partsofspeaking

 A running motif in Scripture is that the second replaces the first. This is comforting and yet perplexing.  Christ is the second Adam. The first son of Adam killed the second one (and the third became the heir). The second son of Abraham was the promised one. The second son of Isaac inherited the blessing, through deceit but it was in the plan. The second leader of Israel took them into the promised land. Even in the Prodigal Son story, the second son is restored and the first is told to back off from his self-righteousness (or this is how it is commonly interpreted; I have my doubts on that).  The first born were sacrificed at Passover, or saved if a different sacrifice was applied.  I have heard some take this motif to strange places, but that is not the point. In one way it is comforting--we all get second chances. We all need second chances; actually, thousands of chances. (I'll put in a plug here for Dave's Killer Bread. I read the wrapper and found out Dave was in prison

 My father's name was Salem, which means "peace." His life was not peaceful. It was brief and disappointing. But he was honest and worked hard and produced four children, half of which led normal and healthy lives. We were all unhealthy in our own ways, three of us with heart issues requiring treatments before our early fifties. Two had mental health problems.  I bring this up because Melchizedek is introduced (again; I should say re-introduced) as the King of Salem, which is King of Peace. He had no father or mother. We all do, and they influence us beyond imagination even when we don't want them to. The more we resis it, the more they influence us. At some point we should give it up and make our own choices, realizing hat even our choices our parents don't like are influenced by them and our response to them.  As I struggle with my own personal issues, I cannot ignore that I had a father and a mother. They, long dead, still "live" in my actions and cho

https://thefederalist.com/2014/01/17/the-death-of-expertise/?fbclid=IwAR2KCDceWcTDWVU5GwBbLLEizOWxMkItj119OKliIXB5abGAiDZsYqiFdKY Love this article. So many thoughts. I'm an expert....I've spent years studying a field, and yet there is so much more to learn.  One does not have to be an academic to be an expert, but one does have to devote 10,000 hours to it (I'm quoting Amy Duckworth's Grit here).   I don't think I know how to determine Middle East policy or public health just because I'm knowledgeable about something else and because I read some articles.  Comments welcome.

It may seem I am moving faster here; I'm sure I'll loop back.     “Hope that is sure and steadfast.” Hope has to be one of the most comforting, consoling, and beautiful concepts in the Bible.   It takes faith to the next level. It is the anchor of the soul, sure and steadfast. Hope is not an emotion in Scripture, but a certain expectation of the future. This hope enters the presence of God, the Holy of Holies, behind the veil, because Jesus is the perfect non-Levite priest.   The chapter 7 marker is out of place, maybe placed there because we move into the Melchizedek section.   Here is gets complicated, delving into Judaic culture and legal issues, but it ends in 7:19: “The law made nothing perfect (his readers knew that; they were struggling to follow the law).” On the other hand, “there is the bringing in of the better hope, by which we draw near to God.” Psalm 110:4 is the key here. To the Son and the Messiah, God say, “You are a priest forever in the

 I voted already. Why must I endure all these text messages? I do not look forward to a Biden administration. Only one advantage: no tweeting.

I struggle with understanding "anger at God." Especially from people who don't believe in God.  That's kind of illogical, but it's actually a thing.  Yet, perhaps anger at God, for a believer, says more than acquiescence to what happens to us, as if everything is His will and we are supposed to accept it.   Questioning is fine. Doubt is not final. Deep disappointment is even necessary. It shows we are alive.  But anger at God. Where does that come from? From a good place or a bad place? Anger is usually from expectation, so we need to question what we can expect from God.  If one is angry at God, I would expect it should be reserved for the truly tragic events of life: sudden death of spouse or child, severe illness.  But are we ever angry about the evil, the poverty, the murders, the oppression others endure? Or is all our anger from our own experience.We still have genocides on this planet, and it doesn't show up in the US news media because we want to know

