Review
If you’ve been following our Monday night Bible studies, you already know that we’ve been trying to do something a little crazy. We’re reading the Gospel of Mark and the Epistle to the Hebrews in tandem. More specifically, we’re attempting to use the high-flown, enigmatic theology of Hebrews as kind of lens through which to view the fast-paced, briskly worded narrative of Mark.
Here’s what we’ve said so far:
- Covenant: Hebrews presents Jesus as the High Priest and Mediator of a new and better way of knowing God. He is God’s Final Word. As both man and God He’s superior to the angels, who were viewed as mediators of the Old Covenant (Hebrews 2:2; Acts 7:53).
- Kingdom: Mark presents Jesus as the Proclaimer and Introducer of the Kingdom of God; the Establisher of a new “Arky”[i] (Greek arche) – a Principle of Power, Dominion, Authority, and Governance that supplants all others. Ultimately, this “Kingdom” is all about Allegiance. Jesus calls us to pledge our allegiance to Him alone; as illustrated in Mark’s account of the calling of the first disciples, who left the “Arkys” of career and family to follow Christ.
- Identification. According to Hebrews, Jesus, in his humanity, identifies with us completely. Mark gives us a picture of this identification in his portrayal of the baptism and temptation of Christ.
Hebrews 3
The third chapter of Hebrews prepares the way for the next two or three chapters in Mark by introducing us to yet another aspect of Christ’s “superiority”: His superiority to Moses. Read Hebrews 3 with these ideas in mind:
- Among first-century Jews there was no greater Allegiance than the allegiance to the Law and the Sabbath. These were the “Arkys” that defined their national identity.
- Above all else, Moses was the Giver of the Law. In verses 1-6, the writer of Hebrews cites Numbers 12:6-8 as a reminder that Moses was unlike any other prophet because God spoke to him directly – “face to face” or “mouth to mouth.” Moses was Israel’s ultimate authority.
- Moses was a faithful servant in the house of God (verse 2). Jesus, on the other hand, is not a servant, but the Son: the heir of the entire estate (verse 6). In fact, He’s the builder of the house (verse 3). Jesus is superior to Moses because He is God.
- We’ll want to bear all this in mind when we get to Mark 1:22, where it is said that Jesus taught “with authority” (Greek exousia[ii]), as contrasted with the scribes (representatives of Moses), who did not. The authority of Jesus eclipses the authority of the Old Covenant.
- Verses 12-19 of Hebrews 3 reminds us of the many times Jesus had run-ins with the scribes and Pharisees over the observance of the Sabbath. These verses talk about the “Rest” that God has prepared for those who trust Him. That “Rest” is not a matter of religious observance or patriotic identification, as it was for many Jews, but of entering into the Reality of God’s promise.
- Commenting on Mark 3:1-6, N.T. Wright notes that Jesus often appears “to drive a coach and horses” through the institution of the Sabbath. Why does He do this? Because He wants us to know that God’s people find their Rest and their Identity in Him alone.
Final Thoughts
“Jesus
is superior to Moses.” This isn’t
“anti-Semitism.” Nor is it a way of
saying, “Neener-neener-neener, my God’s better than your God!” It’s an assertion that Jesus Christ is The
Real Thing – The Reality of God Himself.
Only He can lead us into the true Rest in which we cease from Self and
learn to rely on Him. Moses and the
people who followed him never tasted that Reality; they never made it to the
Land of Promise (verse 16). The Law of
Moses, like all the other “Arkys” to which we render allegiance, was nothing
but a shadow. In the words of Paul, it
was only “our tutor to lead us to Christ” (Galatians 3:24).
[i] Vernard Eller, Christian Anarchy
[ii] The second word in the pair “Powers and Principalities”, Ephesians 6:12
I happen to be in a study of the songs of Revelation at present. Part of this may be relevant to the matter of unbelief that the writer of Hebrews speaks about:
In Rev 4 and 5 we get a glimpse of the true nature of the King of the Universe at the very center of His glory and power. As I have been meditating on this at some length, I realize that really seeing, in every sense of the word, who He is, matters. One thing really caught my attention. In Rev 5:6 the Lamb is described as having the seven Spirits of God (Isaiah 11:1-2) One of these spirits is the fear of the Lord. I think it implies that the fear of the Lord is a spiritual gift from God. And that this particular spiritual gift IS the capacity to recognize who God is, as revealed to John in Rev 4 & 5. Nothing overpowers unbelief like the knowledge of who God truly is. Yet it seems that it must be a living understanding in my own spirit. I need that witness in my heart. Much the same that I came to the witness in my spirit that Jesus was raised from the dead as something known, not by sight, but by faith, as a confidence that I rest in. (Heb 3:6)
David went after Goliath, who, many believe is a descendent of the giants that the Israelites were afraid of as they were poised to enter the promised land. In the natural mind and the flesh, the Israelites were afraid of the giants in the land. And as the armies of Saul faced another giant, Goliath was bigger than their idea of God. It was the wilderness pattern of unbelief repeated yet again. They were afraid to fight him as an infantryman in close combat. But David didn’t fight Goliath on this pagan giant’s own terms. His confidence was in God, that God had prepared him, equipped him and would be with him as he fought on the basis of “who is the uncircumcised Philistine that he should defy the armies of the living God?”. Like Elisha (2Kings 6:16) who saw more clearly “do not fear, for those who are with us are more than those who are with them” David understood who God is, and what He could do. This is the very thing the Israelites forgot in the wilderness. Despite the works of God which they had seen, they “forgot” who He is, and what He can do.
