I was asked yesterday about the meaning of something Paul wrote in 1 Timothy. First Timothy has some of the most debated words in all of Scripture! The specific question I was asked is this: “We know we are saved by grace through faith, yet Paul writes verse 15.” She’s referring to 1 Timothy 2:15. First, let’s examine the context.

Everything Paul is writing in 1 Timothy is to instruct Timothy how “one ought to behave in the household of God”—the church. Very specifically, many of his instructions have to do with the gathered assembly (see 1 Timothy 3:14–15). We’ll look at this more closely this Fall / Winter when we work our way through 1–2 Timothy.

In chapter 2, verses 8–15, Paul is addressing proper behavior in the gathered assembly. Men should pray, lifting holy hands but without anger or quarreling (v. 8), and women, he says, should wear “respectable apparel”. That is, they should wear clothing that is appropriate for the occasion. It would not be appropriate to wear, say, a bathing suit to worship on a Sunday morning. Instead, they should dress with modesty. Often when we hear the term “modesty” we immediately think of not being scantily clad or dressing in a provocative manner. That’s not what modesty means here. That’s what “respectable apparel” requires, but that’s not what modesty is. Paul specifically identifies the immodest showing off of wealth: “not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire” (v. 9) Yes, this means wearing your “Sunday best” may well be immodest if it shows off your wealth! Modesty suggests dressing in a manner that does not draw undue attention to one’s self.

Paul goes on to tell Timothy a woman should learn, but he does not allow women to teach in the gathered assembly. Again, we’ll look at this more closely in our upcoming sermon series. The reason Paul gives is the order of creation: Adam was created first and then Eve was created. Further, he says, Adam wasn’t deceived. He willfully and deliberately chose to rebel against God. Eve, on the other hand, was deceived and through this deception she transgressed God’s instruction to Adam before Adam did. This brings us to the verse in question.

Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

1 Timothy 2:15 ESV

What in the world? Salvation is by faith alone. It always has been. God has always required faith of his people. What is Paul saying here? Notice he switches from the singular to the plural. “She” will be saved through childbearing, if “they” continue in faith. He’s already mentioned Eve. She’s the obvious person that “she” refers to in this verse, but Paul seems to be speaking more generally here. “She” refers to any woman in the church.

There is much debate as to the meaning of the reference to childbearing. Some think it refers to the birth of Jesus, the one long-promised to Eve, the very one who would crush the head of the serpent. Eve overstepped her bounds and grasped authority she did not have. No one has the authority to disobey the Lord! Even though Eve disobeyed the Lord—albeit by having been deceived—yet Eve will be saved while she remains a woman. It is at this point that Paul shifts back to referring to all women. Eve will be saved in the same manner as all women who will be saved: by faith in Jesus, faith that persists in love and holiness and self-control.

While the reference to childbearing may refer to the promise of Jesus, still others think it is synecdoche—a figure of speech in which the part stands in for the whole. For example, saying “the White House” when referring to the entire Executive Branch of the United States of America is synecdoche. The Executive Branch is much larger than the White House, yet “the White House” is used to refer to it. If “childbearing” is synecdoche, to what whole is it referring? It’s referring to womanhood in general.

Childbearing is the exclusive domain of women. Not all women will bear children, or even can bear children, yet only women truly bear children. This is a gift God has given to only half the human race. Whether a woman can, has, or will bear children is not the point; childbearing is a reference to womanhood in general. The part stands for the whole. In Paul’s day the overwhelming majority of women married and bore children so he uses childbearing as a stand-in for womanhood in general.

When Eve transgressed by eating the forbidden fruit, Genesis tells us she was deceived. She was deceived because she was not there when God gave the command. This is Paul’s point when he says Adam was created first. He was, quite literally, but God told Adam he must not eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil before he created Eve. This means it was Adam’s responsibility to teach Eve God’s commands. Adam clearly did not do so, at least not well, and so Eve was able to be deceived. We see a hint of this in her response to the serpent’s subtly manipulative question:

Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’”

Genesis 3:1–3 ESV

The problem is God did not say they could not touch the fruit. It’s not hard to imagine the wily serpent picking a piece of the fruit and tossing it to her. Her instinct would have been to grab it—and when she did, she did not die. That’s speculation on my part, but it shows how Eve’s recounting of what God told Adam was not quite accurate. This is how deception works: take some truth and twist it—not a lot for that would be too obvious. Twist it just enough that the person is left slightly confused. Being deceived, Eve overstepped her bounds and ate the fruit. With this in mind consider Paul’s words.

