fulfillments! Because seeing what Isaiah 43:1-5 really meant I said, “That's the fulfillment?!!! It doesn't look the way it was supposed to!”

It wasn't just the promises of Isaiah 43:1-5, however, that further pried open already-gaping wounds. It was all of God's promises. It seemed that everywhere I looked in the Bible were “exceeding great and precious promises” that either weren't coming true for me or were being fulfilled but weren't being fulfilled the way I thought they would be! I'd read the glorious truths Paul expressed in his epistles about the Christian life and think, “But why isn't this my reality? Why don't I experience what Paul did?”

The faith-quake that revolved around God's promises went on for quite some time, but I remember it coming to a head when I had just begun to write a Bible study on the parables in Matthew. I remember defining the issue for God (just in case He wasn't aware of it). “I'm not saying Your promises are misleading,” I assured Him. “I'm just saying that I'm not very good at understanding them. You're the God who speaks,” I said to Him. “You speak because You want to make Yourself known.” (I'd been taught that lesson already.) “But what good does Your speaking do if we can't understand You? Why don't You speak intelligibly if You want to make Yourself known? To me, I mean!”

In short, I was saying, “Who are You? I thought I knew! But now I'm not so sure!”

The blessing of not being offended at Christ (Matt. 11:6) is not a blessing I can claim. I'm relieved to know, however, that I'm in the company of the greatest of prophets and many other faith-heroes. Since starting this study, I can't tell you the number of times I've thanked God for the inclusion in the Hall of Faith of not only Abraham and Joseph, Elijah and Elisha and the martyred prophets, but of Sarah and Jacob, Gideon and Barak. I'm also grateful that He used not only a spiritual giant like Paul to write His Book. He used a pessimistic poet like Asaph. I'm so glad He accepts (and even uses) “whosoever will.”

I should finish off the conversation recorded above by telling you God's side of it. I mentioned that I was writing a Bible study on the parables in Matthew at the time. The first one I tackled was the Parable of the Sower, the Seed, and the Soils. Two things He'd been teaching me about that parable that He brought to my mind: the seed is the Word of God (He is the God who speaks), but the growth of that seed is the understanding of that Word. In other words, the understanding of His speaking doesn't happen all at once. It's a growing thing. Hearing what God has to say to me is a learning process. Second lesson: He planned it to work that way because He is the all-relational God. We learn to know Him more through putting a little work into hearing from Him. Good soil is perseverant soil.

How ironic! God's voice spoke to me on that occasion through my own. The things I'd been writing turned around to smack me upside the head (very gently, I must say! I find His voice to be so gentle to me). Oh yes, He is the God who speaks. Sometimes, I can even hear and understand what He says!

Then, I was reminded (again through the parables) that God does keep His promises but we often don't recognize that fact because the fulfillment doesn't look the way we expected it would. I was taken back to Isaiah 61:1, that verse of exceeding great and precious Messianic prophecies, and reminded that those promises had been fulfilled. But most of the people under whose noses they were fulfilled missed their fulfillment because they had their minds set on the way they thought the fulfillment should look. Jesus didn't appear to be a Mighty-Warrior-King. He appeared to be a humble carpenter. “The Son of Joseph,” not the Son of God. It's appearances that are deceiving; not the promises of God.

Today, as I was putting this lesson together in my head before I put it down on paper (electronic paper, I mean), I felt the Holy Spirit give me a nudge: “Tell about your faith-shaking and your disillusionment with God's promises, by all means. But don't forget to mention this...”

So I must mention the “this” I was reminded to mention. The fulfillments of God's promises to you will not look the way you expect them to. Your life will not run the way you think it will. There will be disappointment and disillusionment. There will be faith-quakes. You must know it and expect them. But you must also know this: God's fulfillments will be better than the ones you were expecting. He will assuredly surprise you, but if you are one of His own ones named in Romans 8:28, then all the surprises will end up as delightful ones. Your life will not go the way you thought it would, but it will go better.

I was reminded of it when I remembered the true fulfillment of Isaiah 61:1. No, Jesus was not the Messiah His own people were expecting. But how much better He was! How surprising that the King of Kings would come in the guise of an itinerant and indigent carpenter-teacher! But how much more infinitely beautiful was the reality of God's plan of humility than the human expectations of grandeur. How unforeseen was the plot twist where the Mighty Warrior turned His weapons on Himself to pay the price of our sin, where through His submission to evil and to all it could do to Him, He conquered it outright. But how much more infinitely thrilling than any plot devised by human imagination! That's our God! He's the Promise-Keeper. And the fulfillments of His promises don't look the way we imagine they will. But when we see those fulfillments — really see them — how much better they are!

Whew! I'm talked out for the moment. It's your turn.

