|
Observations on the Book of Hebrews
Reasons Why our current "Hebrews" should Join the Rest of the Books in the Apocrypha that were removed from the King James Version between 1895 and 1901.
|
|
|
1.0 Why does the author have the expertise and authority to make this determination:
1.1 List of apparent contradictions and theological errors: (Syllabus of Errors). Purely factual errors in RED which the author of Hebrews would not have intended to make. The rest would be intentional errors.
1) 1:3 Gnostic perfectionism 2) 1:6 Son worthy of worship only after incarnation (evolution of eternal spirit) 3) 1:14 implies angel of YHWH is not Yeshua (Gnostic demiurge) 4) 2:2 claims Law was spoken by angels (Gnostic enmity for Torah; demiurge) 5) 2:3 claims salvation message started after incarnation (Gnostic enmity for Torah) 6) 2:10 claims Christ had to be perfected (Docetic Dualism: evil necessary for good) 7) 2:16 denies Yeshua is 'angel of YHWH' (Gnostic demiurge) 8) 2:17 God required to become man to be merciful (Docetic Dualism) 9) 2:18 suffering made God a better counselor (Docetic Dualism) 10) 3:1 Confuses Davidic Priest-King with High Priest (Gnostic Motivation) 11) 3:2 replaces 'my' with 'his' in quotation 12) 4:8 takes 'another day' out of context 13) 4:16 teaches false boldness to throne of God (Gnostic view) 14) 5:2 infirmity enables God to be compassionate (Docetic Dualism) 15) 5:7 implies Yeshua delivered from the cross (Gnostic view: denial of judgment) 16) 5:8 God learned obedience by suffering (Gnostic view: evolution of eternal spirit) 17) 5:9 God was perfected (Gnostic view: evolution of eternal spirit) 18) 6:1 perfection of spirit (Gnostic enlightenment) 19) 7:3 deifies king of Salem before Yeshua (Gnostic view: evolution of deity) 20) 7:7 contradicts Psalm 135:21 21) 7:12 contradicts Exodus 40:15; Num. 25:13; Jer. 33:17-22 22) 7:16 regards the Torah as unholy (contradicts Rom. 7:14; Mal. 2:4-8) 23) 7:18 contradicts Mat. 5:17-20 and numerous other passages 24) 7:19 contradicts Deut. 30:6; Lev. 16:30; (not better than this) 25) 7:20 contradicts fact that Levitical Covenant is an Oath (see Jer. 33:17-22). 26) 7:22 See 7:19 27) 7:26 See 3:1 28) 7:27 Contradicts Torah on frequency of sin offering (see Num. 28) 29) 8:1 See 3:1 30) 8:6 see 7:19 31) 8:7 Faults the Covenant; contradicts Scriptures 32) 8:8 takes Jer 31:31 out of context 33) 8:9 copies LXX mistranslation 34) 8:10 Deletes verb from LXX, divides text wrongly 35) 8:10 follows LXX in mistaken verb tense 36) 8:13 Non sequitor contradicts Torah 37) 9:1 'wordly' puts down Covenant (Gnostic/Docetic Dualism) 38) 9:4 Aaron's rod misplaced (factual error) 39) 9:4 altar of incense misplaced (factual error) 40) 9:4 pot of manna misplaced (factual error) 41) 9:6 Confirms error in 9:4 42) 9:10 contradicts Torah 43) 9:11 see 3:1 44) 9:14 promises perfection of spirit (Gnostic enlightenment) 45) 9:15 'first'/'second' denies covenant renewal 46) 9:15 makes Yeshua wrong type of mediator 47) 9:15 confuses covenant with testament (a will) 48) 9:15 contradicts Gal. 5:5, premature fulfillment of promise 49) 9:16 Confuses covenant with 'will' (testament) 50) 9:18 'first'/'second' denies renewal 51) 9:19 Goats not used at Covenant Ratification (factual error) 52) 9:19 water not mentioned at Ratification of Covenant (factual error) 53) 9:19 Scarlet wool not at Ratification of Covenant (factual error) 54) 9:19 hyssop not at