I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

1 Timothy 2:8–15 ESV

In the gathered assembly Paul says he does not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man. The reason is Adam was formed first and then Eve. Though Eve overstepped her bounds and became a transgressor, she will be saved through childbearing, that is, as a woman, as will all women who continue in faith and love and holiness and exercise self-control. A woman does not have to become a man or like a man.

What is really happening in this text? Again, Paul is instructing Timothy with regard to proper behavior in the church generally and the gathered assembly particularly. He says in the previous paragraph that the church in Ephesus is to pray for all people. Then he says in the above paragraph that men are to pray for all people, but without anger or fighting. Women are to dress appropriately in the household of God by not showing off their external beauty with things like gold and pearls. Instead they are to focus on good works as their adornment. They are not to overstep their bounds by assuming authority over the church, though they are to learn. Even though this is Paul’s practice, that is, to not let women teach in the gathered assembly or exercise authority over the church, women will still be saved as women in the same way men are saved: by faith in Jesus.

What is often lost in this discussion—as if the issue of “saved through childbearing” were the primary part debated in this text!—is the incredible word of hope that it is. Our value, both here on earth and in God’s kingdom, is not dependent on our role! Our value is in this: we bear God’s image. Male or female, we are created to represent the Lord here on earth in whatever capacity he gives us, whether an elder or deacon or lay member, whether a CEO or a temp worker, whether rich or poor, black or white, educated or uneducated. I love how New Testament scholar William Mounce put it:

Can essential equality and functional differentiation exist side by side? Underlying much of the discussion lies an implicit assumption that a limited role necessitates a diminished personal worth. It is no wonder that the discussion of women in ministry can become so heated. Yet the equating of worth and role is a nonbiblical, secular view of reality. Nowhere in Scripture are role and ultimate worth ever equated. In fact, we constantly find the opposite. The last will be first. The Suffering Servant himself is not worth less than those he served. Paul’s analogy of the church as Christ’s body teaches that role and worth are unrelated: “The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body”.

Willam D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, p. 148

Paul’s words about a woman being saved through childbearing is itself synecdoche, for as a woman is saved by faith regardless of her earthly status, so we are saved by faith regardless of whatever role we occupy in this world. Society’s notions of worth and value are simply irrelevant in the economy of God. He loves his people and he shows this love in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Christ did not die for us because you and I have some inherent worth in us. Christ’s death creates in us the very worth God seeks. His love is what gives us value.

Racism is an ugly word, and it’s one that is often conflated with the related—but very distinct—word prejudice. In short, prejudice is a prejudgment. We all experience prejudice. If you run into a young man in the grocery store who is 6’10”, you probably assume he plays basketball. This is a rather neutral form of prejudice. Other than asking what is likely an annoying question—”Do you play basketball?”—little harm is done. Not all prejudice is harmless, however, even if the harm is relatively minor. Consider the experience of many Asian folk in this country. Simply based on their physical appearance, they are frequently asked—a bit more loudly and more slowly than normal, “Where are you from?”

Several years ago at a banquet at a local Christian university I was asked where my wife was from. I responded a bit more loudly and more slowly than I needed to, but I wanted him to understand where she was from: “Coo-pers-ville”. It may be easy to dismiss such questions as little more than annoyances, but given the dramatic increase in anti-Asian violence in this country it’s not hard to see the harm caused by assuming those who may appear different are therefore other. The prejudice—pre-judging—that leads to such assumptions, in this case that being of Asian descent is to be foreign, is the very prejudice that can lead to open hostility.

Such prejudice is not directed at everyone in the same way. When I walk into a gas station and look at items for sale, I never experience the prejudgment that I am a shoplifter, yet this is the lived experience of many black folk in our nation. This isn’t racism; this is a prejudgment of a person based on nothing other than his or her skin color. This is an ugly expression of prejudice. I cannot imagine living life always under such suspicion. Inevitably this sort of prejudice will result in an entire people group being treated with contempt and it is this contempt that leads to action. As ugly as prejudice is, racism is actually far worse.