Have you ever experienced disillusionment with any of God's promises? Tell about a promise you're still waiting to see fulfilled. Tell about a promise whose fulfillment wasn't as expected. Have you ever experienced the truth that the true fulfillment of God's promises are better than our expectations?

There is, however, a catch to the promise I'm making that the true fulfillment of God's promises will always exceed our expectations. That catch opens up the portrait we're revisiting today. That catch is, as stated last lesson, “None of us get to see God's promises fulfilled perfectly on this earth.” Now we're coming around to the subject of the Sword-Keeper and His sword. There's no getting around it: the sword is an instrument of warfare and judgment because it's an instrument of death.

We live in a culture that likes to deny the reality of death. It's taboo even to say the word. We'll use words like “passed away” or “loss.” But just for a moment, let's look it squarely in the eyes as the writer of Hebrews did, living always an inch or two away from that sword's blade, as in fact, we all do. We insulate ourselves from the consideration of death, but it will come to all of us. And none of us knows when.

But what is death, biblically-speaking? The Bible certainly doesn't support the idea that death is simply the cessation of existence the way many view it. The best definition for death as a biblical concept, I believe, would be “separation.” It's the definition that makes the best sense of all the Bible has to say on the topic. Physical death is nothing more than the separation of the body from the soul or spirit — the real, inner person. Spiritual death is the separation of the real, inner person from God, the only Life-Source. And eternal spiritual death (aka: hell) is eternal separation from God.

In fact, the work of a sword is separation. It cuts. It divides. And in so doing, it does the separating work of death. Like all swords, the sword of God's Word also does a separating work.

What separating work does the sword of Hebrews 4:12-13 do?

For one thing, it cuts away all excuse. It strips away all subterfuge and posturing. In this way, it does a purifying work. It's interesting that the word “holy” simply means “separated.” What a picture! It's a picture that keeps on coming up. Death is simply separation, and our purification from sin required the death of separation — not only Jesus' death but a mini-death of repentance on our part. Then, there's a daily dying required for the practical, everyday living-out of the “separated from sin” position in which all the repentant, simply through Jesus' death and faith in that death, are placed.

But I am talking mostly about physical death today, and it is the Sword-Keeper who holds that power in His words. He speaks, and soul and body join into a new life. He speaks again, and they part company.

Yet what does the separation of physical death mean for all those who are no longer spiritually dead?

From 2 Corinthians 5:6, what will it mean to you when your body and your spirit are separated?

Maybe now you're able to understand today's rather obscure Key Thought.

4 — For us, the S________ K__________'s s________ separates only to unite.

When the Sword-Keeper wields His sword and says to me, “It's time. Come on home,” my body and spirit will bid each other good-bye. But there will be no regret on my part. I'll be finally and completely united with the only Source of True Life.

Now. Time to get personal again and tell you what all this discussion on the Sword-Keeper and His sword has to do with what I've told you today about God's promises and my experiences with them (plus Hebrews 11:39-40). Hebrews 11:39-40 tells us that the faith-heroes listed in that chapter only partially saw promises fulfilled. “We” (and we) see a bigger picture. But on this earth, we, too, see God's promises only partially-fulfilled. We, too, stand on a mountain and only peer into our final Promised Land. We, too, fight our battles and experience only snatches of rest. We, too, don't get to see all of our own individual prison doors swing wide (even the invisible ones). But Moses did get to enter the land of Canaan — he did so in his glorified “house” after his old tent was folded up and put away (Luke 9:30-31). (There was no need for well-meaning-but-bumbling Peter to build him any other kind of earthly tent.) Joshua, when this life was over, did get to enjoy his rest. John was freed from his prison. When Herod's sword separated his head from his body and God's sword separated his body from his spirit, for John, his prison door flew off its hinges. This is the point of Hebrews 11: this life is only the beginning of real life.

I've told you my frustration with Paul's descriptions of life in Christ. He wrote about truths that he experienced. I believe the truths are just as true for me, even if they're not my experiences, but one day they will be my experience. In this life, Paul experienced much more of God's presence than I do. It's the reason for the difference in our experiences. But I will experience for myself those truths he wrote about.

I want to recur to some statements I made on Day 2 because as I wrote them I said to myself, “Now, wait a minute! Is that really true?” I'll quote them for you. “God was dwelling with His people in a different way. Their bodies had become His temples. Jesus' death tore down all the barriers.”

It was that last sentence that gave me some qualms. Jesus' death tore down all the barriers? Yes, I know it's true that in God's books I've been legally declared righteous, but on a day-to-day level, sin is still very much of a reality in my life. Practically, am I really free to go prancing into God's Holy of Holies whenever I happen to feel like it? If all that I told you on Day 2 about Jesus' sacrifice for our sin making God's presence accessible to us is true, why do I still experience so little of God's presence?

