Friday, January 15<\/b><\/p>\n
Matthew 5:31-42: In a third contrast between Gospel righteousness and that of the scribe and Pharisee, the subject is the taking of oaths. Whereas the Mosaic Law prohibits perjury\u2014an imprecation in testimony to a lie (Exodus 20:7; Deuteronomy 5:11)\u2014Gospel righteousness forbids oaths in testimony to the truth.<\/p>\n
The examples given in these verses, particularly that related to one\u2019s own head (verse 36), contain some measure of disguise or subterfuge, to avoid using God\u2019s name explicitly (\u201cheaven,\u201d \u201cearth,\u201d \u201cJerusalem\u201d\u2014verse 34; cf. 23:16-22). This suggests an \u201cunofficial\u201d context for the prohibition. In solemn and more formal settings, after all, such as a courtroom, there would be no such disguising of the references to God\u2019s holy name.<\/p>\n
In fact, this is how the ethical tradition of the Church has interpreted the prohibition of oaths\u2014that is, as pertaining to ordinary conversation, not a more solemn setting in which an oath is reasonable and expected. Thus, we observe the Apostle Paul\u2019s complete lack of scruple in this matter (cf. Romans 1:9; 2 Corinthians 1:23; Philippians 1:8; 1 Thessalonians 2:5). The Church has followed suit, not understanding this prohibition in the same strict sense as the prohibition against divorce.<\/p>\n
The point of the prohibition is to avoid frivolous, unnecessary, and irreverent appeals to God, no matter how such appeals may be disguised. Invocations of this sort encroach on the realm of the divine, and the biblical Lord would be treated with the same nonchalance that pagans felt toward the Homeric gods. Oaths of this kind are irreverent to the divine presence, much like the uncovered head of a woman in prayer. Such oaths\u2014frivolous invocations to the divine truth as guarantor of human claims\u2014demean the divine majesty by forcing God to participate in a merely human conversation. Gospel righteousness recognizes the insult implied in such behavior and such an attitude.<\/p>\n
The Lord\u2019s prohibition of oaths extends and perfects the Mosaic proscription against taking the Lord\u2019s name \u201cin vain\u201d (that is, on behalf of a false assertion) and strengthens the Old Testament\u2019s care to reverence the holiness of God\u2019s name (Leviticus 19:12). In this sense Jesus\u2019 prohibition goes to the root of the divine intention in the Torah, much as His prohibition of divorce and adulterous thoughts more profoundly asserts what the Old Testament says of the sanctity of marriage.<\/p>\n
In addition, the Lord\u2019s injunction here forces the believer to assume full responsibility for the \u201ctruth content\u201d of what he says (verse 37; cf. James 5:12; 1 Corinthians 1:19). He cannot evade this moral responsibility by a casual invocation of the supernatural. Such invocations, says Jesus, are far from harmless; they come \u201cfrom the Evil One\u201d (ek tou Ponerou<\/i>), from whom we pray to be delivered (apo tou Ponerou<\/i>–6:13).<\/p>\n
Finally, let us note that the Lord Himself declined the high priest\u2019s adjuration to swear to His own divinity (26:63, in Matthew only).<\/p>\n
Saturday, January 16<\/b><\/p>\n
Matthew 5:43—6:4: The fifth and final contrast between Gospel righteousness and that of the scribes and Pharisees (5:43-48) has to do with the love of one\u2019s enemies. The Old Testament does not actually prescribe hatred on one\u2019s enemies, of course; that part is a sort of hyperbole. Nonetheless, the prescribed love of one\u2019s neighbor (22:39; Leviticus 19:18) certainly prompted some question about who, exactly, was included in this list (Luke 10:29). Jesus extended the Mosaic commandment on this point by expanding the word \u201cneighbor\u201d to include \u201cenemy.\u201d This truly was a new idea in Israel\u2019s experience.<\/p>\n
This love of one\u2019s enemies must come from the heart, because Jesus made it a matter of prayer (verse 44). It has to do with one\u2019s relationship to the \u201cFather in heaven\u201d (verses 45,48).<\/p>\n
Once again, as in all these five contrasts, believers are called to \u201cexceed\u201d (perisson<\/i>–verse 47). Their love, like their righteousness, must be \u201cin excess\u201d (verses 46-47). To love those that love us affords no reward, because such love is its own reward. The love of one\u2019s enemies, however, is not an act rewarding in itself. One loves in such a way only for the sake of the heavenly Father.<\/p>\n
This kind of love makes a person \u201cperfect,\u201d it most renders him like God, and being \u201clike God\u201d is the purpose of the Torah (Leviticus 19:2). It is understood, of course, that only God can enable a person to love in this way (Romans 8:2-4).<\/p>\n
The love of one\u2019s enemies appears last in Matthew\u2019s sequence of contrasts based on the Torah, because it is the perfecting and ultimate sign of Gospel righteousness. It must be the distinguishing mark of the Christian. By it, believers become not only \u201cmore righteous, but perfect like unto God. The love of one\u2019s enemies certainly does not \u201ccome naturally.\u201d<\/p>\n