In 2016 the Pew Research Center showed that nearly 40% of white folk think our nation has made the necessary changes to provide white and black people equal rights, while just 8% of black folk believed the same. That was six years ago. In 2017 the City of Grand Rapids revealed the results of a study that showed black drivers in Grand Rapids are twice as likely to be stopped by police officers as non-black drivers, yet are no more likely to have contraband than others. This is hardly unique to Grand Rapids. In 2020 George Floyd was murdered during an arrest for suspicion of using a counterfeit twenty-dollar bill. More recently right here in our own city, Patrick Lyoya was fatally shot in the back of the head by a police officer as he sought to flee from the officer.

This lack of equal rights covers a broad spectrum of life. Consider the disparity in hiring practices. While several studies have repeated these findings, a study in 2004 showed resumes with “white-sounding” names received 50% more callbacks than resumes with “black-sounding” names. In this study the researchers sent out fictitious resumes with either “white” names or “black” names. Resumes for, say, “John Smith” would get 50% more calls for an interview than identical resumes with “Javontae Smith” listed as the name, even though the experience and qualifications listed on the made-up resume were identical. On average a name like “Tamika Jones” would have to have an additional eight years of experience to get the callbacks that “Tammy Jones” would get.

When paired with the lived experience of prejudice, various disparities such as the one revealed in this study reveal the nature of racism: it is systemic. I haven’t mentioned things like the US Department of Education Office for Civil Rights study that showed black pre-school students are nearly four times as likely to receive out-of-school suspensions as white pre-school students. I haven’t mentioned studies that show doctors are less likely to prescribe pain medication to black patients or that pregnancy-related deaths among black women are more than four times higher than among white women. Nor have I mentioned the incredible disparities in incomes and average net worth between black and brown folk and white folk.

On top of all this, last Saturday a man drove to the city of Buffalo, New York, knowing it had a high concentration of black folk, drove to a supermarket and proceeded to murder ten people and wound two others. He is believed to be the author of a 180-page manifesto espousing the so-called “Great Replacement” theory. This is a conspiracy theory that claims white folk in this country are being systematically replaced by non-white people. The host of the highest-rated cable TV news show has pushed this particular conspiracy theory on more than 400 of his show’s episodes. One wonders why so many would fear becoming the minority in this country. Could it be that so many recognize how terrible the plight of minorities in this country actually is?

Racism—the systemic, even if not organized—oppression of minorities is ugly. It is evil. Racism is the spirit of antichrist. Racism is a tacit denial of the imago Dei—the image of God every single man, woman, and child bears. Racism profanes God’s image in other humans. God never intended his world to be a monoethnic expression of himself. God is too vast and too amazing and too wonderful to be represented fully by any single group of people. God intended for humans to be fruitful and multiply and thereby develop new cultures that would more fully express his glory. To deny equal status and equal rights on the basis of skin color is a denial of an essential truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

Galatians 3:28–29 ESV

As we’ve seen throughout the book of Joshua, God never intended for his ancient people, the people of Israel, to be a monoethnic people separate and distinct from all other people groups. The “mixed multitude” (Exodus 12:38) who left Egypt with the physical descendants of Abraham joined them at Mount Sinai and were included in God’s covenant. This is how both Moses and Aaron’s son Eleazar could marry African women. This is how Caleb the Kenizzite—a Canaanite people group—could represent the tribe of Judah as their spy sent by Moses into the promised land. This is how Rahab could marry the son of the most-prominent man in the tribe of Judah, though she was both a Canaanite and formerly a prostitute. The apostle Paul expressed the idea that in Christ ethnic and religious heritage and socio-economic status are not the defining factors for who is in and who is out.

Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.

