What's Happening in Genesis 9?

I read an article on The Gospel Coalition website today regarding 'The Curse of Ham' from Genesis 9:20-27. The article was a worthy examination of the consequences of bad exegesis - but the author himself presents something that is a bit puzzling. His argument, which I would say is the classical treatment of this passage, is that Ham saw his drunk father naked, told his brothers about it, and in seeing his father naked, somehow sinned against him and invited a curse upon his son Canaan. When you think about that explanation though, it doesn't make much sense. If anyone has children of their own, they know it is certainly not uncommon for children to see their parents naked (up to a certain age, of course) and in the circumstances of living very close to one another, as Noah and his sons undoubtedly did on the Ark, its tough to imagine them never seeing each other naked, if even accidentally. Regardless - even if this was true, it seems like an awfully harsh punishment for such an offense.

It's a fascinating passage and it merits a serious look to figure out what is going on here. Here's the passage:

"Now the sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem and Ham and Japheth; and Ham was the father of Canaan. These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated. Then Noah began farming and planted a vineyard. He drank of the wine and became drunk, and uncovered himself inside his tent. Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his brother outside. But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it up on both their shoulders and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were turned away, so that they did not see their father's nakedness. When Noah awoke from his wine, he knew what his youngest son had done to him. So he said, "Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants He shall be to his brothers."" (Genesis 9:18-25, NASB)

I started a couple of verses before the main passage because it struck me as odd that the writer, covering nearly 2,000 years of history from Genesis 1-11, would go out of their way to blurt out that Ham was the father of Canaan, in a place where it seemingly doesn't have much of a connection to anything else. The writer doesn't mention any sons or descendants of Shem of Japheth, or the other descendants of Ham - just Canaan - and then Ham shows up in the very next story, and Canaan is cursed. It seems plausible that the writer is connecting Canaan with whatever happened between Noah and Ham. More on that later.

We Are Not In Charge - God Is

“Praise be to the name of God for ever and ever; wisdom and power are his. He changes times and seasons; he deposes kings and raises up others. He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to the discerning. He reveals deep and hidden things; he knows what lies in darkness, and light dwells with him.” - Daniel 2:20-22

God raises up the leaders of men and also removes them from office. Let us not be confused about who is in charge.

Some Thoughts on Our Nation

If you are the type of person who thinks its OK to insult, denigrate, or otherwise demean another person because of their political beliefs (or, really, any belief) – if you are OK with wishing ill on another group of people that is different than you, or thinks differently than you – if you are so lazy in your thinking as to ascribe evil to an entire group that has a different political persuasion than you, then I’m here to tell you, you are part of the problem. Perhaps worse, you have unwittingly fallen into the trap set for you by the people who run this country. When they have us fighting one another, when they have us arguing with one another and myopically focusing on our differences, when they have us hating each other, we are easily controlled. All they need to do is continue feeding us the very things that keep us fighting, arguing and hating. Hate and anger are powerful emotions – they tend to dominate when we feel them. They tend to cloud better judgement. They tend to make us blind to other things going on. Hate and anger tear down, they destroy, they wreck.

It doesn’t really matter whether you feel you are justified in your thinking – its wrong. Within the breadth and depth of human experience, there is so much nuance as to make it nearly impossible to paint a group of people with a single brush. There are nuts on both sides of the aisle, there are extremists on both side of the aisle, there are ‘the loud’ on both sides of the aisle. We need to stop giving them the stage. The nuts, the extremists and the loud don’t want to talk and discuss and they don’t want to actually change anything because no amount of change would ever satisfy them. It is because ‘them’ isn’t really ‘them’ – each person within those groups on the fringe has a different idea of what would be satisfying. You see – even within the fringe, there is nuance. The only thing that unifies them is that they believe they are justified in achieving their objectives by ‘any means necessary’…which is as empty as it is destructive. 

So let’s stop giving these people our attention. Let’s stop buying the lies we’re being fed that there are ‘two Americas’. We are all people living in one country and we don’t all think the same way and that’s ok. Most, MOST of us are reasonable, rational, somewhat compassionate, good-natured, respectful people. We want good things for our neighbors and for ourselves. We want to provide for our families and take care of those we love. We care about the suffering of those less fortunate and actually take real concrete steps to alleviate the poverty and hardship we see around us. We aren't fooled into thinking that mere virtue signaling helps anyone.