I recent read N.T. Wright’s book “A Case For The Psalms”. In it he proposes that even Jesus disciples “lived in” the Psalms. That they were an emotional language that dominated and filtered their experience in the knowledge of God and His ways as they were sung. Songs have a way of getting into our hearts in a way nothing else does. Forgive my bias, as someone who gets to lead worship, I spend much private time preparing, and I know how God’s heart, when it is sung, displaces everything else. I think that’s why the key revelations of who God is, and who the Lamb is are sung in heaven.
In church we sing “No Longer Slaves”. I really like this version by Zach Williams sung live from Harding Prison in Tennessee. Seeing some of the prisoners worshiping is powerful https://youtu.be/bDnA_coA168
Thanks, Richard. These are great thoughts
Goodness, over the last few weeks it has become painfully obvious how much my sense of “rest” is contingent on the Archy of me being “in control” of my life. And connected to this is the tightly-held fear that releasing control to God will mean disaster because he doesn’t care about my specific, finite circumstances. Trying to stay in the driver’s seat all the time is exhausting and self-defeating but I somehow have to REALLY internalize that the deeper truth is that God is not only the maker and shaper of all things but that He deeply LOVES those whom he created.
Yes! Thanks for this, Beth!
So good. I love your definition of true rest….that it is to cease from Self and learn to rely on Him alone. It also makes me think of Psalm 131, and our soul being like a weaned child resting with its mother.
Yes! Vern Eller uses that as one of his key references in the book CHRISTIAN ANARCHY.
I love the connection of Jesus’ speaking with authority (per Mark 1:22) to this Hebrews’ premise re. Arky. I’d not thought of it that way before. I had usually just thought of Jesus’ evidential authority (referenced elsewhere in the Gospels as well) being perhaps simply about his style and effectiveness as a communicator. But this is more about a theological authority–about the author of truth speaking with an authority unique to only an author. In Rhetoric it’s what we call “Ethos” (one of Aristotle’s “appeals” from his classic work, “Rhetoric”)–inherent, experiential, and moral authority. It’s like the difference between my speaking theoretically about, say, what it must be like for a woman in some regard (for example) and a woman speaking to the same issue. She is going to have far more ethos/authority than I, beyond (even regardless of) the truth of what is being said. Jesus’ evident authority was not just in how he spoke and even the theological truth he spoke of . . . it’s the authority inherent in the author of theology.
Thank you for this, Jim.
thank you Jim for your insights.
Thanks, Cyndi! You’re very kind!
I’m in…
I love this. I want to think more about entering into this rest. Could you identify some of the practices/beliefs/or what have you that the writer of Hebrews might want those first readers to give up because they were able to grasp onto rest in Christ alone? Or does entering into this rest mean that anything is given up?
Control, maybe?
Moses, the Law, the Sabbath … what Arkys are common among us that we allow to rival the One to Whom we owe our allegiance. I confess: “Well done” from an employer can mean more to me emotionally than it does coming from Christ.
Dorothy and Tom — I think Tom’s questions are very much to the point. The “Rest” described in Hebrews 3 is probably much the same thing as the “Freedom” Jesus proclaims in His announcement of the Good News (euangelion). Like Tom — probably much more so than Tom — I am far too dependent upon the praise and affirmation of others, whether employers, managers, authority figures, or just friends and co-workers. It’s my insecurity talking. But it also means that I have granted these people a certain amount of control over my mental state — in other words, I’m not free — and that I’m working too hard to please — in other words, I’m not resting in Christ alone. So in a way it all comes down to an “Arky” issue. I would guess that the key lies not in giving anything up, but in an adjustment of attitude. It’s Luther’s dictum again: “The Christian is the most free lord of all, and subject to none; the Christian is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to everyone.” I am not a slave to employers, kings, presidents, friends, or neighbors; but I CAN freely serve them precisely because I DON’T HAVE TO.
Beautiful . . . and I might add another Arky in whom we dare not pretend to rest (and yet can find so alluring)–politics.
Good point! I was thinking similarly that we can be fond of relegating the Gospel of Christ’s superiority to the Old Testament represented in Moses. But I suspect it’s more that the superiority (the “fulfillment” of the Law that Christ speaks of in his Sermon on the Mount [Matt. 5]) is over any and all religion (the contemporary Christian evangelical version included) whose “Arky” is the Law. This seems to me the “reality” of Christ’s fulfillment of the Law (i.e., the end goal and object toward which the Law can only point)–personal relationship with God, consummated through Christ, as the fulfillment of the supreme law, Love for God (and the necessary consequential evidence, love for neighbors).
This is why Christian church motivated by structure and form (and compliance with its “laws”) rather than by love (for God and neighbors) must always fall short and be unfulfilled. I think we can all see examples in our churches and in our own lives of how this same misdirection of motivation and purpose that the Moses-followers of early-church times is very much still the challenge to authentic, “restful” faith for us today.
Many thanks to you, Craig, and to all of you for these great comments. Maybe we should do the Bible study this way all the time!
no.