Colossians 3:11 ESV

Paul says here in the church being Greek or Jew is irrelevant. A Greek who believes in Jesus is still a Greek and a Jew who believes in Jesus is still a Jew. Faith in Christ does not eliminate our ethnic heritage. Neither does our religious heritage. The difference between those circumcised and those uncircumcised has to do with religious upbringing, which was closely tied to the ethnicity of the parents as Jewish folk were those who circumcised their children. Paul was adamant that uncircumcised followers of Jesus did not need to become Jewish in order to follow Jesus. Romans viewed those of other cultures to be “barbarians” while Scythians were so barbaric they had their own category. Paul says that having a culture distinct from that of the dominant culture has no bearing on one’s status in the church. Finally he says in the church there is neither slave nor free. This was as much about socio-economic status as it was about legal status. A large percentage of people in the Roman empire were slaves and were therefore economically dependent on their “masters” for support. In Ephesians Paul wrote that God in Christ has taken from both broader groups—Jews and the nations—to create one new man in Christ. This doesn’t obliterate the differences between us. Rather, it illustrates the unity in Christ we have that is greater than skin color or cultural expression or economic status or education or political philosophy.

To say this another way, the unity of Christ is a unity of diverse peoples who share faith in Christ. Sometimes just about the only thing we may have in common between us is faith in Jesus—and that’s enough for true, genuine unity. This is why racism is the spirit of antichrist. It is directly contrary to God’s purposes in this world. God in Christ through his Spirit is creating his church. The systemic oppression of others in this country on the basis of skin color and cultural heritage is a direct attack on the unity created by Christ’s death for his people.

This unity that God intends in Christ should cause followers of Jesus to lament the very real and persistent racism in our nation. Those of us in the majority should be able to weep with our brothers and sisters who feel the weight of racism far more deeply than we feel it. The truth of the matter is that if I were suddenly thrust into an environment in which I were an oppressed minority, I still would not experience the oppression in the same way that a black person in this country experiences it, for I still would not have grown up hearing stories from my parents and grandparents and aunts and uncles and nieces and nephews and cousins and next-door neighbors who experienced that same oppression. Even if I were suddenly an oppressed minority, I would have spent most of my life with a very different experience and would remember a time when I was not. Every black person born in this nation has had to work harder to get a job interview, has had to be on better behavior so as to not be suspended from pre-school, has had to endure suspicions of criminal activity based solely on his skin color. For his entire life.

Our faith in Christ and our longing for his coming kingdom should lead us to not fear changing demographics. If the Lord of all should bring people to our land from far and wide, let us recognize the beauty of our God seen in the incredible diversity of his image bearers, and let us recognize that in many ways God is bringing his mission field to our neighborhoods. Still further, given that every single nation on earth counts among its residents followers of Jesus regardless of the legality of the Christian faith, let us recognize that in many ways God is bringing missionaries to our neighborhoods—committed followers of Jesus who wish to proclaim the good news of Christ and him crucified to a world in desperate need of the Prince of Peace.

This truly is God’s world, and we just live in it. Let’s live in it as his people.

There are several warnings—and promises!—in Scripture that can cause us to wonder if they apply to us specifically. Not a single word of Scripture was written to us in 21st-century Grand Rapids, yet it was all written for us. This means we must wrestle with a text from our modern lens of the world, including our language and general approach to the world and what happens in it, while trying to understand the text from its first-century—or even earlier—context, including its original language and its original author and its original recipients’ general approach to the world. When we come to a book like the book of Hebrews, we immediately recognize it wasn’t written to us even if it were written for us. It was written to an ancient people who spoke a language we do not speak and who saw the world in ways we do not. For this reason, saying what Scripture says is not always the same as meaning what Scripture means. For example, 2 Kings describes the basin Solomon built for the temple:

Then he made the sea of cast metal. It was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference.

2 Chronicles 4:2 ESV

We all learned in math class that the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter is 3.14159 to 1. A simple in-your-head calculation, then, shows us that if a basin for water is 10 cubits across—that’s its diameter—the circumference of that circle must be 31.4159 cubits across, not 30. If we say what the Bible says here we’re not meaning what the Bible means. We have to take into account culturally acceptable imprecision: “Hey, Solomon, how big was the bronze basin in the temple?” “Oh, it was, like, ten cubits across and, like, 30 cubits around.” “Do you mean 31.4159 cubits around?” “Well, yeah, if you want to be precise…okay.” Scripture is true in all that it affirms or denies. Second Chronicles is not affirming that π = 3.0, but that the bronze basin was roughly this size.

To study Scripture and understand it rightly requires that we put in the work necessary. Yes, we can read the Bible and comprehend its essential message quite clearly, but to move beyond a cursory reading of the text requires effort at understanding its meaning in its original context. This is especially true when we come to difficult texts like the book of Hebrews.