The love of enemies enjoined in the present context is not a political tactic, a thing done to accomplish something else. It is not the practical means to an end, even the conversion of the enemy. The love of enemies enjoined in this passage is an end in itself, because it renders a man like unto God.<\/p>\n
This Gospel-enjoined love of enemies is not a mark of noble character—the generosity of the magnanimous man—nor is it the cultivated fruit of universal benevolence, of the sort we associate with the oriental religious sage. These are but human counterfeits of what the Lord enjoins here. Christian love of enemies is done purely to please a Father in heaven.<\/p>\n
Nor is the purpose of the love of enemies to feel good or virtuous. In fact, the Christian who loves his enemies may feel perfectly miserable about himself. The love of one\u2019s enemies is not an exercise in self-fulfillment. It is, rather, an act of self-emptying. It is the Cross. It is to love as Christ loves, and as His Father loves.<\/p>\n
Sunday, January 17<\/b><\/p>\n
Hebrews 9:23-28: According to Leviticus, the altar and the curtain fronting the Holy of Holies were consecrated with the blood of the sin offering: \u201cHe shall bring the bull to the door of the tabernacle of meeting before the Lord, lay his hand on the bull\u2019s head, and kill the bull before the Lord. Then the anointed priest shall take some of the bull\u2019s blood and bring it to the tabernacle of meeting. The priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle some of the blood seven times before the Lord, in front of the veil of the sanctuary. . . . The anointed priest shall bring some of the bull\u2019s blood to the tabernacle of meeting. Then the priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle it seven times before the Lord, in front of the veil. And he shall put some of the blood on the horns of the altar which is before the Lord, which is in the tabernacle of meeting; and he shall pour the remaining blood at the base of the altar of burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of meeting\u201d(4:4-7,16-18).<\/p>\n
That is to say, the physical place of the worship—the place where God and man were reconciled—needed to be sanctified by this expiatory blood.<\/p>\n
If this was true of the Tabernacle in the time of Moses, says the author of Hebrews, why should we imagine it not to be true of the true Tabernacle, the eternal model in heaven? Consequently, as the blood of the ancient sin offering purified and consecrated the ancient Tabernacle, so the sacrificial blood of Jesus had to purify and consecrate the heavenly sanctuary, that which was made without hands: \u201cTherefore was it necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.\u201d<\/p>\n
The application of this imagery, to elaborate the theology of redemption, is based on the prior understanding of Jesus\u2019 death as a \u201csin offering.\u201d This term, in Hebrew, is \u2019attata\u2019t<\/i>, literally \u201csin.\u201d The LXX translation is literal: hamartia,\/i>. <\/i><\/p>\n
In Leviticus the verb used to \u201cmake\u201d this sin offering is \u2018asah<\/i> (three times in Leviticus 4:8-9), which is a normal verb connoting the performance of many sacrifices (cf. 5:10; 6:15; 8:34; 9:7,16,22; 14:19; 15:15,30; 16:9,15,24; 19:9; 22:23; 23:12,19). In the Greek text of the Septuagint this \u2018asah<\/i> was translated as poiein<\/i>. This is the same verb used by St. Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:21, where he says that God \u201cmade [Jesus] a sin offering\u201d (hamartian epoiesen<\/i>).<\/p>\n
This latter text is concerned with man\u2019s reconciliation with God through the sacrifice of Christ: \u201cNow all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ . . . God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them\u201d (5:18-19). This is the context in which Paul wrote, \u201cHe made Him, who knew no sin, a sin offering for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him\u201d (5:21).<\/p>\n
That is to say, while St. Paul used the theology of the sin offering to interpret the sacrificial death of Christ, the Epistle to the Hebrews extends that theology to describe the glorification of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary.<\/p>\n
Monday, January 18<\/b><\/p>\n
Hebrews 10:1-10: This interpretation of Psalm 40 (39) comes in the center of the major argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews: the heavenly significance of the Lord\u2019s death on the Cross. As we have seen, the author appeals to the Mosaic prescriptions about the ancient Tabernacle to elaborate that significance. These prescriptions of the Mosaic Law, he says, possessed only \u201ca shadow of the good things to come.\u201d Offered \u201ccontinually year by year,\u201d they were not able to \u201cmake those who approach perfect\u201d (10:1). That is to say, those sacrifices did not really take away sins, and their effectiveness depended entirely on the Sacrifice of the Cross, of which they were only a foreshadowing. Indeed, \u201cit is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins\u201d (v. 4).<\/p>\n
