Written by Nicholas T. Batzig |
Tuesday, July 16, 2024
Moses acted servant in the house of God,  whereas Christ acted as the Son over the house. The difference is one of authority. Jesus has divine authority over the church of God since he is himself the eternal divine Son. The writer hotes this contrast when he says, “Jesus has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses—as much more glory as the builder of a house has more honor than the house itself. (For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God.)” (Heb. 3:3-4). Christ is deserving of greater glory because he built the house of God as God incarnate. 

There might not be a passage of Scripture more underappreciated for its rich theological, ecclesiological, and eschatological focus than that which we find in Hebrews 3:1-6. The writer was wishing to highlight the betterness of Christ to everyone in the Old Testament economy to keep the eyes of those to whom he was writing on Christ. The danger was for them to turn back to the weak and beggarly elements of Judaism, with its focus on external ceremonies and preparatory types. All of these things having passed away, the author firsts compares and contrasts Moses and Christ. Since Moses was the typical redeemer of the Old Covenant, it would make sense for the writing to highlight the relationship between the type (i.e., Moses) and the antitype (i.e., Christ). There is a world of theological riches that open to us when we carefully consider this text. 
The first thing that the writer does is to draw our attention to Jesus as “the apostle and high priest of our confession.”Jesus is both the great Prophet, revealing the true God, to His people and the great High Priest, representing believers to God by His atoning sacrifice and continual intercession. He is the Prophet of all the prophets in that he immediately reveals God as God manifest in the flesh. Among all the other prophets, Moses stands unique. In one sense, he is like Jesus in that all the other prophets in the Old Covenant church come under his ministry. Geerhardus Vos explained, 
“Moses. . .is placed not merely at the head of the succession of prophets, but placed over them in advance. His authority extends over subsequent ages. The later prophets do not create anything new; they only predict something new. It is true, Moses can be co-ordinated with the prophets: [Deut. 18:18; ‘a prophet like unto thee’]. Nevertheless the prophets themselves are clearly conscious of the unique position of Moses. They put his work not so much on a line with their own, as with the stupendous eschatological work of Jehovah for His people expected in the latter days [cp. Isa. 10:26; 11:11; 63:11, 12; Jer. 23:5–8; Mic. 7:15].”1
Additionally, Moses authorized the building of the tabernacle with its priesthood and sacrificial system. Until the formation of the Aaronic priesthood, Moses acted in a priestly way among the people of God. He was also a kingly figure in his role as the lawgiver. Vos again noted,
“According to Num. 12:7, Moses was set over all God’s house. It is entirely in keeping with this prospective import of Moses and his work, that his figure acquires typical proportions to an unusual degree. He may be fitly called the redeemer of the Old Testament. Nearly all the terms in use for the redemption of the New Testament can be traced back to his time. There was in his work such a close connection between revealing words and redeeming acts as can be paralleled only from the life of Christ. And the acts of Moses were to a high degree supernatural, miraculous acts. This typical relation of Moses to Christ can easily be traced in each of the three offices we are accustomed to distinguish in the soteric work of Christ. The ‘prophet’ of Deut. 18:15, reaching his culmination in the Messiah, is ‘like unto’ Moses. 
Read More
Related Posts:

Natural disasters and the destruction they produce—especially to human life and to property—bring to mind our desire to explain both cause and effect. Normally, there are two choices: chance or God. Even as we find scientific cause and effect, the ultimate cause is often thought of as chance—these events just happen.
On the other hand, the destructive nature of natural disasters such as hurricanes and fires fueled by fast-moving winds has led some within and without the church to rightly attribute the cause to God but then to specifically assert that God’s motive is his wrath for some perceived human failing. What should we make of this? Chance or God? And what is the reason or motive behind these destructive storms, floods, and fires?
Power, Terror, Destruction
First of all, this is not a discussion in the abstract. The power, terror, physical destruction, and psychological fear these events bring upon us are real—they can be seen, they can be felt, and they change us. Unless one has “ridden out” the terror of howling wind, rain, thunder, lightning, and fire, or lost a family member or friend, suffered injury or loss of property—along with the memories that are embedded in our homes—it is very difficult to imagine what these catastrophic events are like. Hurricanes, floods, and burning are terrifying and destructive. Our hearts reach out to everyone, friend and foe alike, who falls into their path.
Are these natural disasters the products of chance, fate, or the wrath of God? To what do we attribute them?
Considering Psalm 29
Psalm 29 describes a storm building over the Mediterranean Sea while moving from west to east with rain, thunder, and lightning:

The voice of the Lord is over the waters;the God of glory thunders,the Lord, over many waters. (Ps. 29:3)

The voice of the Lord flashes forth flames of fire. (Ps. 29:7)

The thunder and lightning are described as the voice of the Lord. The lightning of his thunderous voice comes forth like flames of fire. The power of the storm is seen and heard, and it is so powerful that it breaks trees in Lebanon. Surely such a storm strikes fear in those who experience it. Boarding up homes and businesses, evacuation orders, the painfully slow escape on a jam-packed freeway—these are all actions born from a healthy fear and respect for the power of the storm.
Yet the Psalmist has more to say—

“Non-directive” religion will mean that the censors have to cut most of the apostle Paul’s letters in half, and put the second-part through the paper-shredder. The Scottish government are OK with Ephesians chapters 1-3. That’s just “teaching”. But when Paul gets to his “therefore” in chapter 4, all the “directive” instruction in chapters 4-6 needs to be binned. Censors will have to hunt down every verb in the imperative form and axe it.  We can say: “God is holy, God is love. Jesus is love, and Jesus teaches us to love”. But you can’t say: “Love God”. 

It sounds like something straight from George Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth”. But it is in fact language that the Scottish parliament’s equalities committee are using as they explore out-lawing “conversion therapy”. The committee has concluded that religious teaching and prayer about sexual identity should only be permitted if it’s conducted in a “non-directive way” (para 3).
I love the thought of Christian preachers working out what “non-directive” preaching looks like! It’s a bit like the invention of the “stationary” car, an “opaque” pair of spectacles, and a wonderful bottle of “tasteless” wine.
The language of “non-directive” religious teaching is almost comical in its failure to appreciate the first thing about human beings and God. I can imagine the apostle Peter on the Day of Pentecost, standing up to announce to the crowds that they have crucified the Christ, but God has raised him from the dead. When he gets to the climax of his sermon, Peter says: “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins” (Acts 2:38). But then, he remembers the Scottish legislation and corrects himself: “Whoops, sorry, I mean… I’d love you to think about all of that, but in a non-directive way, of course! And if anyone would possibly, maybe, like the idea of being baptised, come and talk to us, but, please understand there’s no pressure, no obligation, at all!”.
Maybe the members of the equalities committee have experienced “non-directive” preaching from pulpits. I admit there’s plenty of it around, and it can be sleep-inducing. But it’s not actually real preaching. All true preaching is “directive” by definition. If it’s not directive, it’s not preaching! One 19th century text-book on preaching says: “Whenever there is no direct purpose in the speaker to educe an action of will in his hearers there is no proper oration”.
Likewise, a “non-directive” morality is nonsense. Morality is “directive” by definition. Right and wrong, good and evil, righteousness and wickedness are not abstract ideas to simply ponder, in glorious abstraction, but principles to act upon. “Be doers of the word, and not hearers only” (James 1:22). If you hold moral convictions that are never expressed in the presence of what is wrong, they will end up shrivelling and dying.
“Non-directive” religion will mean that the censors have to cut most of the apostle Paul’s letters in half, and put the second-part through the paper-shredder.
Read More