Last Sunday in the sermon we looked briefly at a few verses in Hebrews 10. Dave kept reading and was struck by something and wondered about it. Here’s what he read:

For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.

Hebrews 10:26–27 ESV

His question was about knowing when someone has reached that point where “there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins”, which is directly connected with “sinning deliberately”. This is a significant question. To read these verses in isolation can induce a great deal of concern for every one of us who has deliberately chosen to sin—which is each one of us. To answer the question requires the entire book, for no verse is meant to be read in isolation.

One significant hurdle for the book of Hebrews is the book does not identify either its author or its recipients, which has led to lots of speculation about the book and its purpose. In 2004 Carl Mosser submitted his doctoral dissertation to St. Mary’s College at the University of Cambridge. In these 360 pages of pure mind candy he argued that the book was written by an elder from the church in Jerusalem who was in Rome when he wrote it, and he was pleading with the Christians in Jerusalem to leave the city before the coming destruction that Jesus prophesied would come to the city. This destruction happened in the year 70 when Titus and his armies destroyed the temple and the city. During this siege, however, not a single Jewish Christians was killed, for they had all heeded the words of their lead elder and fled to Pella for safety. Reading the book of Hebrews with this in mind opens the book up in some very incredible ways. Short of reading a 360-page doctoral dissertation, however, is it possible to understand the book in its context? Yes, it is, but we have to follow a sustained argument by the author.

The book begins with the declaration that God has revealed himself fully and completely in his Son who is far superior to the angels. In chapter 2 he acknowledges that for a time the Son of God in human form was made a little lower than the angels so that he would be able to suffer and die for his people. Since God’s people are flesh and blood the Son of God participated in that flesh and blood that me might be the sacrifice that takes away sin. In chapter 3 the Son of God now made human is greater than even Moses. Moses was faithful to God, yet Moses was faithful in God’s house as a servant. Jesus was faithful as a Son.

The author argues in chapters 3–4 that the lack of faith on the part of Israel is what prevented them from entering God’s rest, so an entire generation died in the wilderness. Even though Joshua later led them into the land, they did not truly enter God’s rest, for there is a greater Sabbath rest for God’s people. That Sabbath rest came with Jesus and so we all must strive to enter that rest. He moves on to point out that Jesus is our great high priest who is able to sympathize with us for he himself experienced the weakness of human flesh. Though Jesus was not of the tribe of Levi, he was still appointed as a priest according to the order of Melchizedek. Just as Aaron was chosen for his role, so Jesus was chosen for his.

The author then rebukes the people for needing to hear these basic truths once again. They should not need milk like a child, but real, solid food. In chapter 6 he tells them to move beyond the basic teachings and engage in the heavy lifting of truth, warning that if they leave behind the truth of God in Christ, there is no further opportunity for salvation, for if they leave behind Jesus, they leave behind everything. The promise of salvation in Christ is sure, for God swore by himself. There was no one greater by whom to take an oath so he swore by himself. In chapter 7 this promise to Abraham culminated in the priesthood of Jesus, for his priesthood is greater than that of Aaron.

The reason it is greater is perfection was not possible through the Levitical priesthood. The law of Moses was unable to make anyone perfect, so God promised a better covenant through the priesthood of Jesus. A significant difference between Jesus’ priesthood and that of the Levites is the Levitical priests were numerous because they kept dying. They could only serve for a single lifetime but Jesus’ priesthood endures forever. This is because Jesus is not like the Levites who had to offer a sacrifice for their own sins before offering them for the sins of the people. Jesus offered a single sacrifice—himself.

Jesus therefore received a ministry that far surpasses that of Moses. God found a fault with the covenant he gave Israel at Mount Sinai. For this reason he later promised a new covenant that is unlike the old one, for Israel broke the old covenant immediately and repeatedly. The moment God promised a new covenant the old covenant began to fade:

In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Hebrews 8:13 ESV

The author is telling them the system of sacrifices in the temple in Jerusalem would not be around much longer. It would be destroyed in AD 70, thus ending the Levitical priesthood entirely, including the system of sacrifices. He tells them in chapter 9 that this loss of the temple is okay! It is okay to lose what they have always known because unlike the high priest in Jerusalem who was only able to go behind the curtain in the temple one day a year, Jesus has entered into the very presence of God. When he entered in, he did so “once for all”. This makes Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, for all who are in him are ushered into the very presence of God through our eternal high priest. Jesus does not enter into his Father’s presence to offer sacrifices repeatedly, like the Levitical priests had to, for that would require his own death repeatedly. Instead, “he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Hebrews 9:26).