I’m sad about the state of our nation – this polarization isn’t helping and it is making the reasonable and rational seem like a lonely island…except on that Island is most of us…and quite honestly, most of us feel like we aren’t being heard. The nuts, extremists and the loud are drowning everything else out. Its time to stop giving them the stage and to start discussing, talking, finding common ground, and moving forward. If we don’t, eventually we will forget that America was founded on the freedom to think and believe differently. One side will simply beat the other into submission.

It starts with an accurate view of one’s sphere of influence. Social media has deluded us into thinking that our sphere is bigger than it is. No, you don’t have 500 or 1000 friends. You have about 5-10 actual friends. You live in a specific community and spend the vast majority of your time in that community. Start there. Find ways to serve the people in your community. Invest your time with the people who are actually your friends. Stop watching the news all day. Unplug.

Start small – it’s that simple.

Why 'Old' and 'New' Testaments?

My covenant I will not violate, nor will I alter the utterance of my lips. Once I have sworn by My holiness; I will not lie to David. His descendants shall endure forever and his throne as the sun before Me." (Psalm 89:34-36)

I recently learned that the Bible didn't always have chapters and verses. Starting in about the 5th century, there was some kind of a chapter system (called the kephalaia) that was implemented by the Byzantines, but it wasn't like our 'modern' chapter system, rather, it divided larger portions, or themes, within Scripture. In the 12th century Stephen Langton divided the Latin Vulgate translation into chapters. In the 15th century, a man named Robert Estienne was the first to divide the chapters into verses. Ever since then, we've had Bibles divided by chapters and verse...and I can't help but think that this sometimes hinders understanding. Ideas that belong together get separated and quite often, that leads to losing 'the forest through the trees' when it comes to exegesis.

For example, in Hebrews 5, and the end of that chapter, the writer of Hebrews is issuing a warning about falling away:

"Concerning him we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil" (Hebrews 5:11-14, NASB)

The chapter ends there. Chapter 6 starts with "Therefore", clearly connecting itself with what was just said. And the idea that was started at the end of Chapter 5 continues into the first part of chapter 6, and really, carries on through the entirety of Chapter 6:

"Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgement." (Hebrews 6:1-2, NASB)

Why make a chapter break there? Why divide up two sections of Scripture that were clearly meant to be read as a single idea? There are many, many examples just like this one, especially in the writings of Paul. So much so, that a common idiom among preachers is to say, "what is the 'therefore' there for?" Even something as central as the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) is divided up into 3 chapters despite a) being one single monologue and b) basically having a singular idea throughout. I understand the intent behind dividing up the Bible by chapter and verse - with the advent of the printing press and the increased availability of Scripture, it became necessary to be able to quickly reference some particular point in Scripture so that everyone could look at it together. Nevertheless, it also made it much easier to cherry-pick verses and to pluck important ideas out of their context. Just the other day, someone one Twitter was claiming that Jesus was a Socialist and cited Matthew 19:24, "Again, I tell you, it is easier to a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the Kingdom of God." Their point, in citing this verse was that God hates riches and wealth. This person, however, ignored the context of the verse (particularly the two verses that follow 19:24) and also the many instances in Scripture where someone was considered wealthy by worldly standards, but also righteous (Job, Solomon, David, etc).

'Old' and 'New' Testaments

Having said all this, what I really want to talk about is the divisions of Scripture into 'Old' and 'New' Testaments and how this might be the most unhelpful, and perhaps damaging, division of all.

The word 'Testament' (based of the Latin Testamentum) is simply an alternative word for Covenant and so a more accurate way of talking about Scripture, preserving the original ideas, would be Old Covenant and New Covenant, referring to the covenant that God made with Moses/Israel and the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31 (and alluded to in a few places in the OT, quoted in Hebrews 8, etc). Perhaps even changing that word, from Testament to Covenant, in how we refer to the major division of Scripture, would help people adjust their thinking, but I want to argue that any division at all seems to undermine the overall message of Scripture.