I kept the questionable sentence because it's not questionable. It's rock-solid, Scripture truth. Jesus' death did tear down all the barriers between God and me. But like the truths Paul tells me, it's not a truth that I will experience fully in this life. There will always, on this earth, be a disconnect between truth and my experience of it. God means it to be so. He doesn't intend for me to fully experience the fulfillment of all His promises here and now. His presence (with all the walls between us removed) will be the final fulfillment of all of His promises. And that fulfillment will exceed all my imaginings about it. And that fulfillment is our ultimate Promised Land. But earth is not meant to be heaven. We simply cannot live forever on this sin-sick planet. And if all of God's promises were fully fulfilled and His presence experienced fully here, why would we ever want to leave this present existence? But we must!

On Day 2, I also made the statement, “The Builder will finish the work He's doing; even if He does some tearing down work to accomplish it.” On Day 2, I talked about the tearing down of the tabernacle to make way for the temple. But that temple was also torn down. It no longer served its purpose. God had a better way of demonstrating to His people His desire to dwell with them. He took on a temple of flesh-and-blood. But that temple, too, was torn down; then resurrected in a glorious state. But that temple, also, is no longer with us physically. God had another, better way to demonstrate to His people His desire to dwell with them. He turned them into His temples. But (you see it coming, don't you) He has still a better way of dwelling with His people. These “tents” of flesh must also be torn down (2 Cor. 5:1-8). Our “tent” walls will always be walls that stand between God's presence with His people and His people's full experience of that presence. It always takes some form of death to separate us from sin, and we'll never be experientially separated from sin until body and soul are separated. He will finish His building work, but His sword must separate us from our “tents” in order to finish it.

I need to address Hebrews 10:26-39 (because I said I would). Again, I don't want to enter into the subject of eternal security (or its opposite) that the passage opens up. I'll just say that the first part shows the Sword-Keeper wielding His sword against those who, in the end, choose non-faith. But if it's true faith, the Author and Finisher will finish it. That's the security I cling to — the last portion of the passage. There we still see the Sword-Keeper wielding His sword. But for us — His people of faith — that sword separates only to unite. Yes, there is suffering on this earth, but no one lives forever on this earth. So hold on! Our confidence has “great recompense of reward” (v. 35). We will receive the promise (v. 36).

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

PORTRAIT # 10: The Author & The Finisher — Heb. 12:1-3

Week 10, Day 4: Jesus and His Witnesses — Hebrews 11-12:1-3

Today's Readings: Hebrews 11, 12:1-3, 2 Corinthians 5:7

* * * * *

Key Thoughts:

The A_________ and F___________ f___________ what He s__________. (Heb. 12:1-3)

5 — The A_________ and F__________ is the W________ and the I_________. (Heb. 12:1-3, 2 Cor. 5:7)

* * * * *

It seems to me that the writer of Hebrews never intended for some helpful chapter-splitter to decide that the chapter of Hebrews 11 should end where it does. It looks to me like the first few verses of chapter twelve complete chapter eleven. Hebrews 12:1-3 makes sense only when following Hebrews 11, and the point of Hebrews 11 cannot be fully understood without the first few verses of Hebrews 12.

However, there is that cliffhanger, “To be continued...” kind of ending to Hebrews 11 that the Old Testament finishes with and that the life of John the Baptist finished with. So perhaps the chapter-splitters were God-inspired after all. But today, let's take Hebrews 11:40 in conjunction with the capper of Hebrews 12:1-3 where the main point of Hebrews 11 (in fact, of the book of Hebrews) is made clear.

“God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds” (Heb. 11:40-Heb. 12:1-3).

Hebrews 12:3 sums up the theme of the book of Hebrews that we've been seeing week after week.

In your own words and from what you've been learning from Hebrews, restate the main point of the book of Hebrews. Copy out Hebrews 12:3. In what way is it a thesis statement for that main point?

Hebrews 11 finishes with only a hint toward the main Faith-Hero whom we are to emulate. All the other examples of faithful men and women pale in comparison to the supreme example of the truly Faithful One. It's Hebrews 12 that hangs His portrait in the Hall of Faith. The Author and Finisher finishes what He starts. He finished His race. He endured to the end. He is our ultimate example.

He's not only the Main Character in the Hall of Faith chapter. He's its writer. He's the originator and the completer of all of its stories. How could the chapter be considered complete without Him?

