Hebrews 6:3 Part 3 Bible Teaching

Hebrews 6.3 C
November 3rd 2013
Communion Sunday
Well, it’s the first Sunday of the month and a time we have set aside for what we call communion.

Let’s pray and then get our minds and hearts prepared to partake of the elements He introduced by rehearsing the seven statements He made from the cross.

PRAY
(SEVEN STATEMENTS HERE)

In the Latin, “communion” means com (which is “with” or “together”) and unus union (which means oneness or unity).

So the Latin for communion is best understood as “together as one.” From it we also get common, meaning also, “oneness.”

What do we have in common or what do we hold up together, as one?

Not our ages or birthplaces or parents (necessarily).

Certainly not the same DNA or address.

Our unity isn’t even built upon how we respectively believe because when it comes to scripture we all have varied ideas on different things, don’t we?

We do, as partakers of this unleavened bread and wine, have one thing in common or unity though don’t we?

We believe Jesus was born, that He lived a sinless life, that He was killed through the shedding of His blood, that He died, and was resurrected on the third day.

The scripture says this is the Gospel – the Good News.

And on it we agree and on Him we believe.

What’s interesting, however, it is not from the Latin that we have come to call this gathering communion. It is, as you will remember, from the Greek word, Koinonia, which comes from koinos, and means:

one.

One with our Lord, remembering Him in unified beliefs.

One with each other, united and having one faith, one Lord, one baptism (of the Holy Spirit) in common.

One in this memorial as we all ingest unleavened bread and juice of the grape.

From the Latin it is intriguing that other words associated with communion include common, community, commute, communication, commonality, commonwealth, comrade, communist, communal, commune – all words that describe oneness, unity, brother and sisterhood.

From the Greek Koinonia, meaning one, and from it we get the word coitus, which pictures two separate parts joining together and becoming one.

How does this apply to our faith in Christ.

He reconciled fallen man and God – making two separate parts one.

By what means? The Cross. Which are?

Two separate parts coming together to form one. Where do the parts point?

From earth to heaven, from heaven to earth and then out over and across the world.

In this amazing emblem, we have imagery of God being reconciled with sinful humanity and all human beings coming together under the canopy of His outstretched arms.

Wow.

By and through the shed blood and death of God in flesh. All for us.

For this we praise Him.
And remember Him.
And seek Him collectively here as we have gathered in His name as one.

Let’s pray. (Include thanks for the elements and what they represent)

MUSIC
“Take Eat”
(2 times through)

PRAYER

We left off last week covering the first two principle “archies” of the Christian faith the writer of Hebrews suggests we ought to leave.

We recall that we are not leaving them to die in the wilderness like unwanted animals but that they are essential stones in the foundation of our faith.

Let’s read them again:

“Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.”

We remember that contextually speaking the author is advising these long-time believers to leave these essential basics of the faith where they belong and to build upon them as a means to help them avoid apostasy.

We also noted the line that says to:

“not lay again the foundation of” these things, but remembering (instead) that they have been poured, set and cured by now – so there is no reason to deconstruct the foundation all over again but to trust in its content and placement and strength – and then to get on with becoming what God wants us to become (which we’ll get to in a few weeks).

Finally, there is an order and grouping here of these items that I find ingenious.

Note that the order the writer suggests that is left behind pictures the chronology of events for young converted Jewish believers:

Repentance
Faith
Baptism
Laying on of hands
Resurrection, and
Eternal Judgment

That listing is not by accident. But the order also contains three ingenious but specific groupings:

First, there is the coming to salvation, which includes

Repentance and faith

Then there are church ordinances and administrations (grouped as)

Baptism and the laying on of hands

And finally, there are doctrines (based in Christian expectation and anticipation) which the writer summarizes as:

Resurrection and eternal punishment

Pretty wild, huh? God’s amazing word. Love it.

We also noted that until we have the foundations right – until the church has them down pat – how could it ever expect to go on to “perfection?”

Instead, it is constantly pouring and then uprooting the basics in the foundation, and then building up an off-kilter edifice to Christ.

The body – His body – is one thing. True believers will always serve to create the edifice in His mind, but the plethora of divergent churches as a whole certainly gives pause.

I can’t tell you how pressing this is upon my mind these days.

I would propose two things relative to this:

First, and as we said last week, the churches have long misunderstood these six fundamentals, and second, the powers that be have long resisted attempts at reform but have instead maintained an attitude that flourishes in the minds and mouths of Christians today:

“Everything is good. Jesus is on the throne and He uses EVERYTHING (in the church to bring about His will).

If this is true, why read the Bible at all?
Why didn’t we just all remain Roman Catholic? Why did Jesus Himself express frustration with five of the seven Churches in Revelation 2 and 3?