ratification of covenant (factual error) 55) 9:19 The book was not sprinkled (factual error) 56) 9:20 Covenant misrepresented as a will (testament) 57) 9:21 mistake of blood for oil (factual error) 58) 9:23 believes heaven is impure and needs cleansing (Gnostic/Docetic dualism) 59) 9:24 Faults things made with hands (Docetism) 60) 9:24 Demotes Levitical Service to mere 'figure' 61) 9:24 Implies tabernacle not 'true' by contrast 62) 9:26 Premature on the end of the world (factual error) 63) 9:26 Perfectionism (Gnostic enlightenment) 64) 9:28 Believes Christ without sin only after suffering (Gnostic evolution to deity) 65) 10:1 Reduces Sanctuary to Shadow (Dualism) 66) 10:1 Denial of Prophetic aspect of Levitical Service 67) 10:4 Contradicts Lev 4-6, etc. 68) 10:5 replaces 'ears' with 'body' in Ps. 40:6 (mischievous error) 69) 10:9 Abolishes the Eternal Covenant (Jer. 33:17-22) 70) 10:10 perfectionism (Gnostic enlightenment) 71) 10:11 suggests sin offering is daily, contradicts Torah (factual error) 72) 10:11 Denies efficacy of Levitical Covenant 73) 10:12 Denies Levitical Covenant (Jer. 33:17-22) 74) 10:14 perfectionism (Gnostic enlightenment) 75) 10:15 See 8:10 76) 10:18 Denies Levitical Covenant (Jer. 33:17-22) 77) 10:19 False sense of perfection (i.e. boldness) 78) 10:20 implies heaven needs purification again 79) 10:26 denial of repentance after apostasy (viz. Gnostic enlightenment) 80) 11:7 implies Noah not blameless; contradicts Gen. 6:9 (curses Israel) 81) 11:16 Denies earthly kingdom (curses Israel) 82) 11:35 Alludes to another Apocryphal book (2Maccabees 6:18-7:42) 83) 11:40 perfectionism, age of Gnostic enlightenment 84) 12:1 teaches immediate ascension, denies state of dead (Gnostic enlightenment) 85) 12:2 perfectionism (Gnostic enlightenment) 86) 12:22 implies mystical ascension to perfection now (Gnostic enlightenment) 87) 12:23 perfectionism (Gnostic enlightenment) 88) 12:24 conceives of atonement as only cleansing (Gnostic enlightenment) 89) 12:25 denies YHWH spoke from heaven (Gnostic demiurge) 90) 12:25 denies Son spoke from earth (Docetism) 91) 13:10 Anathemtizes (Curses) partakers in Levitical Service to perdition
1.2. A Short description of Gnosticism
a) Gnostics claimed to be without sin (cf. 1John 1:8). They claimed mystical perfection of the spirit. The Father was not identified with YHWH the God of Israel, whom they considered a mere angel, which they called the demiurge, considered a malevolent creator of matter lesser than the Most High God. The Son began as a mere man, but discovered Gnosis and evolved to sinless-ness and divinity through suffering, and made a path or showed a way of perfection through the heavens, past the demiurge's domain into the domain of perfection.
b) Gnostics believed in a divine spark in man deriving from the eternal divine realm, fallen into this world of fate, birth, death, and needing to be enlightened by the divine counterpart of the self in order to be fully integrated (perfected).
c) The secret knowledge of Gnostics was their claim to knowledge of the heavens and how to pass through them to merge with their divine self unto perfection.
d) Gnosticism is the besetting heresy that fought, defeated, and won over a majority of Christians in the late first century till the third century, when it when into decline and went underground in Christianity. At its height of power most Christians were Gnostics of one form or another.