But Hebrews 12:1-3 also needs to be understood in its larger context of Hebrews 11. And in its context of the historical background of Hebrews. To recap, remember that it was written during a time of intense persecution of the early church. Many were being beaten, imprisoned, or martyred for their faith. And remember that it was written to Jewish Christians. Many of the earliest Christians (well, all of the earliest Christians) were Jews. But the book of Acts exposes the fact that most of the persecution of the early Christians was also being driven by Jews. The earliest persecution of the church was Jewish-on-Jewish persecution. So the author of Hebrews wrote to Jewish Christians to say, “I understand the temptation to turn back to Christ-less Judaism. Turning back would make your Jewish persecutors happy, and you'd save yourselves a lot of trouble in the here-and-now. But think beyond the here-and-now. What would be the point of turning back to a Christ-less Judaism when Christ is the fulfillment of everything Judaism has to offer? This life is only the beginning of real life. So keep on going!”

And he offers a Hall of Faith, drawn almost entirely from the Old Testament Scriptures, to show that the heroes of the Jewish faith did not have it easy, either. They refused to look only to the here-and-now. They didn't see the fulfillment of the promises given to them in this life. But they fixed their eyes beyond the here-and-now and kept on going. Whether or not they realized it, they looked “...unto Jesus the author and finisher...” of their own individual lives of faith. And they kept on plodding ahead.

And Jesus Himself knew what it was to run the same race the early Christians had to run.

Not understanding Hebrews 12:1 in the context of Hebrews 11, I'd read the verse most of my life without liking it very much. Now, I have a new grasp on it, and I like that new grasp much better.

Who are the “so great a cloud of witnesses”? Describe the mental picture you have of Hebrews 12:1.

All my life (till recently), Hebrews 12:1 brought the picture into my mind of all the “great cloud of witnesses” of Hebrews 11, sitting around on heavenly bleachers, having finished their own individual races, alternately cheering and groaning as they watch the cheap entertainment of those of us still on earth, tripping and stumbling and struggling to reach our own finish lines in our own faith-races. I thought the verse was recommending that I pull up my socks because of the “great cloud” who were witnessing me being snared and beset so easily by weights and sins.

It's not a very nice thought quite frankly! I'm relieved to understand that I misunderstood the verse.

Finish Hebrews 12:1 with the first phrase of Hebrews 12:2.

It's not on li'l ol' me that the “great cloud of witnesses” are keeping their eyes firmly fixed. Just as I'm instructed to do, so these examples did. They had something better to look at than me and my race. They're looking at the living model for the portrait in the Hall of Faith who is the focus of today's lesson.

In that case, what are the “great cloud of witnesses” witnessing? I've come to see that the cloud of witnesses are not witnessing us (or that's not the emphasis of Hebrews 12:1). They're witnessing to us.

I discovered that fact after I went back to the beginning of Hebrews 11 and noticed all the courtroom talk going on in the first few verses, echoed in the very end of the chapter.

I didn't notice it until I looked up the passage in my Greek concordance and noticed that all the words in Hebrews 11 translated “witness” or “testimony” or “testifying” (in some, “commended”) are all from the same word in the Greek: “martureo.” But I recognized the root of the word. It's the word we incorporated into English to describe what many of these witnesses became — martyrs.

In the Greek, the word simply means "witness."

It changes the picture slightly when I realize that the helper words like “obtained” in my English translation are absent in the Greek. Replacing the Greek “martureo” with the English “witness,” Hebrews 11:1-5 and 39 would then read a little more literally, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders [witness]. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he [witnessed] that he was righteous, God [witnessing] of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh. By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this [witness], that he pleased God...And these all, having [witnessed] through faith, received not the promise” (Heb. 11:1-5, 39).

In fact, what Hebrews 11 is telling us is that the “elders,” that great cloud of witnesses, were just that — witnesses. But what did they witness? To what facts were they bearing testimony?

To the facts of the unseen realities. Remember our first definition of faith: faith is the sight that sees the unseen. As verse one states, the faith-testimonies of the witnesses are evidence.

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (italics added).

Faith sees the unseen, but faith itself then provides tangible, substantial evidence to the realities of the unseen. Just as eyewitness testimonies are entered into evidence — in fact, are probably the most valuable kind of evidence — so are the testimonies of the “great cloud of witnesses” that surround us, all speaking clearly to us of the facts they saw through eyes that saw the unseen.

Witnessing is all about seeing, and these witnesses saw the unseen.

Copy out Hebrews 11:1-5, 11:39-12:1-3, using the word “witness” in place of the Greek “martureo” (as demonstrated earlier). With the understanding that “witnessing is all about seeing,” underline all the vision/seeing references in Hebrews 11:1-5, 11:39-12:1-3.

Correction, there is a two-part action to witnessing. First, witnesses see. Then they speak of what they saw. Without the seeing, then the speaking, witnesses cannot properly be considered witnesses. Not in the courtroom sense of Hebrews 11.

And in the meeting of the two parts to the action of “witnessing,” today's Key Thought comes in.