We have rightly embraced a mentality that He is in control (which is true) but wrongly included in this mentality that because of this fact we (believers) are not obligated to try and right or reform error as it presents itself.

So, long story short, last week we began to try and articulate a better biblical understanding of these essentials the writer is telling mature Christians to leave with the thinking being if we can get them down we can move forward to perfection – both as a group and as individual members of His body.

So we covered the first grouping last week:

Repentance from dead works and faith on God.

Let’s get into the second grouping he presents, or what he calls:

“the doctrine of baptisms,” and
“ of laying on of hands,”

I think there is an observation that must be taken right off the bat here and that is the fact that the writer refers to these two items in what I am called the administration group as “the doctrine of.”

When he speaks “of repentance from dead works” and “of faith on God,” he describes them in terms of present action, but when it comes to administrations in the church for believers, he refers to baptisms and the laying on of hands as “the doctrines of” these things and not necessarily the actual presence of the acts in the readers respective lives.

How come?

Doctrines means the teachings or instructions about such things.

The writer is not saying leave our personal baptism or the laying on of hands behind but to leave the instructions and teachings about them behind.

Again, why so?

I would strongly suggest – strongly – that the authors is telling the Jewish reader (and us) that the “modes and models, and forms and execution” of these baptisms and “laying on of hands” are not the focal point, but it’s the fact that they continue to exist and have a place in the body that matter.

Let me explain.

Looking back into the Jewish economy we find the origins of baptisms (water ablutions – and they had a lot of them) and the laying on of hands (by and through priestly authority) to ordain and set people apart for office.

The manner and method and delivery was the focus in this physically based economy as it was not so much what came from the heart but the fact that things were done correctly that mattered most.

From this Old Testament physical model Christianity borrowed – but the delivery and methods were not nearly as important as the heart behind what was being done.

So where the Jews washed (or baptized in a number of ways and used the term relative to a number of different applications) Christianity primarily has three:

Water baptism
Baptism of the Holy Spirit
(and, if you’re willing) baptism of trial and suffering.

Because there are three (admittedly, some would say only two) the writer says:

“the doctrine of baptisms,” proving that all of them ought to be left where they belong – in the foundation of our Christian childhoods.

We’ll come back and discuss these baptisms in a minute to ensure we have a sound biblical view of them in place before leaving them.

The second thing the writer mentions in this administration grouping is “the laying on of hands.”

Of course, like baptism, “laying hands on the head” was always used among the Jews in giving blessings, designating men to any office, and in the consecration of solemn sacrifices.

The first time we find it mentioned in scripture is when Jacob blesses Joseph’s two Sons Ephraim and Manassas and then the practice continues later.

We’ll talk about laying on of hands in the church in a minute.

But remember, where the symbolism remains the same, and the methods are similar, it is the spirit and purposes of the acts that matter in the body, NOT the actions themselves.

Another way to view this is as all these practices in the Old Testament pointed to the coming Messiah, when He came and fulfilled the Law, nailing it’s ordinances to the cross, the focus and place of them in the Christian walk can be noted as having meaning in Christ, and then left behind.

Okay, so let’s talk about Christian baptisms (plural).

As noted, the Jews had a bunch of washings, which were called baptisms.

And one of them was used when a person sought to convert to Judaism.

After centuries of this practice, John the Baptist came along and used baptism to denote another type of conversion – it was a baptism “unto repentance.”

That was its purpose and symbolism – those who subjected themselves to it were being washed, showing they had changed their minds about the course of their lives under the Law and in anticipation (and preparation of the coming) Messiah.

The COI were all baptized too, (according to Paul). This took place in the Red Sea.

Coming out of bondage they were baptized unto Moses, and in being so they were washed and confirmed followers of Moses and (ultimately) the Law.

The imagery is one of creating a new identity.

Imagine a Jew is coated in the mud of his history and traditions. John the Baptist comes along, preparing the way of Christ, and washes those Jews who have changed their minds about who they’ve been (in preparation of the Messiah coming) and all the mud of their history and traditions are washed away.

Got that.

So borrowing – even spring-boarding off this long established practice, Christians too, submit too a few “baptisms.”

Now, listen closely – the writer is telling the reader to leave the doctrines of these baptisms behinds . . . leave the teachings and instructions about them behind . . . and move on toward perfection.

Are these baptisms viable, important, and part of the Christian walk? Absolutely.

But water baptism, in the Christian dispensation and since Christ has fulfilled the law and ordinances, is not about the mode and method but wholly about the meaning.

For this reason “the doctrine – the teachings and instructions and focus on these baptism – ought to be left.

IOW once the meaning is in place and has been expressed . . . let it go.

