There is a contentious contemporary issue in our text that is easily missed. When we engage in any discussion of religion and meaningful access to God, how shall we evaluate the present religious options? How shall we get to God? Is it all just a matter of personal opinion? Whose opinion is trustworthy? Everyone has something to say. Religious theories all compete in the marketplace of ideas.
The result in our day is everyone has a right to express any choice at all as a "person of faith." If you have faith - however you choose to define that faith - your ideas are pretty much as valid as any others.
This has everything to do with our text. Our writer builds a case in today's text for the replacement of one religious devotion with another. One is vastly superior to others. Our writer knows his audience of Jewish believers is being pressured to abandon their commitment to Christ, the world's Messiah, and replace that commitment with a return to the Judaic devotion to the law of Moses. So which is better - Christianity or Judaism? Even to ask the question is politically incorrect.