5 — The A__________ and F__________ is the W________ and the I_________.

We are instructed to look at or to fix our eyes on the Author and Finisher of Hebrews 12:2. Why are we to fix our eyes on Him? Because He became visible! The invisible God made Himself visible!

The vast majority of the witnesses of Hebrews 11 fixed their eyes on the invisible. The language of Hebrews 11 brings out the theme of visible vs. invisible overtly in its first five verses. But all throughout the chapter, there is an emphasis on faith as the sight that sees the unseen. None of the faith-hero witnesses saw God's promises fulfilled to completion in this life. They died believing those promises, anyway. They had their eyes fixed on the unseen. But the “us” of Hebrews 11:40 and 12:1-3 were privileged to fix their eyes on the invisible God made visible.

Where does the Word come into the picture? In the second part of the action of witnessing.

What is the two-part action of witnessing? How does that action relate to the Word and the Image?

He is the God who speaks. He is the Word. But how does He speak to us? Right! Most often, through His witnesses.

To me, He speaks usually through His written Word. And that Word is full of the witnesses we've been learning about this study. Some of those witnesses were responsible for writing down that Word.

But all the witnesses of Hebrews 11, like Abel, “...being dead yet speaketh...”

In fact, often, it is their deaths that speak louder than their words ever did.

The witness of faith, not only of the Hebrews 11 faith-heroes and heroines but of Hebrews 11's original reading audience, is one of the most powerful evidences of the reality of the unseen realities.

I said yesterday that we're not finished with the question of why God would allow John the Baptist and all the other faith-heroes to die without seeing all the fulfillments of His promises. I said that we'd talk about one very specific reason those were God's plans (and that reason is us).

Here's that reason: through the deaths-by-martyrdom that God allowed His witnesses to endure, their courtroom evidence is unshakable.

The Greek word for “witness” is “martur” or “martureo.” The reason we call the early martyrs of the Christian faith “martyrs” is because it was the title they chose for themselves. They saw themselves as simply that. Witnesses.

The “us” addressed by the writer of Hebrews were pointed back to earlier witnesses, those who witnessed to the unseen sights they saw through faith-eyes. Many of those earlier witnesses died martyr's deaths rather than deny the truths they proclaimed. Those first-century Christians needed the reminders and the examples. Many of them would die in the same way — not for testifying to the invisible but testifying to the visible they were privileged to see. And through those testimonies, God would do a powerful work. A witnessing work still going on today. A witnessing work witnessing to us!

I find the evidence of those early witnesses to be irrefutable. I've heard it said and believe it: “A man may die for a lie he believes to be the truth. No man dies for a lie he knows to be a lie.”

The first witnesses of the first Easter Sunday died for their insistence that they had seen a Man come back to life from the grave again. History tells us that persecution of the early Christians was rampant already in the first century after Christ's birth. There wasn't enough time for the story to have been corrupted by the passage of years. Those who died for the story would have known what they were dying for. If it was a lie, they wouldn't have died for it. No, they saw what they saw, they spoke of it, and they died as a result.

Who are the first and last faith-heroes of Hebrews 11 (vv. 3, 40)?

Hebrews 11 opens and closes with the same faith-heroes. “We.” “Us.” The “us” and “we” of the first-century church are some of the most important witnesses to the us and we of this century. But it doesn't end there. We (as in, you and I) were included in God's mind in the “us” of Hebrews 11. All those who begin by believing that there is a Creator God and end by believing in His “some better thing” in the Person of His Son, Jesus Christ, are included among His faith-heroes. And His witnesses.

The Author and Finisher started off our faith. He'll finish it. He began all of our faith journeys by revealing (through His speaking) that He is! Most of us learned to know Him as Creator before we knew any other thing about Him. We arrive at our faith-destinations by believing in the Fulfillment of His promise — the Creator God became part of His creation, took on human flesh, and became one of us.

And all of us who see the unseen to see the Creator and the Fulfillment of His promises have been made witnesses. He is still the God who speaks. It's awesome and awe-striking, terrifying but terrific, to realize that He's still speaking, not only through His dead witnesses but through His living ones.

We're surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses. The star witness was God's own Son. Some of those witnesses died martyr's deaths so we could know the truth. God did not waste their sufferings. He used them. He's the Builder intent on building His house. He wanted the world to know Him, and He still does. He provided good, solid evidence for us to come to believe and to know the reality of Him.

But now the challenge for us is, “Keep on going!” Now it's incumbent on us that we don't waste those witnesses' sufferings in our own lives. Instead, we can use them. We can take heart from them and learn from them when we're tempted to turn back when the race gets rough.

And we can look to the examples of Hebrews 11 and 12:1-3 to realize that God will not waste whatever He calls us to endure, either. He'll use it all.