e) Gnostics were dualists, considering matter evil and the un-material spiritual things beyond the heavens the 'good'; evil, death, and suffering were considered a necessary counterpart for the existence of the good and perfect, in a sort of eternal cosmic balance. The claimed to possess the knowledge (gnosis) of how to leave the evil side of the balance to achieve perfection. Christian Gnostics thoroughly mixed this theology with a Hellenized-biblical theology.
f) Gnosticism was the primal apostasy of the Church, from which it only backed away because it deviated at the extreme too far from the truth to benefit a deceiving syncretism necessary to trip up Christians.
h) Tradition says that when the Gnostic Cerinthus came to the Ephesian baths, that the Apostle John departed out of concern that the building would collapse in judgment on Cerinthus.
1.3. Bogus Canonical Criteria:
a) In A General Introduction to the Bible (724 pages; Moody Press, 1986), Norman Geisler and William Nix lay out the criteria for canonization of biblical books in 17 short pages.
b) Their first principle is, "Canonicity is determined by God" (pg. 211). This criteria is practically useless, because it requires circular reasoning: i. A book is canonical, therefore God inspired it. ii. God inspired a book, therefore it is canonical. As we will see, these types of criteria result in logical fallacies, because the Church wishes to settle the question on the basis of human institutional authority rather than fair examination. And even though circular for practical use, this principle is a half truth. Men determine canonicity also, and they have determined false canons in the past, and maintain false canons in the present. The bible shows that Israel accepted false prophecies at times, and neglected true prophecies at times. So the question remains what is the true canon among the claims of canonicity?
b.1) Paul D. Wegner, The Journey from Texts to Translations, (pub. 1999) pg. 147, says, "It is important to remember that the Christian church did not canonize any book. Canonization was determined by God." Again, we have a classic case of begging the question. For this is under Wegner's heading, "Determination of the New Testament Canon" (pg. 147). Begging the question is not just used for clear circular reasoning, but also for reasoning that leads nowhere. This begging is a case of the latter. It tells us nothing about how to determine or verify the canon!
b.2) Wegner quotes the Muratorian Fragment, and then proceeds to extract the following principles from it, "1. Was the book written by an apostle, or at least someone of recognized authority? 2. Did it agree with the canon of truth? 3. Did it enjoy universal acceptance. 4. Does it have a self-authenticating nature?" The first principle does not tell us why apostolic authority is determinative. The second merely that it must agree with Church doctrine, which is circular reasoning. The third is merely a majority vote, which includes the gullibility of the majority (and neglects the biblical examples of false prophets being accepted and the true rejected), and by which Wegner means a consensus of the Eastern and Western Churches, and the fourth alludes to the correct principle without saying what it is! A page later Wegner explains the fourth criteria, "because it is God-breathed" so we are back to circular reasoning again! And no, this is not the same as Paul's statement in 2Tim. 3:16, because Paul was saying that specific books, (i.e. the Torah, Prophets, and Writings) were inspired, and he was not giving a test for determining which books were inspired (cf. 2Tim. 3:15). He was merely saying that those books are inspired.
c) Geisler and Nix's second principle is, "Canonicity is recognized by men of God" (pg. 211); This again begs the question. i. Men of God recognize canonicity, therefore the recognized books are canonical. ii. Books are canonical, therefore they are recognized by men of God. Again, the principle is worse than useless. Men of God have mistakenly thought books were canonical in the past, and men of God still mistakenly think some books are canonical that should not be. This is also an elitist principle, because the authors mean only certain men of God, of whom they approve. This is merely authoritarian driven circular reasoning. There is nothing scientific about it. Moreover, the Scripture shows that God's people often believed the revelations of false prophets and/or rejected the revelations of true prophets. So religious consensus proves nothing.
d) Geisler and Nix's third principle is, "A book is valuable because it is canonical" (pg. 211). This begs the question, 'what makes the book canonical?'!