In chapter 10 he says the law was just a shadow of the reality, and the reality is Jesus. To say it another way, the law offered a mere outline or indistinct depiction of the true sacrifice God required. The law simply could not make perfect God’s people, even though the sacrifices were made continually. “It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (10:4). This is good, however, since God did not actually delight in those sacrifices. Even though the priests offered these sacrifices in the temple day after day, year after year, century after century, they could never take away sins. However!

But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God…

Hebrews 10:12 ESV

While the priests stand daily at their service, Christ offered a single sacrifice and sat down, for his job was finished. The author says this is the new covenant God promised to his people. Because of the success of this single offering, the author says we have confidence to enter into God’s presence, which is something the Levitical priests could never do. They would always have the fear of entering into God’s holy presence. Because Jesus has opened up access to God through the curtain, referring to the curtain guarding the Most Holy Place in the temple, the author encourages his readers to draw near to God with full confidence that comes from faith.

What is the author really driving at? His application is found in chapter 13.

So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood. Therefore let us go to him outside the camp and bear the reproach he endured. For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come. Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name.

Hebrews 13:12–15 ESV

When Jesus offered himself, he effectively ended the need for sacrifices for sin. He accomplished with this single sacrifice what the countless sacrifices of bulls and goats could never do: he reconciled his people with God. He did this “outside the camp”. His crucifixion was outside the walls of Jerusalem. The author calls upon his readers to go to Jesus there—to leave behind the system of sacrifices in the temple. Though they were Christians, they were also Jews and so the temple was a significant part of their culture and way of life. They continued to bring their tithes and offerings to the temple. Not all sacrifices in the temple were for sins, so they gladly worshiped God the way their ancestors had for hundreds of years. The author is pleading with them to leave this system behind, for Jesus is all they need. Jerusalem is no lasting city. There is a city to come, the very city Abraham himself longed for (Hebrews 11:10, 16). They can leave behind sacrifices given as acts of worship, for God desires a “sacrifice of praise”, and this can be done “outside the camp”; it does not require a physical temple and literal sacrifices.

Back to Dave’s question. What does the author mean when he warns that if we—they, really—go on “sinning deliberately” there no longer “remains a sacrifice for sins”? What is the author really addressing with his original audience? They must be willing to leave behind the great city of Jerusalem and its temple—and their entire way of life going back generations. They can do this because Jesus is the final sacrifice for sins. They do not need the temple for their salvation for Jesus is their great high priest. While standing it remained a significant cultural expression for them but even if this cultural expression were taken away, they’d still have Jesus, and he is all they need. Because Jesus is the greatest and final sacrifice, to persist in deliberate sin would be to deny the finality of this sacrifice.

If they would not cling to Jesus and thereby deny a life of sin but instead chose to persist in sinful behavior willingly and actively, they would be demonstrating they were on the side of those—Jew and Gentile—who killed Jesus in the first place. To say this another way, to deliberately choose a life of sin is to deliberately reject the sacrifice of Jesus. Jesus gave himself as a sacrifice that takes away sin. It takes away the guilt, but it also takes away the presence of sin in the life of the believer. This does not happen automatically or all at once. Sinless perfection is not attainable in this life. It is simply unthinkable that a follower of Jesus would willfully and deliberately reject the authority of Jesus. It is true that every time we sin we are rebelling against the authority of God, yet this is not what the author means here. He has already told them how Jesus is “a merciful and faithful high priest” (2:17) who is able “to sympathize with our weakness” though he himself was able to overcome temptation (4:15). Because Jesus is that merciful and faithful high priest,

Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

Hebrews 4:16 ESV

This “throne of grace” he mentions is the space above the ark of the covenant between the two cherubim on it. It is also called “mercy seat” and was believed to be the place where God was seated, so to speak, when the high priest would sprinkle the blood of the sacrifice on it once a year on the Day of Atonement. The difference is they and we do not go the mercy seat in order to sprinkle blood on it for the forgiveness of sins for Jesus offered a single sacrifice for all time and his sprinkled blood that takes away our sins forever. This is why the author says in chapter 12 that when they assemble in the name of Jesus, wherever they are, the Lord enters their presence with the angels and those who have gone before by preceding them in death. He says that in the Lord’s assembly we come “to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel”. Abel’s blood cries out for vengeance and justice whereas Jesus’ blood cries out, “It is finished!”