Never forget: this life is only the beginning of real life.

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ___________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

WEEK 10 Group Study — Heb. 12:1-3, 11:37-40

Review Readings: Hebrews 12:1-3, 11:37-40, 1:6, 2:10-11, Malachi 3:1, 2 Corinthians 5:6-7

* * * * *

Key Thoughts for Review:

The A_________ and F___________ f___________ what He s__________. (Heb. 12:1-3)

1 — The A____________ and F____________ is the F____________. (Heb. 1:6, 2:10-11)

2 — John the Baptist paved the way for the B____________. (Heb. 11:37b.-39, Mal. 3:1)

3 — The P____________ K____________ kept His p____________ to “us.” (Heb. 11:39-40, Mal. 3:1)

4 — For us, the S________ K__________'s s________ separates only to unite. (Heb. 11:40, 2 Cor. 5:6)

5 — The A_________ and F__________ is the W________ and the I_________. (Heb. 12:1-3, 2 Cor. 5:7)

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: The Author & The Finisher

1 — Review the Key Thoughts to share new insights on the Author and the Finisher.

2 — What connections can you see between this week's two portraits: the Author and the Finisher?

3 — Has any theme from this week's lessons emerged in a personal way for you?

4 — Share any faith-shaking struggles with God's promises that you feel comfortable sharing.

5 — How does it speak to you personally to know that the Finisher finishes what He starts?

And finally, one last, last time, please share any of your own discoveries this study about...

1 — Who is God: what is He like? ____________________________________

2 — Who am I: how does God see me? _____________________________________

* * * * *

*A reference to The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (Lewis, C.S., Glasgow: William Collins and Sons & Co. Ltd., 1950, 1980)

All Scripture passages quoted are from the King James Version of the Bible, public domain.

Name meanings were taken from Cruden's Concordance (Westwood, NJ: Barbour & Co., Inc., 1987.)

Information on the original Greek and definitions were taken from Bible Student's English-Greek Concordance and Greek-English Dictionary (Gall, James, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1975, 1983.)