When we see the words 'old' and 'new', our modern mind automatically does something with that. When speaking of Scripture, nothing about what is 'Old' was meant to convey that it is either worn-out or useless. Even a passage like Hebrews 8:13, which seems to indicate that one covenant is old/obsolete isn't talking about the old covenant itself being worn out, but rather that God's way of relating to man is the thing that is worn out. The general idea that one gets when reading through Hebrews 8 and Jeremiah 31, is that God longs to put his Word and Law directly inside of us, in the sense that we will not longer strive and war against bodies of death (Romans 7:24) but that every inclination of our hearts will be towards pleasing and worshiping Him. Nothing is wrong with the law or the Covenant, it is the fact that humanity itself is broken. Don't take my word for it though, read the words of someone far smarter and well-studied than me; Skip Moen, who wrote an excellent article on what the writer of Hebrews means when talking about the "Old" covenant vs. the New. Just as the earthly temple was a copy and shadow of what is to come, so the covenant with Moses is a copy and shadow of the real deal - the covenant that will animate all relating to, and worship of, Yahweh Elohim (The King of Kings, The LORD of Lords).

Juxtaposing old and new almost subconsciously suggests that there is a different thing happening in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and beyond. If I send a new contract to a client of mine, they might correctly assume that there is something that is different in it from the old contract. When speaking of Scripture, however, there is no new message. I would argue that it is the same message, reinforced and confirmed by Jesus' life, death and resurrection, and then confirmed even further by the release of the Spirit in the early part of Acts. The arc of Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, is one continuous narrative, telling the same story and pointing in the same direction - that is, to the END, to the Day of the Lord, when Jesus returns to sit on his throne in Jerusalem, the dead are resurrected, everyone is judged and the righteous are separated from the wicked. The entire thrust of the message is to "repent and believe, for the Kingdom of God is near" (Matthew 3:2). If you are reading the story of the Israelites being brought out of bondage in Egypt, or of the prophets speaking to a captive Israel or reading one of Paul's epistles, they all demand a response from the hearer, to turn to God in humility and to put your trust and faith in God's promises.

But What About Jesus?

I don't mean to dismiss the fact that clearly, something different does happen in the New Testament. Never before had God himself come to Earth, and so that fact alone obviously demands our attention. However, the questions that must be asked are, "what was Jesus' message? What did he come to Earth to say and do?" Volumes and volumes have been written on this subject and far be it from me to suppose that I possess some never-before-heard revelation. I am not claiming that - what I am suggesting is simply reading Jesus' own words and then asking ourselves if there is some new message He is bringing. If you would say, "he brought the Gospel", then we have a quick answer. Mark 1:14-15 reads, "Now after John was arrested, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God. "The appointed time has been completed," he declared, "and the King of God is drawing near! Repent and keep putting your faith in the promises!"" What strikes me here is a) Jesus is preaching the Gospel BEFORE his death and b) His message is to repent and believe in the promises. The Gospel, therefore, can't simply be, "Jesus died so that by believing in Him, we could be with Him in Heaven when we die". Second, the message Jesus is preaching here sounds a lot like the prophets that proceeded him. "Repent & believe!" Additionally, you have to contend with the fact that in Luke 24 road to Emmaus account, Jesus explains himself using the Hebrew Scriptures (what we call the Old Testament) which suggests that the OT context is important for understanding who He is and what He is doing.

There is no question that Jesus' death on cross is the climatic moment of history (past, present, future), but his death and resurrection, it seems to me, was not the End. The way I see it, His death and resurrection were a confirmation, or first fruits, of what is to come, and by saying that, it is a confirmation that God is going to follow through on EVERY promise He made to Abraham, Moses, and David (and Noah and Adam/Eve before that). When viewed in that light, it becomes absolutely critical for the modern believer to understand what is said in the 'Old' Testament. To know what the promises of God are, we have to know what was said (and how it was understood), and what God promised. Without that, we are likely to boil the Gospel down to something that disconnects Jesus from his Jewishness; that is, his connectedness to the narrative that preceded his first appearing. In my estimation, that would be a cheapening of the message and the Hope - it would make it less concrete and more vulnerable to misunderstanding.