 One other theme of Hebrews is "waiting for the promise." Abraham is the example of "already but not yet." He did receive the promise of a son. He did not--could not on earth--see the fulfillment of "multiplying I will multiply you." He would not see the generations of Israel and he would not see his greatest descendant and he would not see the family of the faithful.  Verse 17 says "that by two immutable thing, in which it is impossible for God to lie [I believe these are His character and Word] we (might) have strong consolation, who had fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us" (a verse that sounds like Paul in Philippians 2 and 3).  "Lay hold of the hope set before us." Powerful words. Laying hold takes us back to verse 15: "After Abraham had patiently endured, he obtained the promise."  Let's be real: the New Testament emphasizes endurance. Not necessarily physical, although sometimes that comes into it W

 Have you ever thought about the power, the utility, the nuisance, the hope, the despair, the humor, ....of the word "but"? "But" can stop conversations and empower them.  "But" can make you see something in a new way, or make you want to slap the user.  "But" is in some glorious verses in the Bible: Ephesians 2:3-4. Romans 8:8-9. Philippians 3:7. And many more.  I'm glad for "but." However (another form of it), I've learned that in general conversation, "and" can work better. For critical thinking and creativity in general, "both/and" language can serve more than "but/or" language.    

Hebrews is about the supremacy of Christ and the centrality of faith for accessing the presence and blessings of Christ. The Israelites had promises, starting with Abraham, bu they exchanged the promises for legalistic obedience that they could control. They even made more laws to prove they had control. But that is hardly an ethic characteristics; we all would have done the same.  Verse 12 ties into Hebrews 11. It's almost as if 6:13-chapter 10 is an interlude to this theme of faith. "Imitate those who faith and patience inherit the promises"--exactly the message of Hebrews 11.  The context is that "we expect better things of you than falling away. You have been faithful and God is not unjust or ungrateful. He knows what you're doing and going through." Jesus becoming human taught Him that. This verse implies their own agency to choose to leave the faith.  Is there a difference between apostatizing and leaving the faith? Perhaps. Apostates become enemies of

 According to the text, if a person rejects Christ after living in the Christian community (see more below), they put Christ to an open shame by "crucifying Him again." Christ was put to an open shame once for our benefit; to do it again shames Him again because one's actions and disbelief (the core of Hebrews) has shown His first death "didn't work."  Do you do other things that say the first death for us "didn't work"? We do when we keep adding things to the gospel, whether doctrines, actions, rituals, or "demographic requirements." Then the writer gives an analogy from nature. Think of land that is cultivated and well watered by rain (a better irrigant than well water, as any one with a garden will know) but bears no fruit and in fact bears noxious plants. This land is of no use and is burned. Land that is burned can lie fallow and then perhaps be used later, but it's not useful for a wild. It has, if land could have a will, go

 What is spiritual maturity? What we want is a template or rubric: if you do such and such, know this and that, have gone through whatever, you are mature.  It's not that simple.  The Bible uses words such as "perfection" or "completion" or "Christlikeness" for this concept.  Galatians 6:1 "Brethren, if a man is [ a ] overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted." It's all right and desirable to know you are spiritually mature, but you can't depend on that! Philippians 3:13-15 13  Brethren, I do not count myself to have [ d ] apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, 14  I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. 15  Therefore let us, as many as are mature, have this mind; and if in anything you think otherwise, Go

 Since a library has been written on Hebrews 6, I will not purport to add anything to the debate. I've been taught that "It is impossible" means that apostasy is impossible. I don't see that logic in the English text, but not being a Greek scholar, I am probably missing something. It might also mean that apostasy is possible but restoration afterward is impossible.  It is a warning of the highest order to people who have been deeply involved in the Christian experience but stopped and walked the opposite way. To Baptists, the concept of apostasy is impossible: one who is truly a believer cannot leave the faith. I don't think it's that simple or cut and dried.  Perhaps our insistence that apostasy is impossible comes from a motive place different from adherence to Scripture. If someone professes and then spends 20 years out of church and living by their own rules and then comes back, we treat them as "backslidden" rather than a new convert. What nonse

 My political saga is over for this cycle because I voted yesterday. I was there probably an hour. I was voter #4001 at our station, which means they had  well over 800 a day in one of the two stations in the county. Amazing.  Let's just say I typed in a lot of names. My right to vote includes the right not to vote for the names on the ballot.  There were three important referenda on the ballot, so it was worth the trouble for that.