Table of Contents

PORTRAIT # 1: The Word & The Image — Heb. 1:1-3 4

Week 1, Day 1: The Word and the Image — Hebrews 1:1-3 5

Week 1, Day 2: Creation, Part I — Hebrews 11:3 9

Week 1, Day 3: Creation, Part II — Hebrews 11:3 12

Week 1, Day 4: Creation, Part III — Hebrews 11:3 17

Week 1, Day 5: Creation, Part IV — Hebrews 11:3 21

WEEK 1 Group Study — Heb. 1:1-3, Heb. 11:3 26

PORTRAIT # 2: The Image & The Firstborn — Heb. 1-2 28

Week 2, Day 1: The Image and the Firstborn — Hebrews 1-2 29

Week 2, Day 2: Abel — Hebrews 11:4 33

Week 2, Day 3: Enoch, Part I — Hebrews 11:5-6 38

Week 2, Day 4: Enoch, Part II — Hebrews 11:5-6 42

Week 2, Day 5: Noah — Hebrews 11:7 46

WEEK 2 Group Study — Heb. 1-2, Heb. 11:4-7 51

PORTRAIT # 3: The Firstborn & The Builder — Heb. 3:1-6 53

Week 3, Day 1: The Firstborn and the Builder — Hebrews 3:1-6 54

Week 3, Day 2: Abraham, Part I — Hebrews 11:8 57

Week 3, Day 3: Abraham, Part II — Hebrews 11:9-10, 11:13-16 62

Week 3, Day 4: Abraham and Sarah — Hebrews 11:11-12 67

Week 3, Day 5: Abraham and Isaac — Hebrews 11:17-19 72

WEEK 3 Group Study — Heb. 3:1-6, Heb. 11:8-19 77

PORTRAIT # 4: The Firstborn & The Builder (Part 2) Heb. 1-2, 3:1-6 79

Week 4, Day 1: The Firstborn and the Builder — Hebrews 1-2, 3:1-6 80

Week 4, Day 2: Isaac — Hebrews 11:20 85

Week 4, Day 3: Jacob — Hebrews 11:21 89

Week 4, Day 4: Joseph, Part I — Hebrews 11:22 94

Week 4, Day 5: Joseph, Part II — Hebrews 11:22 99

WEEK 4 Group Study — Heb. 1,-2, 3:1-6, Heb. 11:20-22 104

PORTRAIT # 5: The Firstborn & The Builder (Part 3) — Heb. 2:11-18, 3:1-6 106

Week 5, Day 1: The Firstborn and the Builder — Hebrews 2:11-18, 3:1-6 107

Week 5, Day 2: Moses, Part I — Hebrews 11:23 111

Week 5, Day 3: Moses, Part II — Hebrews 11:24-26 116

Week 5, Day 4: Moses, Part III — Hebrews 11:27 120

Week 5, Day 5: Moses, Part IV — Hebrews 11:28 124

WEEK 5 Group Study — Heb. 2:11-18, 3:1-6, Heb. 11:23-28 129

PORTRAIT # 6: The Builder & The Promise Keeper — Heb. 3:1-19, 4:1-11 131

Week 6, Day 1: The Builder & The Promise Keeper — Hebrews 3:1-19, 4:1-11 132

Week 6, Day 2: The Nation Israel — Hebrews 11:29 137

Week 6, Day 3: The Nation Israel and Joshua — Hebrews 11:30 142

Week 6, Day 4: Rahab — Hebrews 11:31 147

Week 6, Day 5: Joshua and Rahab — Hebrews 11:30-31 151

WEEK 6 Group Study — Heb. 3:1-19, 4:1-11, Heb. 11:29-31 156

PORTRAIT # 7: The Promise Keeper & The Sword Keeper — Heb. 4 158

Week 7, Day 1: The Promise Keeper and the Sword Keeper — Hebrews 4 159

Week 7, Day 2: Gideon — Hebrews 11:32-34 163

Week 7, Day 3: Barak — Hebrews 11:32-34 168

Week 7, Day 4: Jephthah — Hebrews 11:32-34 173

Week 7, Day 5: Samson — Hebrews 11:32-34 178

WEEK 7 Group Study — Heb. 4, Heb. 11:32-34 183

PORTRAIT # 8: The Promise Keeper & The Sword Keeper (Part 2) — Heb. 4 185

Week 8, Day 1: The Promise Keeper and the Sword Keeper — Hebrews 4 186

Week 8, Day 2: Samuel — Hebrews 11:32-34 190

Week 8, Day 3: Samuel and David — Hebrews 11:32-34 194

Week 8, Day 4: David, Part I — Hebrews 11:32-34 199

Week 8, Day 5: David, Part II — Hebrews 11:32-34 204

WEEK 8 Group Study — Heb. 4, 11:32-34 209

PORTRAIT # 9: The Sword Keeper & The Author — Heb. 4:12-16, 5:1-10 211

Week 9, Day 1: The Sword Keeper and the Author — Hebrews 4:12-16, 5:1-10 212

Week 9, Day 2: Elijah and Elisha — Hebrews 11:32, 35 217

Week 9, Day 3: Daniel, the Man of God, and Samson — Hebrews 11:32-33 222

Week 9, Day 4: Daniel's Friends — Hebrews 11:32, 34 227

Week 9, Day 5: The Martyred Prophets — Hebrews 11:32, 35-37 231

WEEK 9 Group Study — Heb. 4:12-16, 5:1-10, 11:32-37 236

PORTRAIT # 10: The Author & The Finisher — Heb. 12:1-3 238

Week 10, Day 1: The Author and the Finisher — Hebrews 12:1-3 239

Week 10, Day 2: John the Baptist — Hebrews 11:37-39 243

Week 10, Day 3: “Us” — Hebrews 11:39-40 248

Week 10, Day 4: Us — Hebrews 11:39-40 252

Week 10, Day 4: Jesus and His Witnesses — Hebrews 11-12:1-3 257

WEEK 10 Group Study — Heb. 12:1-3, 11:37-40 262