Moving Forward

I figured that if I was going to tear something down, I should have a clear proposal for what to do instead. In the best case scenario, you would just have "The Holy Bible", and The Bible would have no major division in it. It would be continuous from Genesis to Revelation. If, however, we must have a division, I will go ahead and defer to someone much smarter than me. Dan Gruber, a Messianic Jew and talented writer/thinker, wrote about this very thing in his book "Copernicus and the Jews" and proposed that we call the Old Testament the 'Tanakh' or The Hebrew Scriptures, which are the Scriptures Jesus would have had (Genesis to Malachi), and call the New Testament the 'Messianic Writings' (Matthew to Revelation). This way of talking about Scripture rightly connects the two parts AND preserves the inherent Jewishness of the whole thing.

Why Does This Matter?

If, like me, you really want to dig deep into this question - read Dan Gruber's book that I linked above; I am making my way through it and it is technical reading to be sure. To boil it down, the simple fact is that without Jesus' Jewish context, what he does/says makes no sense and has no complete and concrete meaning. It only holds full meaning with the context and with the narrative that preceded His appearing. Understanding 'sin', 'atonement', 'repentance', 'forgiveness', righteousness', 'justification', 'salvation', or any number of other theological terms absolutely REQUIRES a Jewish context. I say 'Jewish' because the Hebrew Scriptures are Jewish. There is simply no divorcing them from that context. God identifies himself as the "God of Israel" and "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" repeatedly throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. He refers to Israel has His 'Chosen People'. "I will be their God, and they will be My people" (Gen 17:8, Ex 6:7, Ex 29:45, Lev 26:45, Ezk 14:11, Zech 8:8, Jer 32:38, Isa 43:3, Hosea 12:9, etc, etc, etc).

This is not to somehow exalt the Jewish people, to exalt Hebrew culture, to assign value judgements to different ethnicities or groups of people, or anything like that. Rather, this is an acknowledgement that this is how God himself has chosen to set things up. This is the way that He has chosen to redeem humanity. I started out this entry by quoting Psalm 89 - "my covenant I will not violate". What are God's words to Abraham in Genesis 12?

"Go forth from your country, and from your relatives, and from your father's house, to the land which I will show you; And I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great; And so you shall be a blessing; And I will bless those who bless you and the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all of the families of the Earth will be blessed." (Genesis 12:1-3)

If I am reading that straight-forwardly, God chose Israel for himself through Abraham (the nation of Israel is the one that comes from Abraham) and ultimately promised to save/bless ALL of the families of the Earth THROUGH Abraham/Israel. You might say, "well, Jesus fulfilled that - he saved everyone through his death on the cross." What about Hebrews 9:28? It says, "...so also, Messiah was offered once to bear the since of many, and He will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who eagerly await Him". The 'salvation' part is still coming - it's a future hope - which means, to bring this full-circle, that God still intends to follow through on His covenant with Abraham, down to the last letter. That includes land (Gen 15:18, 17:8) for His people and also, if we bring in the further Covenants made with Moses and David, involves a descendant of David (Jesus) sitting on a throne in Jerusalem forever (2 Samuel 7:13). If God does not do this, He is not God. Put another way, if He somehow changed His plan in the middle, abandoned His people Israel, and set up a new thing called the Church, then he is not God because He will have violated His Covenant. The promises of God are what matters and that is why our right understanding of who He is and what He is doing is paramount. It determines how we respond, and that is where the rubber meets the road.

Some Election Thoughts

First, I'm glad that all the yard signs are gone and all of the political ads on television have ceased. No matter what happens from here on out, we can all unite in our agreement of how much we hate the sheer din of a late-stage Presidential election cycle.

Second, this thing doesn't appear to be over - even though the Biden folks have said they think it is. A) Biden hasn't been certified as the victor of any contested state and it looks like ballot recounts will likely occur in at least 2-3 battleground states. Does it look likely that it's over? Yes. Is that assured? No.