When the author talks about “sinning deliberately” he does not mean those intentional sins we all commit, but a wholesale commitment to rebellion against the Lord. Dave’s question was how we can know when someone fits this description. When a person willfully and deliberately chooses to sin against God and no amount of pleading will get them to repent and throw themselves upon God’s mercy at his throne of grace, for that person there no longer remains a sacrifice for sin, for they have rejected the once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus.

Like Will Robinson in the old science fiction TV show, we must recognize the danger that is around us. Specifically, we must be aware of the danger having a lazy attitude toward fighting sin is. We must not be flippant when it comes to God’s grace and holiness. When we deliberately sin, we must recognize the danger we are in, but we must also draw near to the throne of grace knowing we have a merciful and faithful great high priest who sat down after offering himself as the final sacrifice for sins. This drawing near does not happen casually, and it necessarily involves genuine repentance, or a genuine change of mind. It is not the attitude of “who cares if I sin; Jesus will just forgive me” but is the recognition that because Jesus has done everything necessary to make me right with God, I do not want to continue sinning. Lord, I believe; help my unbelief! Lord, I have sinned; help me sin no more!

You and I are not being called to give up literal sacrifices, but like the original recipients of the book of Hebrews, we are being called to give up a life of deliberate, intentional sin, while knowing that our faithful high priest has offered that once-for-all sacrifice and he is merciful and faithful and recognizes our weaknesses. This is why we must “consider how to stir up one another to love and good works” (10:25). The finality of the work of Jesus on the cross for our sins demands a life of faithfulness to him.

Last summer we explored the historical nature of our faith. As Vincent of Lérins put it, “we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all”. That sermon series focused on the Apostles’ Creed, which was an early baptismal creed used by many western churches. It, along with the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, summarizes our Trinitarian faith succinctly. In addition to seeing what has been believed “everywhere, always, by all” Christians, we looked at certain distinctives here at New City. From the very beginning there have been a range of views on a number of secondary issues that have not been believed “everywhere, always, by all” and for which we have a measure of freedom of conscience.

For many, the word “catholic”, used in both the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed, is problematic. Many hear the word and cannot separate it from the Roman Catholic Church, and assume it can only refer to the Roman church and all those who are in communion with Rome and its bishop. The word is much bigger than Rome. It was first used by Ignatius in his letter to the church in Smyrna.

Wherever the bishop appears, there let the congregation be; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church.

Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2

When a church assembles in the name of the Lord Jesus, Jesus enters into their presence in a unique and powerful way, just as he promised (Matthew 18:20; Hebrews 12:18–24). Ignatius wrote that wherever Jesus is, that is, wherever he manifests his presence in his assembly, “there is the catholic church”. The word he used was the Greek word καθολικος (katholikos), which is the prefix κατά (kata; “according to”) and ὅλος (holos; whole, or complete), meaning the church assembled in the very presence of Jesus is assembled “according to the whole”—Christ’s church is present in its fullness. This is because the Lord Jesus is present in his fullness.

Many have heard that the word catholic means “universal”, which it does, but only sort of. It means universal in the sense that the entire church is assembled across space and time (since God is not limited by space and time), but that’s not a great translation. This is why most languages do not translate the word but transliterate it. We see a similar phenomenon with the word “baptize”. It was a common word in Greek but we do not translate the Great Commission as requiring us to go into all the world to make disciples, “dunking them” in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Instead, we transliterate the word as “baptize”, indicating the unique purpose for this particular dunking or immersing. Transliterating the word catholic is not unique to English. Consider the following languages. (Those that do not use the Latin or a Latin-like alphabet have a phonetic spelling after them.)