Table of Contents

PORTRAIT # 1: The Word & The Image — Heb. 1:1-3 4

Week 1, Day 1: The Word and the Image — Hebrews 1:1-3 5

Week 1, Day 2: Creation, Part I — Hebrews 11:3 9

Week 1, Day 3: Creation, Part II — Hebrews 11:3 12

Week 1, Day 4: Creation, Part III — Hebrews 11:3 17

Week 1, Day 5: Creation, Part IV — Hebrews 11:3 21

WEEK 1 Group Study — Heb. 1:1-3, Heb. 11:3 26

PORTRAIT # 2: The Image & The Firstborn — Heb. 1-2 28

Week 2, Day 1: The Image and the Firstborn — Hebrews 1-2 29

Week 2, Day 2: Abel — Hebrews 11:4 33

Week 2, Day 3: Enoch, Part I — Hebrews 11:5-6 38

Week 2, Day 4: Enoch, Part II — Hebrews 11:5-6 42

Week 2, Day 5: Noah — Hebrews 11:7 46

WEEK 2 Group Study — Heb. 1-2, Heb. 11:4-7 51

PORTRAIT # 3: The Firstborn & The Builder — Heb. 3:1-6 53

Week 3, Day 1: The Firstborn and the Builder — Hebrews 3:1-6 54

Week 3, Day 2: Abraham, Part I — Hebrews 11:8 57

Week 3, Day 3: Abraham, Part II — Hebrews 11:9-10, 11:13-16 62

Week 3, Day 4: Abraham and Sarah — Hebrews 11:11-12 67

Week 3, Day 5: Abraham and Isaac — Hebrews 11:17-19 72

WEEK 3 Group Study — Heb. 3:1-6, Heb. 11:8-19 77

PORTRAIT # 4: The Firstborn & The Builder (Part 2) Heb. 1-2, 3:1-6 79

Week 4, Day 1: The Firstborn and the Builder — Hebrews 1-2, 3:1-6 80

Week 4, Day 2: Isaac — Hebrews 11:20 85

Week 4, Day 3: Jacob — Hebrews 11:21 89

Week 4, Day 4: Joseph, Part I — Hebrews 11:22 94

Week 4, Day 5: Joseph, Part II — Hebrews 11:22 99

WEEK 4 Group Study — Heb. 1,-2, 3:1-6, Heb. 11:20-22 104

PORTRAIT # 5: The Firstborn & The Builder (Part 3) — Heb. 2:11-18, 3:1-6 106

Week 5, Day 1: The Firstborn and the Builder — Hebrews 2:11-18, 3:1-6 107

Week 5, Day 2: Moses, Part I — Hebrews 11:23 111

Week 5, Day 3: Moses, Part II — Hebrews 11:24-26 116

Week 5, Day 4: Moses, Part III — Hebrews 11:27 120

Week 5, Day 5: Moses, Part IV — Hebrews 11:28 124

WEEK 5 Group Study — Heb. 2:11-18, 3:1-6, Heb. 11:23-28 129

PORTRAIT # 6: The Builder & The Promise Keeper — Heb. 3:1-19, 4:1-11 131

Week 6, Day 1: The Builder & The Promise Keeper — Hebrews 3:1-19, 4:1-11 132

Week 6, Day 2: The Nation Israel — Hebrews 11:29 137

Week 6, Day 3: The Nation Israel and Joshua — Hebrews 11:30 142

Week 6, Day 4: Rahab — Hebrews 11:31 147

Week 6, Day 5: Joshua and Rahab — Hebrews 11:30-31 151

WEEK 6 Group Study — Heb. 3:1-19, 4:1-11, Heb. 11:29-31 156

PORTRAIT # 7: The Promise Keeper & The Sword Keeper — Heb. 4 158

Week 7, Day 1: The Promise Keeper and the Sword Keeper — Hebrews 4 159

Week 7, Day 2: Gideon — Hebrews 11:32-34 163

Week 7, Day 3: Barak — Hebrews 11:32-34 168

Week 7, Day 4: Jephthah — Hebrews 11:32-34 173

Week 7, Day 5: Samson — Hebrews 11:32-34 178

WEEK 7 Group Study — Heb. 4, Heb. 11:32-34 183

PORTRAIT # 8: The Promise Keeper & The Sword Keeper (Part 2) — Heb. 4 185

Week 8, Day 1: The Promise Keeper and the Sword Keeper — Hebrews 4 186

Week 8, Day 2: Samuel — Hebrews 11:32-34 190

Week 8, Day 3: Samuel and David — Hebrews 11:32-34 194

Week 8, Day 4: David, Part I — Hebrews 11:32-34 199

Week 8, Day 5: David, Part II — Hebrews 11:32-34 204

WEEK 8 Group Study — Heb. 4, 11:32-34 209

PORTRAIT # 9: The Sword Keeper & The Author — Heb. 4:12-16, 5:1-10 211

Week 9, Day 1: The Sword Keeper and the Author — Hebrews 4:12-16, 5:1-10 212

Week 9, Day 2: Elijah and Elisha — Hebrews 11:32, 35 217

Week 9, Day 3: Daniel, the Man of God, and Samson — Hebrews 11:32-33 222

Week 9, Day 4: Daniel's Friends — Hebrews 11:32, 34 227

Week 9, Day 5: The Martyred Prophets — Hebrews 11:32, 35-37 231

WEEK 9 Group Study — Heb. 4:12-16, 5:1-10, 11:32-37 236

PORTRAIT # 10: The Author & The Finisher — Heb. 12:1-3 238

Week 10, Day 1: The Author and the Finisher — Hebrews 12:1-3 239

Week 10, Day 2: John the Baptist — Hebrews 11:37-39 243

Week 10, Day 3: “Us” — Hebrews 11:39-40 248

Week 10, Day 4: Us — Hebrews 11:39-40 252

Week 10, Day 4: Jesus and His Witnesses — Hebrews 11-12:1-3 257

WEEK 10 Group Study — Heb. 12:1-3, 11:37-40 262