e) The fourth principle, "A book is canonical because it is inspired" (pg. 211). Again Geisler begs the question, 'what makes a book inspired?'! i. A book is inspired, therefore it is canonical, ii. A book is canonical therefore it is inspired. Circular reasoning is useless for a practical test.
f) The fifth principle, "Propheticity determines canonicity" (pg. 212). This principle is correct. Evidence of fulfilled predictive prophecy is direct evidence of divine inspiration. It is not circular, because the prophetic claim can be tested by the historical results, i.e. it does not require the a priori assumption of canonicity. However, this principle is insufficient by itself. And Geisler and Nix are vague about the precise meaning of Propheticity.
g) Why do Geisler and Nix not state the correct principles? It will become obvious that the reason they do not is that common believers would use those principles to decide for themselves whether the religious authorities of the day are correct or not!
h) Geisler and Nix have their own list of tests they deem inadequate on page 208-209. Most of them are just plain obvious, but one principle they dislike in particular is: "Agreement with the Torah determines canonicity". What they say is that there are many books that agree with Torah that are not canon. Since there are many books that agree with Torah that are not in the canon they reject the principle in entirety! This is a classic straw man argument. When an author does not want to face a proper argument against his position, he substitutes his own version of the argument he does not like, called as straw man, because the substitute argument is easy to refute. The correct criteria does not appear among the principles Geisler and Nix cite as the right ones. The real principle is that agreement with Torah is required to be canonical, or books that do not agree with Torah need to be rejected. Now it is no longer a straw man that they can knock down.
i) Also the reason that these Evangelicals will not take it upon themselves to state the correct principles, is that the correct principles lead to conclusions that the current religious authorities reject (based on human authority disguised as true religion).
j) The Church would have us believe that it has determined for us the correct canon; however, it is still changing. The original AV included the Apocrypha, which was quietly withdrawn by American Revisers in 1901. The Catholic Church Canonized the Apocrypha at Trent (April 8, 1546), and in the 3rd to 5th centuries, canonical lists varied greatly, some adding too many books, some deleting too many. Even Revelation was lacking in some lists. Hebrews was left out of the Muratorian Canon, and other books not recognized now added in. The Muratorian Fragment is a list of canonical books, its origin dating to the end of the second century (i.e. A.D. 175-200), but discovered in an 8th century Latin MSS by Cardinal L.A. Muratori. This is the most ancient list we have.
j.1) Even the LXX (The Greek translation of the Torah accepted as inspired by the Gentile Church) added books that were not canonical, that were regarded as so by ignorant Gentile Christians and Church leaders. For this reason it is vitally important that the believer understand the actual principles of canonization rather than relying on the mere say so of the branch of the Church that influenced the publication of their current bible.
k. The original 1611 Authorized Version (KJV) included the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha was included in the Revised Version of 1885, but excluded as recently as the American Standard Version of 1901. However it returned in the RSV in 1957. The further back one goes in Church history, the greater the percentage of Christians who regarded the Apocrypha as Scripture. Today's KJV is not the same as the AV of 1611. Politics between competing religious authority played a very large role in in bible translations and versions of the time. So it needs to be repeated: Israel stoned the prophets and exalted false prophets. This shows that official religious pronouncements prove absolutely nothing.
1.4. Valid Criteria for Canonicity -- Seven Principles of Canonization.
a) definition: primary revelation. A prophecy given directly to a prophet from the mouth of God confirmed by miracles and/or subsequent prophecies coming true is primary revelation. I will cite this category sometimes as 'revelation'; the following two tests determine primary revelation.
b) #1: Divine power and miracles attending the giving of the revelation shows that the revelation is canonical (true and inspired). God's word from Adam to Jacob was confirmed by the miraculous circumstance of the revelations. This climaxed with the miracle of the Exodus and the giving of Torah on Mt. Sinai, and then climaxed again with the resurrection of Yeshua from the dead. God held those who had seen the miracles, and then did not believe the most guilty. Everyone from 20 years and up died in the wilderness who did not believe the revelation (Num. 14:11, 29).