Third, I am struck in looking at the results we do have by just how much this election was about ONE person - Donald Trump. You either liked him (or liked what was happening for you, during his presidency) or you disliked him, but either way, it seems clear that most people felt strongly enough about Trump, one way or the other, to go out and vote. I don't think this election had anything to do with Biden or the country's faith in him as a leader - and that's evidenced by the fact that the Democrats didn't take over a majority in the Senate and actually lost several seats in the House. If there was some country-wide sentiment about the vision of the Republican party, then I think you would have seen a Biden presidency and a Democrat majority in the Senate and an expanded majority in the House, but we didn't see that. This election was unique in terms of U.S. Presidential elections in the sense that it was about one person. We felt strongly about Trump, but much less so on the rest of it.

Fourth - we have some serious issues about the execution of elections moving forward. Mail-in balloting was way up this year because of the pandemic, but I'm not sure that the process for handling it is secure. I'm not saying that fraud occurred, but the OPPORTUNITY for fraud was there in a way that it hasn't been in past elections. First, every state has to employ the same rules. I'm sorry Pennsylvania, but you can't decide that you're going to accept ballots as long as they were post-marked by election day. No one is in the dark about when election day is and if you can't get your mail-in ballot mailed well before Election Day occurs, then go to the polls on the day. Second, Florida seemed to get everything right - count the mail-in ballots as they come in so that on Election Day, you have that information ready to go and can simply add the Election Day votes to the total for a quick and straight-forward counting process. There is no reason, even if we allow mail-in voting, that we can't have some solid results, with most precincts in and counted, the night of Election Day.

Fifth, I find it to be either tone deaf, or outright mean-spirited, that people like Michelle Obama would say that everyone who voted for Trump is voting for a 'status quo [...of] lies, hate, chaos and division." That is extremely reductionist and is really a slap in the face to almost 1/2 of the people who voted. The Left would serve itself well to recognize the fact that more people voted for Trump in 2020 than did in 2016 and also that fringes of their own party have done more to sow the seeds of 'hate, chaos and division' than anyone else. It is to their own political detriment that they continue this rhetoric.

Anyone Paying Attention?

Tomorrow in lovely DuPage County, Illinois, the governor of our state has decided to increase restrictions due to the positivity-rate associated with COVID testing. So, like any reasonable citizen, I went to look at the numbers myself.

As of today, DuPage County has had 600 confirmed COVID deaths. 600 out of 1,000,000 doesn't seem like a lot, but I then I thought, why stop there? Why not look and see when DuPage County passed 500 deaths. Is this thing getting worse or better? So I looked and it was easy information to find - DuPage County passed the 500-deaths mark on June 26th. Today is October 22nd,...so it took nearly 4 months, in a county of 1,000,000 people for 100 people to die of COVID...but we are increasing restrictions because of a rising positivity rate??

Is anyone paying attention? Pardon my language, but what in the hell is going on here? I wish that DuPage County published its cases and deaths information for every other common disease like it is posting its numbers on COVID. I truly believe we would see that more than 100 people in the County have died from at least 2-3 other things over that same period of time.

I'm trying so hard to not let this get to me, but at this point, I'm am extremely frustrated by the state government dictating to all of us citizens how we should live our lives in light of what is actually happening. We (and I mean, most of us) don't need or want the state's help in navigating this anymore. I don't trust their motives, I don't trust their ability to decide what is best for anyone and I am increasingly skeptical that they will willingly give up the power they have decided to take. Per the Circuit Court of Illinois, the Governor's executive orders no longer hold any power and haven't now for months. The state vowed to appeal that ruling, but that decision remains in effect until and unless they actually win an appeal. Its time for businesses (and churches!) to start standing up for themselves and making their own decisions. Given the data that is available on this - you don't need a medical degree or epidemiology background to know that this is not some existential threat to life.

100 out of 1,000,000, in 4 months! Wake up!

Thoughts on Milk and Solid Food

"Concerning him [Jesus] we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull and negligent. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the Oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil." (Hebrews 5:11-14, NASB)

I have read these verses many times, but they came around again this week in a Bible study I'm in. First, I want to look at what the passage says, both contextually and specifically and then talk about what can be learned.