Forget about the doctrines swirling around it. Sure, it’s a blessing and benefit to the individual involved, and yes, it is the public pronouncement that a person has believed and received Christ, from the heart, as Lord and Savior . . . but it’s just one piece (of many) in the foundational puzzle of a Christian’s early walk.

Now men and their institutions LOVE to keep the doctrines of baptism alive and thriving – for all kinds of reasons.

One of the worst being that by making them a “big issue” they can make them a proprietary product.

What I mean by this is this church says, “Our water baptism is required,” or another says, “but have you been truly baptized in the Holy Spirit?” And the focus of almost all they do surrounds water baptism and baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Worse yet, men and women can also spend a lot of time arguing if “this baptism or that expression of the Holy Spirit” is viable, approved of God, or sufficient to the demands of being a true Christian.

When a man like Paul thanks God that he only baptized a couple of people, but instead spent his time teaching and preaching “the Gospel,” I think we get a fairly good picture of the place water and spirit baptisms play in our Christian walk.

First, they are part of the nascent Christian experience.
Second, they are beautiful and inviting and frankly, an equipping part of our early Christian development.
Third, while important milestones and experiences to every Christian, the methods and the means of them (relative to our “moving on to perfection”) are quite limited.

Imagine that we can personify an automobile.

Focusing on water baptism would be like a car focusing on its factory paint job. Yes, it does help identify the car but the car has far greater purposes in life than to have been painted.

Using the same analogy, to focus on being baptized in the Spirit would be like the car focusing on receiving its first tank of gas.

Yes, it was thrilling to feel all of its part working together to move the vehicle, but again, the tank of gas serves as a means to a greater end and is not the object of endless discussion and focus.

Plus, that tank will run low and will need to be replenished over and over again.

My point is that none of these things – whether faith, repentance, water or spirit baptism, or thoughts on resurrection and eternal punishment exist in a vacuum (or are present in the Christian walk because they, in and of themselves are so important).

None of them are demanded or expected or offered or provided by God because the sun rises and sets on them.

They all play a role in moving “fallen yet redeemed men and women” forward and toward . . . completeness in Him, or what the translators call perfection (Tele-o-tace)

This is the earthly goal for His Sons and Daughters.

Show me someone who is determined to unearth the status and or method of other believers “water or spirit” baptism and I will show you a someone who is focused on the wrong end of the Christian walk.

I say this because water baptism (and I would also suggest being baptized by the Holy Spirit) are pretty elemental principles that even children can comprehend if they are explained right.

Men tend to take them and make them inordinately complex and demanding, but simply put, they mean a washing over, with the first washing being in our control and the second being in God’s.

I’ve met some pretty intense people who get right up in my grill and with wild eyes want to know if, “I’ve been baptized in the Holy Spirit?”

I’m always tempted to ask: “Have you?”

So what do we need to know about water and spirit baptism (as a body of believers) so we can understand their place, and then get on with it?

I am not going to rehearse my typical explanation of water baptism from scripture here but speak more generally.

We know that water baptism is good, of the Lord, and an outward manifestation of an inward heart that has received Christ.

It is best illustrated by immersion because it typifies our being buried with Christ and risen to new life.

It can be “done” by any believer at anytime on behalf of another believer and being it is an outward symbol of inward faith it is best done in the presence of other believers, preferably those who are part of the immediate body with which the person being baptized is associated.

Again, I won’t go to the Greek but water baptism is not required for salvation but is done in preparation for our Christian walk – which is a great reason the thief on the cross didn’t need to submit to it – he wasn’t going to have much of a Christian “walk” but was going to exit this world and be with Christ in paradise the very day he received Him.

All the variables that can come with water baptism (age, type of water, person baptizing, words said, mode and method) are taken in faith, before God, with a humble heart – and accepted and then left behind.

But we come to a rather sticky-wicket when it comes to modern evangelicalism – the “Baptism of the Holy Spirit?”
Interpretation – and therefore demands – are what make it the wicket of stickiness that it is.
I know many people are going to disagree with me, but I would generally suggest that in the first place anytime the Holy Spirit falls “upon, in, or overflows” from an individual there has been a baptism of the Holy Spirit in some degree or another.

Because of this all Man is guilty of either blaspheming that Holy influence by rejecting Him . . . or they are compliant with Him . . . and believe.

That being said there seems, from scripture, to be degrees of the presence of the Holy Spirit upon or in Man.

Likening the Holy Spirit to water, some people are very, very lightly sprayed with a very fine mist over the course of their lives, rarely noticing any moisture at all.

So experience a light rain, some a downpour, others are thrown into a swimming pool, and others are not only completely soaked to the bone but also ingest gallons and gallons of Him while being immersed.

I want to make something perfectly clear – the extent and intensity of each individuals experience with the Holy Spirit (listen) is in the hands of God and not man or the individual.