 I'm not really supposed to get political here (because I work for the state), but sometimes I post things like the following to see if anyone's paying attention.  1. The woman who is running for Congress from our district is an embarrassment and Congress will eat her alive. I hope so.  She has no business in that institution, no background, no credentials, to say nothing of her inane, insane views.  2. One of the songs from Hamilton is "I won't throw away my shot," which of course he does at the end of the play and is killed by Aaron Burr, who was one of the most profligate but tragic figures in American history. His grandfather was Jonathan Edwards, for Pete's sake, but he was a libertine of the highest order, to use an 18th century word, and a murderer. Some will accuse me of "throwing away my shot" in the election, but I can't in good conscience push the button for either or any. In the end, Hamilton threw away his shot because he couldn'

 Like most who watched the Disney-broadcast version of Hamilton: The Musical, I've been singing songs and remembering its highlights. I went one better, downloaded the Ron Chernow biography on which it is based. I'm within 50 pages of finishing.  I recommend it, although I realize few would take me up on it. It is 700 pages. The thing I've enjoyed most, beyond Hamilton's roller coaster life story and Chernow's writing, is all the history of the Revolutionary and early Constitutional period. So, some observations: 1. Jefferson was really a jerk. I daresay Washington would not be pleased that Jefferson is up there on Mt. Rushmore with him. The way he's portrayed in the musical doesn't begin to display his jerkiness, although Miranda has some fun with him. "What Did I Miss" is one of my favorite numbers. 2. Those politics made ours look polite. Good grief, they were crazy mean! 3. Hamilton was brilliant and more or less designed the country, but he ha

Hebrews 5:11 changes the tone, and the writer implies (or perhaps is more explicit) that he knows the audience rather well, or at least their reputation.  "I have more to say, but it's hard to explain because you have become dull of hearing and should be more advanced in your theological understanding by now."  I think 11-14 is really a good description of American Christianity today. "You need something easily digestible." In this case, he's talking about breast milk, not cow's milk, which really isn't easily digestible for humans and makes the metaphor even stronger. You should be eating something that you would have to chew on and could digest like an adult. The implication is that they are not maturing spiritually and intellectually (I don't think these can be separated so glibly). They should be able to study the Word for themselves and discern truth, but they became lazy, held back, and did not go on for some reason.  Those who want the eas

This may be the last post for a few days. I need to apply myself to another passage.   The point of 5:1-11 is to contrast a typical human Levitical priest with the perfection of Christ's priesthood. he was completed as a human being because of his experience of humility and suffering. He knows what humans experience is like and is therefore qualified to be an eternal priest and author of eternal salvation; He is a different quality of priest and intercessor, not just a bigger and better version of the same Levitical priests who had been around for 2,000 years, faithful and unfaithful. No verses speak more to his humanity, in a mystery. Verse 7 explains: He was afraid of the execution, of death. Death is not our friend. It may be a release from suffering, and it is not a horror to believers, but I'm uncomfortable when people lionize death as a benefit, a welcome, especially when they are unbelievers.  Death is not the way it's supposed to be. Death is a punishment. I remembe

  Hebrews 4:14-16 is sort of a climax; I have always found that passage very meaningful. Not because of I am enamored by the idea of a High Priest, but because of the magnificent and magnanimous grace it offers. The Jewish audience would have seen the High Priest role as central to their faith, but they also would have known that the men who had filled that role in their lifetimes were less than stellar spiritual personalities.   The human High Priests were an enemy of the real High Priest and of His followers. Human version of kings and such are tarnished, at best, replications of the true King. The admonishment is to “hold fast our confession,” based on the character of our real High Priest who didn’t offer animals as sacrifices but Himself, which is the continuing thought into Chapter 5. High Priests can, or should, be compassionate with sinners because they need the sacrifices themselves, and it’s an honor bestowed because of family, not because of any merit of the priests. So

