Either/Or

Luk 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

In this verse from Luke, we have a basic teaching technique used by Yeshua as he was instructing his disciples. In Hebrew, this technique is called Kal v’chomer, or, from light to heavy.
He is comparing two goods: the good of an earthly parent supplying his child’s needs to the greater good of God supplying the needs of his children.

By using this technique, Yeshua is showing a contrast. He is in no way suggesting that earthly parents cease and desist from supplying their children’s needs now that they know that it is God who supplies their needs. He is using the contrast between our heavenly Father and the good and generous behavior of earthly parents. The giving nature of the parent is applauded by this comparison, it is elevated to being compared to the very character of God himself. 

This technique is used often by Yeshua, as it is very effective in helping us understand a spiritual concept by drawing our attention to the physical counterpart. Here is another example of kal v’chomer:

Luk 12:28 If then God so clothe the grass, which is to day in the field, and to morrow is cast into the oven; how much more will he clothe you, O ye of little faith?

Again, Yeshua is not suggesting that the lilies are now passé, but he is suggesting that in comparison to the lilies, the Father will see to all our needs. 

The book of Hebrews in the New Testament uses this kal v’chomer technique as well. However, the interpretation of the technique is entirely missed by many who study these passages.

Heb 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
Heb 8:6 But now hath he (Yeshua) obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Many people who study this passage, rather than seeing a superlative comparison, see this as either/or. Either you have Moses OR you have Yeshua. You cannot have both. But this misinterpretation does damage to the literary device used and makes it of no effect. The author is simply making a superlative comparison: Moses is great, Yeshua is greater. The author is not suggesting that Moses be done away with. Sadly, this is precisely the teaching prevalent through centuries of Christian teaching.

The last kal v’chomer I want to draw your attention to is probably the one most widely misunderstood today:

Heb. 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

Heb. 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

The author is making superlative comparison: the animal sacrifices did do what they were intended to do, but what they were intended to do was entirely different from what the sacrifice of Yeshua was intended to do. The first is physical, the second is spiritual. Animal sacrifices operate in the physical, observable world, the sacrifice of Yeshua in the spiritual, unseen world. Both were efficacious!  This is not an either/or statement by the author. He is not saying: Either you have animal sacrifices OR you have the sacrifice of Yeshua. The two operate in different speres, different realms. One is about this world, one is about the world to come, which by the way, is the focus of the author of Hebrews (see Heb. 2:5).

There is no competition between Yeshua and his Father’s House, the Temple. There is no conflict between the altar service and the finished work of Messiah. There is no contention between the priesthood of Aaron and the priesthood of Melechtzedek. These difficulties have been inserted into the texts by interpreters, they are not there in fact.

It is not either/or.