In support of this thesis, the author of Hebrews quotes Psalm 40: \u201cSacrifice and offering You did not desire \/ . . . In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin \/ You had no pleasure\u201d (vv. 5, 6). In fact, this theme appears rather often in the Old Testament itself. Isaiah, for example, and other prophets frequently attempted to disillusion those of their countrymen who imagined that the mere offering of cultic worship, with no faith, no obedience, no change of heart, could be acceptable to God.<\/p>\n
The author of Hebrews, therefore, is simply drawing the proper theological conclusion when he writes: \u201cAnd every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins\u201d (v. 11). What God seeks, rather, is the perfect obedience of faith, and such an obedience means the total gift of self, not the mere sacrificial slaughter of some beast.<\/p>\n
This obedience of Christ our Lord is a matter of considerable importance in the New Testament. He Himself declared that He came, not to seek His own will, but the will of the Father who sent Him (John 5:30). This doing of the Father\u2019s will had particular reference to His Passion, in which \u201cHe . . . became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross\u201d (Phil. 2:8). This was the obedience manifested in our Lord\u2019s prayer at the very beginning of the Passion: \u201cTake this cup away from Me; nevertheless, not what I will, but what You will\u201d (Mark 14:36).<\/p>\n
Christ\u2019s own obedience to God\u2019s will is also the key to Palm 40, and Hebrews goes on to quote the pertinent verses, referring them explicitly to the Incarnation and Sacrifice of Jesus the Lord: \u201cSacrifice and offering You did not desire, \/ But a body You have prepared for Me. \/ In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin \/ You had no pleasure. \/ Then I said, \u2018Behold, I have come\u2014 \/ In the volume of the book it is written of Me\u2014 \/ To do Your will, O God\u2019\u201d (vv. 5\u20137).<\/p>\n
The body \u201cprepared\u201d for Christ in the Incarnation became the instrument of His obedience to that \u201cwill\u201d of God by which we are redeemed and rendered holy: \u201cBy that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. . . . For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified\u201d (vv. 10, 14).<\/p>\n
The various sacrifices of the Old Testament have now found their perfection in the one self-offering of Jesus the Lord. Again the author of Hebrews comments: \u201cPreviously saying, \u2018Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them\u2019 (which are offered according to the law), then He said, \u2018Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God\u2019\u201d (vv. 8, 9).<\/p>\n
The \u201cHe\u201d of this psalm, then, according to the New Testament, is Christ the Lord. We pray it properly when we pray it as His own words to the Father. The \u201cwill\u201d of God to which He was obedient was that \u201cwill\u201d to which He referred when in the Garden He prayed: \u201cNot my will, but Yours be done.\u201d<\/p>\n
This self-oblation of our Lord\u2019s obedience to God is not simply a feature of this particular psalm; it is the interpretive door through which we pray all of the psalms. The \u201cYour will be done\u201d of the Lord\u2019s Prayer is likewise the summation of the entire Book of Psalms, and what ultimately makes Christian sense of the Psalter.<\/p>\n
Tuesday, January 19<\/b><\/p>\n
Hebrews 10:11-18: Citing Jeremiah 31, which he quoted at greater length in chapter 8, the author contrasts the sacrifices of the Mosaic Law with the sacrifice offered in the Passion of Jesus.<\/p>\n
There are several points of contrast:<\/p>\n
First, the Old Testament priest \u201cstands,\u201d whereas Jesus is enthroned: \u201cAnd every priest stands<\/i> ministering daily . . . But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down<\/i> at the right hand of God.\u201d From the very beginning of this work, Jesus is portrayed as \u201cseated\u201d in glory: \u201cwhen He had purged sins, [He] sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high\u201d (1:3). Later on the author will say of Jesus that He \u201cfor the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God\u201d (12:2).<\/p>\n
This image of Jesus seated in glory is drawn mainly from Psalm 109 (110), cited at the beginning of this work (1:13) and obviously much favored in the early Church (cf. Mark 16:10; Ephesians 1:20; Colossians 3:1; Revelation 3:21).<\/p>\n
Second, the Old Testament sacrifices were many, whereas the New Testament sacrifice is unique: \u201cAnd every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly<\/i> the same sacrifices . . . But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice<\/i> for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God.\u201d In the previous chapter we read that \u201cChrist was offered once<\/i> to bear the sins of many\u201d (9:28). This word \u201conce\u201d (hapachs<\/i>) is found in Hebrews 8 times, more than all the other New Testament books put together.<\/p>\n
This hapachs<\/i>, \u201conce,\u201d is contrasted with pollakis<\/i>, \u201cmany times\u201d (9:25-26).<\/p>\n