What is so important about this word that so many languages transliterate it rather than translate it? The church, throughout history, has been, well, catholic. This does not mean Roman, for the Eastern Orthodox Churches have never been Roman. Protestants are not Roman. We are catholic, however, for we believe what has been believed everywhere, always, by all Christians. By reciting the Apostles’ Creed each week we are both reminding ourselves and declaring to one another that while we have certain distinctives we are catholic Christians who are united with all who confess Jesus is Lord. This is why we are able to worship on Good Friday with our brothers and sisters in Christ from Gracehill Church (Presbyterian), Fourth Reformed Church, and Coit Community Christian Reformed Church. We don’t agree with them on every issue. I’m sure they don’t agree with one another on every issue. We do agree on the faith that has been believed everywhere, always, by all Christians, however, which makes us catholic. When they assemble together in the name of the Lord Jesus on Sunday mornings, there is Jesus Christ, and wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church—there, just as he is with us.

Because of this historical meaning of the word catholic, it is important for us to embrace the word and thereby demonstrate something significant to the world: Jesus came to unite a diverse people together in faith in him. As I mentioned in last Sunday’s sermon, the existence of various Protestant denominations is not the problem for the church has had a variety of opinions on significant issues from the beginning of the church, yet Christians can declare their unity in the essentials of the faith we have received—that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all Christians.

Last Sunday Martha asked that we continue to pray for Ukraine in general and Ukrainian believers in particular. She mentioned that non-Eastern Orthodox Christians in Ukraine chose to observe Easter last Sunday rather than the Sunday before, which is when all Protestants and Roman Catholics observed Easter. Think of that. Eastern Orthodox churches do not observe Easter Sunday when the rest of the church across the globe does. That’s kind of a big deal, isn’t it? This difference is actually quite old.

In the second century there was a raging debate over when to celebrate Easter. The practice had not yet been formalized for all churches. The eastern churches observed a fast leading up to it and then celebrated Easter on the actual date of the Jewish Passover, regardless of the day of the week on which it fell—like Christmas Day. The western churches also fasted leading up to Easter (this is the Lenten fast) but always observed Easter on a Sunday. This was a significant debate and threats of excommunication were being made over it.

One of the elders in the city of Rome was a man named Anicetus. In the church in Smyrna was another elder, a man named Polycarp. Both were serving the Lord Jesus faithfully in their respective churches. Polycarp visited him in Rome to discuss a number of matters, including the date of celebrating Easter. Early historian Eusebius recorded two very interesting things that took place during this controversy. First, he records that Irenaeus wrote to the church in Rome admonishing them to not cut off “whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom” (Eusebius, “Church History”, 5.24.11). Notice the use of the world “whole”—that’s part of the word catholic. Second, as this controversy raged on, Eusebius records the following.

And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about certain other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him.

But though matters were in this shape, they communed together, and Anicetus conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. And they parted from each other in peace, both those who observed, and those who did not, maintaining the peace of the whole church.

Eusebius of Caesarea, “Church History”, 5.24.16–17

Notice he writes there were multiple disagreements they debated. The existence of disagreements has always been the case, except on those doctrines that have been believed everywhere, always, by all. Also notice that when both sides realized they would not persuade the other, they agreed to continue to observe Easter as each had received it. Anicetus even acknowledged that Polycarp had been taught by the apostle John to observe it differently than Roman Christians had been taught by those trained by Peter and Paul! In other words, the apostles disagreed on this matter. Yet not only did Anicetus celebrate communion with Polycarp, he had his dear brother in Christ lead the communion celebration.

While all Christians today celebrate Easter on a Sunday, the Eastern Orthodox Churches calculate which Sunday differently, so in most years they celebrate Easter on a different Sunday than the rest of the world. Because this is not an essential of the faith, non-Eastern Orthodox Christians in Ukraine chose to observe Easter with the Orthodox on the date the Orthodox chose. This is a demonstration of our profound unity in Christ.

Instead of being put off by a long-used word that can have negative associations, let’s laud the fact that Christ’s church is significantly larger than our small ponds. In our humanity we want to draw lines in the dirt where God himself has not drawn them. Let’s recognize our catholicity and embrace the unity we have with all those who confess Jesus is Lord, who believe what has been believed everywhere, always, by all.