Jesus explained the way the Holy Spirit moves and works and made it clear that He goes and moves as He wants – and cannot be any more controlled or manipulated by human beings than the wind from the sky.

The Greek speaks of the Holy Spirit being “upon us,” (believer and not) then “in us and/or even overflowing from us as believers.

On this latter point many people – but especially those of the charismatic faith – tend to suggest that it is this overflowing that can only be considered the true baptism of the Holy Spirit.

I take issue with this definition.

This is not so say the Holy Spirit doesn’t overflow at times. He certainly does and works marvelous things.

I’m just not convinced that the overflowing is the ONLY way we can define Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

In my opinion, anyone who has been born-again has been baptized with, by, and in the Holy Spirit.

And then the Holy Spirit determines when and how he will work through each respective brother or sister.

Let me give you an example from my own life.

I was born of the Spirit, baptized with the Holy Spirit in 1997. At the moment He moved in I was regenerated and renewed.

Since then He was always been present with me – in me. I can pray to have the Holy Spirit with me MORE powerfully, but He rains more heavily depending on His will, not mine.

I notice His presence more intensely at times in my life – often when I am engaged in the causes of Christ – and there are times when I am wholly immersed in His power and influence.

But He chooses when to manifest himself. And I am not one bit “less” baptized in Him when I am a dullard sitting on a chair watching the clock than when I am teaching with His power and might.

It’s just a matter of the intensity He wants to give. His power is so much in His hands that I can be involved in something totally removed from ministry when He moves.

I bring this up in an attempt to diffuse the false notion that men and women can conjure and control Him and to dispel the myth that says only those who have experienced the Holy Spirit soaking them have been baptized by His influence.

See, thing become controversial (when people suggest that our initial regeneration is an insufficient expression of the Holy Spirit or that a more powerful manifestation of Him is needed to prove spirit baptism has occurred.

(HAND EXAMPLE)

So what we have, then, as we have in many things relative to Christianity, is a baseline experience (which we will call spiritual regeneration or spiritual rebirth).

And then from this experience we have pushing out to one polarized end, people who (like the Soup Nazi say):
“That’s all the Holy Spirit you get! No more Holy Spirit!”

Then on the other side of Spiritual rebirth we have people who maniacally scream:
“That is not enough! You might have been born-again but the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is a TOTALLY (totally dude) different thing.”

And then they will typically go on (in some degree or another) and describe things people must do to prove that He has fallen upon them and is working in abundance upon them.

These expressions can be as subtle as “feeling the power of God more strongly” to speaking in tongues, laughing manically or even barking “in the Holy Spirit.”

Now, while I am personally very suspicious of “extremes that occur among religious men,” I am also bored to tears with conservative dogmas that try to govern the work of the Holy Spirit as much as the zealous try to express him through EVERYthing around them.

What can we say?

I think we can all agree that all Christians receive the Spirit upon their conversion and that in this sense all Christians have been baptized in the Holy Spirit.

I think Paul makes it clear when he says in 1st Corinthians 12:13,

“For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.”

To say otherwise automatically places a division between regular Holy Spirit drinkers and those who drink Him in “higher octane.”

It’s divisionary.

We note that the writer here in Hebrews tells us to leave the doctrine of baptisms – the teachings and instructions about baptisms – water and holy spirit.

If we were in charge of obtaining the higher octane Holy Spirit as a means to prove something to each other and God I’m not so sure the writer would tell us to leave these things behind in our pursuit of perfection.

What are we to do with passages of scripture, then, that intimate that there are experiences of different degrees with the Holy Spirit?

For instance, Matthew 3:11 has John the Baptist say:

“As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit . . . and fire.”

The “and with fire” line is how many pushers of the second experience support the idea that baptism with the Holy Spirit is one thing, but the “and with fire is the next.”

I would plainly suggest the following:

There are times when the Holy Spirit flows, and times when He ebbs.

Again, we do not control Him, but He us.

When He flows there is (without question) a bestowal of power upon the recipient – just like higher octane fuel can create greater performance in a motor vehicle.

But that recipient is not more learned, worthy, or valuable than those whom the Holy Spirit is not overflowing through.

They are just being used by Him for His purposes – and never their own.

I think that is a good measuring stick of how to determine what is an outpouring of the Holy Spirit and what are plain old carnival tricks and motivation –

“What is being done?”
(Tongues/Prophecy/teaching etc.)

“Does it comply with scripture?”

“Who is benefiting and how?”

“Who is being glorified?”

“Who receives the honor?”
– beginning to end.

We’re out of time so next week . . .the laying on of hands!

Q and A
White bags
Class from 1:15 to 2:15 before Meat Gathering on Mormonism?? Those interested?
Women’s Bible Study
Thursday