 I got attracted to an Amazon Prime show from a few years back, Z The Beginning of Everything . An overblown name. It's about Zelda and Scott Fitzgerald.  Well, let me say it's pretty well done and I did get hooked, but I need to pull that plug. I've watch 8 of 10 episodes and have come to dislike the protagonists more and more.  Apparently Scott Fitzgerald thought that because he wrote a popular book he could rule the world. He's portrayed as a pompous ass and she a spoiled brat. Nobody could drink as much as they do in this show (although clearly they were alcoholics). How they lived off of people is amazing. They were self- and other destructive.  Of course, this is a dramatic program taking license. If it's 1/2 true, that's bad enough.  They are an example of what I call the Woody Allen myth: Artists are a different level of humanity and therefore not obliged to live under any rules of polite society (read: civilization). We can forgive them all kinds of lic

 These verses tie back to 3:1 and begin a longer section about Jesus as High Priest. Hebrews is really the only book that really talks about the High Priestly role of Jesus. (8 times or more) So 3:2-4:13 is not so much a digression or detour or random section put in there, as a warning to remind us of our precarious position without faith.  However, even though we are naked and open to God, we have a great High Priest who hasn't just offered sacrifices but "passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God" so, let us hold fast our profession (going back to the warning). So, if we are tempted to think he's jumping around, that only appears to be true because we aren't following the deeper argument and are only looking at highlights and often-quoted verses.  I think many of us have doubts about verse 15. We don't believe Jesus was THAT human in His life on earth. He was too pretty, ethereal, with that luscious hair, untouchable, etc  How about no?  Verse 15 does

 If you wonder about my method, there isn't one. I have chosen to pick a theme every day I post, not a verse by verse. I don't believe we can study the Bible without looping back. I don't think we can do much of anything without looping back.  The Lord of the Rings is based on ancient literature, even Plato, with the ring holding the power to be invisible. There is a popular thought question, as they call it: If you had a superpower, what would you choose? and sometimes the choices are invisibility and flight. I pick flight without even asking. I see no benefit to invisibility. Other people like the idea of being able to go anywhere and not be seen. I guess they can look at naked people with impunity, or they can be in on private conversations and make money.  Me, I'd rather fly.  Even as a child I wanted to be Mary Poppins.  There is probably a lot of psychoanalysis that could go into the why of these choices (such as a superpower to read minds, or to have super speed

The connection between, or from 4:11 to 4:12 is not about rest, but disobedience.  The Word of God is a mirror, a scalpel, a weapon, as well as a comfort and guide.  It will reveal if a person is liable to fall into the same kind of disobedience as the persons mentioned in the previous verses. There are other places where the Word is referred to as a weapon--Ephesians 6, Revelation 19:15. I think it is not entirely accurate to fully equate the Bible with the Word.  They may be in concentric circles (but in this case not a Venn diagram, although I think Venn diagrams are a great heuristic). The Word is allGod's expression and dealing with mankind. The Christ is called the Word. Even more, in this context, which is somewhat metaphorical (in form, not in meaning), the Word is involved in one of the "double-edged" characteristics of Go:  "And there is no creature hidden from His sight (just like the Word separates and slices through to investigate and understand our hidd

I am a little split, studying four different passages in my life right now, thus the delay on this one. Thankfully, on Thursday mornings I have time to myself. I'm attending two groups that are in Philippians, I will be teaching from Matthew starting October 11, I'm working on a book about Philemon, and then there's Hebrews. Fortunately, it all hangs together around Christ, and until we get that, we're just studying words.  4:11 really seems to be logically disconnected, despite the "Therefore." I had to reflect on this. Many of us know verses 12 and 13 or parts of it, but how do we get there. In verse 10 we have the end of the warning passage about entering rest, and not holding back from entering rest. "For he who has entered God's rest has himself also ceased from his works, as God did from His (in creation). Then verse 11 seems to follow: Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest.  Diligent does not mean struggling, hard working, etc. here.