This \u201conce\u201d contrasted with \u201cmany\u201d is related to the \u201cseated\u201d contrasted with \u201cstanding.\u201d The \u201conce\u201d and \u201cseated\u201d indicate finality and fulfillment—the end of history—whereas the \u201cstanding\u201d and \u201cmany\u201d suggest an ongoing process.<\/p>\n
Third, the Old Testament sacrifices were unable, of themselves, to atone for sins and purify the heart: \u201cAnd every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins<\/i>, and \u201cby one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.\u201d<\/p>\n
Implied in the development of this theme is an underlying judgment on the Jewish religion itself: Now that the fulfillment of its history has come in Christ and His redeeming work, the Jewish religion no longer represents God\u2019s will for history. This is why it is called \u201cthe old<\/i> covenant: \u201cIn that He says, \u2018A new covenant,\u2019 He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away\u201d (8:13). The continued existence of a \u201cJewish religion\u201d alongside the Christian Gospel remains an anomaly yet to be resolved.<\/p>\n
Wednesday, January 20<\/b><\/p>\n
Hebrews 10:19-25: What the Jewish high priest could do only once a year—enter the Holy of Holies—the Christian can do everyday, by reason of the blood of Christ. It is the blood of Christ that gives the believer intimate access to God.<\/p>\n
The author begins by speaking of boldness—parresia<\/i>, an expression of which he is fond: \u201chaving boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus.\u201d<\/p>\n
In context, this boldness comes from the full certainty of faith: en plerophoria pisteos<\/i>: \u201chaving boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, . . . let us draw near with a true heart in full certainty of faith.\u201d<\/p>\n
This word, plerophoria<\/i> is found four times in the New Testament, two of them in Hebrews. The other place is 6:11—\u201cand we desire that each one of you show the same diligence to the full certainty of hope [plerophoria elpidos<\/i>] until the end.\u201d<\/p>\n
And what does \u201cfull certainty\u201d bring? Boldness—parresia<\/i>. The full certainty of faith finds expression in boldness of the heart.<\/p>\n
Whereas the Acts of the Apostles had used this word, parresia<\/i>, to describe the proper tone in Christian preaching (Acts 4:13,28,29,31), St. Paul used the expression to speak of our relationship to God. He wrote that in Christ, \u201cwe have boldness [parresia<\/i>] and access with confidence by the faith of Him\u201d (Ephesians 3:12).<\/p>\n
This is the normal sense of the word also in Hebrews, which is similar, in this respect, to Ephesians. Thus, our author says that we are the house of Christ, \u201cif we hold fast the boldness [parresia<\/i>] and the rejoicing of the hope firm to the end\u201d (3:6). Again, he exhorts his readers, \u201cLet us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need\u201d (4:16). And somewhat later in the present chapter, he further exhorts, \u201cTherefore do not cast away your boldness [parresia<\/i>, which has great reward\u201d (10:35).<\/p>\n
This attitude of boldness in the Epistle to the Hebrews is not limited to the four times when the word is used in this book. The boldness of the Christian soul in approaching God is, rather, a presupposition of the whole book. We find it later, in chapter 12, where the author contrasts Mount Sinai with Mount Zion. Mount Sinai, he says, \u201cburned with fire, and . . . blackness and gloom and tempest, and the sound of a trumpet\u201d (12:18). It was a very scary place, of which Moses said, \u201cI am exceedingly afraid and trembling\u201d (12:21). This was the kind of place where no one could safely feel bold.<\/p>\n
It is not to Mount Sinai, however, that Christians are called, but to a gentler mountain: \u201cBut you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks more eloquently than that of Abel\u201d (12:22).<\/p>\n
Thursday, January 21<\/b><\/p>\n
Hebrews 10:26-31: Here we find one of Holy Scripture\u2019s most solemn declarations of judgment. Having exhorted his readers to boldness in their access to God (verses 19-22), our author now describes the alternative in frightening terms.<\/p>\n
In both instances—the exhortation to confidence and the warning of judgment—he uses the description \u201cliving, declaring that we have a new and living<\/i> way,\u201d and then reminding his readers, \u201cIt is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living<\/i> God.\u201d In both cases the modifier serves to put the reader on notice that these things are not matters of theory and abstraction. \u201cLiving,\u201d in each of these contexts, indicates real, actual, existential. It means that both salvation and damnation are worthy of our most serious attention.<\/p>\n
These verses depict the gravity of falling away from God. The author recalls that such falling away, even at the time of Moses, was dealt with in a radical manner—namely, those who rejected the rule of Moses were devoured with fiery indignation (verses 27-28). Our author, who has been at pains to emphasize the superiority of Jesus over Moses, argues here that this superiority implies a greater severity in those who fall away: \u201cOf how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be deemed worthy who has trampled underfoot the Son of God\u201d (verse 29). He had earlier contrasted Moses and Jesus, call the first God\u2019s servant and the second God\u2019s Son (3:5-6). How, he asks, which of them is it more dangerous to abandon?<\/p>\n
