Main news for 14 December 2021

Reflecting on oaths sworn by people, the author of the letter says: if a person can swear by anything, then in any case it must be by something higher, something that has absolute importance and value for him. It is no accident that in Israel the highest form of oath was considered an oath by the name of God.

Meanwhile, the Savior calls His disciples and followers not to swear at all: for what is absolutely important and valuable to a person does not belong to him; he cannot dispose of it, just as he cannot dispose of himself. Every person is in God's power, and therefore he cannot give anyone any guarantees about his own future. Against such a background, the author's statement that God swears by Himself because He cannot swear by anything or anyone higher sounds paradoxical. But if one thinks about it, it becomes clear that this concerns one of the most important principles of spiritual life in general and Christian life in particular. Indeed, what is an oath? Swearing by someone or something, a person as it were seeks a guarantor who can secure the fulfillment of the promise he has made.

The one or the thing called as witness, and an oath usually implies such a calling, is supposed to become the guarantor of what was promised. It is quite understandable that if God gives a promise, no one and nothing can guarantee its fulfillment except God Himself. This seems quite obvious, and it is not very clear why the author of the letter suddenly decided to touch on the subject of oath. Meanwhile, many problems of Christians of that time were connected precisely with the forgetting of the important principle of spiritual life just mentioned.

Many of them were probably inclined to see in the events then taking place a certain guarantee of the Messiah's imminent return. He had promised that after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple He would return; therefore He had to return, since in the year 70 exactly what He had spoken of took place. In reality His return is not conditioned by any historical events; on the contrary, it itself determines them and to a certain degree conditions them, as the point of completion of the historical process. No events at all could be regarded as "forcing" the Messiah's return. This obvious fact is what the author of the letter reminds his readers of.

Heb 6:16

NOTES

Reasoning about the oaths people take, the author of the letter says: if a person can swear by anything, then in any case it must be by something higher, something that represents absolute importance and value for him. It is no accident that in Israel the highest form of oath was considered an oath by the name of God.

Meanwhile, the Savior calls His disciples and followers not to swear at all: after all, what is absolutely important and valuable for a person does not belong to him, he cannot dispose of it, just as he cannot dispose of himself. Every person is in God's power, and therefore he cannot give anyone any guarantees about his own future. Against this background, the statement of the author of the letter that God swears by Himself because He cannot swear by anything or anyone higher sounds paradoxical. But if one thinks about it, it becomes clear that the matter here concerns one of the most important principles of spiritual life in general and Christian life in particular. Indeed, what is an oath? Swearing by someone or something, a person in a sense seeks a guarantor who will be able to ensure the fulfillment of the promise he has given.

The one or the thing called as witness, and an oath usually presupposes such a calling, is supposed to become the guarantor of the fulfillment of what was promised. It is quite understandable that if God gives a promise, no one and nothing can guarantee its fulfillment except God Himself. This appears quite obvious, and it is not very clear why the author of the letter suddenly decided to touch on the theme of oath. Meanwhile, many problems of Christians of that time were connected precisely with forgetting the most important principle of spiritual life just mentioned.

Many of them were probably inclined to see in the events then taking place some guarantee of the Messiah's swift return. After all, He had promised that after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple He would return, which means He must return, for in AD 70 precisely what He had spoken about took place. In reality, however, His return is not conditioned by any historical events. On the contrary, it itself determines them and, to a certain degree, conditions them as the point of completion of the historical process. And no events at all could be regarded as "forcing" the Messiah's return. It is this obvious fact that the author of the letter reminds his readers about.

Speaking of what could become support for his readers on their difficult path, the author of the letter especially...

Speaking of what could become support for his readers on their difficult path, the author of the letter especially singles out readiness to support one's brothers, the "saints," that is, Christians (vv. 10-12), and hope in the immutability of the promises once given by God (vv. 13-15). He reminds them that when God swears by Himself, He does so because He cannot swear by anyone else higher than Himself (vv. 16-20). Such a statement seems completely obvious, but as we can see, it was quite relevant in a time when people were ready to doubt everything, including the covenant made with God and the promises He had given. In fact, a certain cooling of spiritual life was, as we can see, largely connected with a loss of trust: many thought that after the catastrophe of 70 all the former covenants had become obsolete, including those God made with His people through Abraham and Moses. The author of the letter insists that God remains faithful to His people, faithful to all covenants and to all promises once given.

But He gives no proofs of His faithfulness except the Messiah-High Priest, who opened to all who seek the way into the Kingdom. After all, God Himself is the highest witness to His own faithfulness, and by definition there can be no other. Strictly speaking, only the Kingdom is proof in this case: unlike Jerusalem and the Temple, it did not collapse, did not disappear, and did not close itself to the faithful. But in order to acquire it, trust is needed, and this requires a definite spiritual effort. If the one seeking an answer did not want to make that effort, if he did not even try to struggle with his distrust, then he could not receive any answer. Thus a closed circle formed, and it could be broken only by throwing oneself toward God the way people throw themselves into the water from a sinking ship: there is nothing to lose, it will not get worse, and what remains is to decide and use the last chance. And if the one seeking salvation truly made that decision, he acquired both trust in God and the Kingdom as the best proof of His faithfulness.

We hear very bright and important words in today’s reading. Hope for...

${currentDateString}


	After registering, you can subscribe to any Bible reading plan. Personalized settings and other services for registered users are planned, so we recommend registering now. Registration is free.