I think it's good to start out by sharing what follows this in Hebrews 6 (Blessed Hope Translation):

"That is why, progressing beyond the elementary teachings about Messiah, we must move on to maturity, not having to go back and re-lay the foundation: Repentance from acts that lead to death and faith in God, instruction about baptisms and commissioning through the laying on of hands, and about the resurrection of the dead and the judgment of the coming age." (Hebrews 6:1-3)

The reason I start here is because the obvious question after reading Hebrews 5 is 'what are the oracles of God' or 'what is the milk'? The writer of Hebrews helps explain that in Chapter 6; the milk, or foundations of the faith - repentance, baptism, going/sending (Holy Spirit?), the coming judgement, and the hope of resurrection and eternal life. In other words, these are the basics - understanding these things is crucial to a well-grounded faith, and understanding of these things is key to helping one move towards maturity. The 'oracles' were commonly understood to be the words of God, or the law (Torah) and the promises of God (the Covenants, God's word spoken through the Prophets).

The broader context is a discussion of Jesus as the High Priest - or the Mother of All Priests (MOAP?). It is a thick discussion, as is most of Hebrews, outlining who Jesus is and how He fits into the broader narrative of Scripture.

One comment I find very interesting in Hebrews 5:12 is: "For though by this time you ought to be teachers..." Considering that the audience of Hebrews is likely Jewish believers, this statement is even more interesting to me. This motif is indirectly continued a few verses later when it says, "but solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained..." (v.14). To me the writer seems to allude here to a lack of practice and discipline which led to a need to revisit basics..."since you have become so dull and negligent" (v.11). This might seem like a stretch, but I feel that this statement is connected to Israel's unique calling from God, to be a 'light to the nations' (Isa 42:6, Isa 49:6, Acts 13:47). How can someone be a light if they do not understand even the basics...using the language of the text, how can someone teach what they do not themselves understand?

Admonition

I feel like there is an easy point of application here for the modern believer. How can you be an effective disciple of Jesus without regularly spending time in the Word, whether simply by reading or by serious study? Furthermore, how will you be able to explain your faith, or teach someone else if you yourself don't understand? I say these things rhetorically because I have very much been the person who didn't read up until a year ago or so. I loved studying (occasionally) and I loved finding something new, but I didn't read with any regularity and thus, I had only a shallow understanding. I would have been hard-pressed to give someone else much detail in terms of what I believed, outside of vague references to things that are mentioned in the Bible. By saying this, I don't mean to beat people with the stick of 'woulda, coulda, shoulda'. That's not it - but on the other hand - active faith involves responsibility. Our trajectory of growth isn't going to be perfect, but it should still resemble a trajectory of growth, right? If we have a consistent problem with mustering either the time or the commitment to sit and read and study Scripture, then it is possible that something might need to change to fix that problem.

Ultimately it comes down, again, to the calling of God. In this case, it is the calling Jesus gives to those who would follow him - a command to 'make fishers of men' and to go and 'make disciples of all nations'. Discipling others will require teaching them, about who God is, about what He has done, about what He is doing now and about what He will do in the future. If we don't understand the milk of our faith and some of the structure that supports it, how effective will we be at sharing it with others? For that matter, how effective will faith be in our lives when things get difficult or uncomfortable?

Encouragement

The encouragement here is that neither God, not the writer of Hebrews, will give up on us. He says, "ok, if we have to keep re-laying the foundation, then we will, so that you will grow up to maturity in faith" (AK paraphrase). I love this section at the end of Chapter 6:

"Yet we are confident in regard to you, dear friends, of the better course belonging to salvation, even though we speak like this. God is not, after all, unjust ; he will not forget your hard work and the love you have shown for the honor of his name in having served the saints and in continuing to serve them. Yet we earnestly desire each of you to keep on showing the very same goodwill and concern, aiming to retain full conviction about the reliability of our hope all the way to the finish, so that instead of being so dull and negligent, you may follow the example of those who inherit the promises through faith and patient endurance." (Hebrews 6:9-12, BHT, emphasis added)