When our text describes the just recompense of apostasy as \u201ca certain fearful expectation of judgment and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries\u201d (verse 37), the reader is put in mind of the rebellion against Moses, narrated in Numbers 16. According to that account, certain of the Reubenites—including Korah, Dathan, and Abiram—revolted against the leadership of Moses and Aaron. Their punishment, we recall, consisted in being devoured by the earth, as fire from heaven descended upon them (Numbers 16:31-35).<\/p>\n
Now, our author contends, if such was the retribution allotted to those who fell away from Moses\u2019 Law, what should we expect for him who has \u201ctrampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?\u201d This is the sustained threat, he says, against anyone who sins willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth.\u201d<\/p>\n
Friday, January 22<\/b><\/p>\n
Hebrews 10:32-39: In a sense this section of Hebrews is a synopsis of the whole, or at least a summary of its thesis. That is to say, it is an exhortation to patience.<\/p>\n
An initial motive for patience, says our author, is the active recollection of those things endured immediately after conversion and baptism (verse 32). This is not simply a remembrance, but an intentional recollection: anamimneskesthe<\/i>.<\/p>\n
In those earlier days, he goes on, his readers experienced an \u00e1thlesis<\/i>. This noun, obviously the root of the English \u201cathletics,\u201d is perhaps best translated as \u201cstruggle.\u201d The present text is the only place where this word appears in the New Testament, though St. Paul uses similar metaphors drawn from sporting competition. Athlesis<\/i> suggests that the Christian life carries within itself the character of contention, in the sense that either victory or defeat is still possible.<\/p>\n
That struggle, says Hebrews, came in the aftermath of baptism: photisthentes<\/i>—\u201cyou were enlightened<\/i>.\u201d We recall the same metaphor for baptism was used in 6:4.<\/p>\n
It is important to recognize the relationship between baptism and struggle, such as we see here. Indeed, the three accounts of our Lord\u2019s contention with the demon all come right after the story of His baptism.<\/p>\n
In what was were these Christians tried after their baptism? They \u201cwere made a spectacle both by reproaches and tribulations,\u201d and they joined themselves to those \u201cwho were so treated\u201d (verse 33). They suffered both psychologically and financially (verse 34), and they endured each thing in view of the greater treasure awaiting them in heaven.<\/p>\n
The remembrance of these things—the active recollection of the many sufferings they had already endured—would strengthen the readers to brace themselves for whatever lay ahead. The message is clear: \u201cDon\u2019t give up now<\/i>! Don\u2019t waste the great investment already made.\u201d<\/p>\n
This passage is concerned with what I have called an \u201caftermath,\u201d a term that literally means \u201cwhat is learned (mathein<\/i>) afterwards.\u201d This word testifies that education is existential. In the present context it refers to the period after<\/i> baptism. One does not learn to be a Christian until one has already become a Christian. The real study of the Christian life is post-baptismal. The life in Christ does not commence until a person is in<\/i> Christ. Baptism is called \u201cillumination,\u201d because it is the introductory step. Only then can there be an \u201cafter<\/i>math.<\/p>\n
And this, says our author, is learned through patience, which is an exercise of faith. It is at this point that he quotes that famous line from Habakkuk, so dear to Paul: \u201cThe just shall live by faith\u201d (verse 38; Habakkuk 2:4; Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11). This prophetic citation about faith lays the basis for the long account of the heroes of faith in the following chapter.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Friday, January 15 Matthew 5:31-42: In a third contrast between Gospel righteousness and that of the scribe and Pharisee, the subject is the taking of oaths. Whereas the Mosaic Law prohibits perjury\u2014an imprecation in testimony to a lie (Exodus 20:7; Deuteronomy 5:11)\u2014Gospel righteousness forbids oaths in testimony to the truth. The examples given in these … Continue reading January 15 – January 22, 2016<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/946"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=946"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/946\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":948,"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/946\/revisions\/948"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=946"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=946"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=946"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}