c) #2: Fulfilled prophetic predictions validates canonicity of primary revelation. Only divinely given revelation can make prophetic predictions that come true. In fact, the God of Israel challenges the false gods to prove their power by making predictions that come true (Isa. 41:21-23). This is the only criteria that is useful for testing the canonization of the original revelation for those at a historical distance from the revelation. This is the reason that Scripture is about 1/3 prophecy, so that we who live after the original revelation can test it according to its fulfillments and know that it is true. This is so that we can know the true God and His Word.
d) definition: reliant book. This a book that can be confirmed by neither of the preceding two principles. Sometimes I will just call a book reliant. A book written by a Prophet or Apostle can be a reliant book if the author clearly relies on citation of primary revelation to prove points or teach. A reliant book can be recognized by these features. i. it lacks original prophecy, ii. it substantiates its teaching exclusively by citing previous revelations for proof, or by reasoning with cited scriptures. iii. a book is reliant if the author is not a prophet or apostle, (in which case the canonicity relies on association with a known prophet). The principle of reliance can be best stated to apply to any book when it is obvious that the author is not intending to give new revelation from the mouth of God, but only means to interpret, explain, or collate primary revelation a second time.
e) #3a: A book fitting the reliant description claiming canonical status, that does not agree with primary revelation must be rejected. #3b: a reliant book must agree with the primary revelation to be canonical; #3c: a reliant book lacks the level of authority to make changes in primary revelation. #3d: Subsequent primary revelation must not contradict previous primary revelation; #3e: Subsequent primary revelation may modify primary revelation so long as it does not contradict the previous. Only in this sense can revelation be progressive.
f) #4a: There must be no internal contradictions in a reliant book; there must be no historical or factual contradictions in any canonical book. It goes without saying that there are no contradictions in a primary revelation book or one given by divine miracle. Lacking the first two tests, the reliant claims must pass this test. Allowance must be made for mistranslation (see point 5), and copy errors. #4b. Only the original MSS need meet criteria 4a if it may be reasonably supposed that any discrepancies are are result of mechanical error or occasional scribal addition to an inerrant original. God has allowed human errors to creep into the texts, and has also allowed Scripture to become unavailable to his people at various times (i.e. The Priests finding a Torah manuscript in the Temple in Josiah's 18th year). Wherefore, God must step into history and provide the means to recover the original. Left to sinful man the Word would be entirely lost. Clearly God does not maintain the written word in pristine purity or availability throughout all points in history, or in all places. Clearly, he steps in at critical points to restore the truth, yet only in degrees necessary for his purposes. The maintenance of the divine revelations is in degrees according to God's working in history. It is He who allows manuscripts to be found and recovered or compared, such as the Isaiah Scroll in the Dead Sea Cave. It is an undeniable truth that none of our current copies of ancient manuscripts or current translations are entirely without some error. Therefore, a doctrine of continuous preservation or continuously inspired translation of the originals cannot be maintained. The only doctrine on this score that need be maintained is that the original word is preserved in heaven by God, and if we corrupt it, it can only be renewed to us by his will and re-intervention into history. The best we can do without a fresh copy from heaven is to compare and scientifically reconstruct manuscripts using sound principles of textual verification, and such manuscripts as God has allowed to be found. No one who has honestly compared two ancient Greek manuscripts or two ancient Hebrew manuscripts can deny that this is necessary, yet such work as finding where the best manuscripts agree is shown in the Hebrew Critical Edition (BHS) and Greek Critical Edition (NA-27th). It does not matter so much who does this work as the fact that they make their decisions according to the rules of probability, and disclose to the rest of us the basis of their decisions. Those doing this work have been pretty good at disclosure, except in the sad case of the Dead Sea Scroll scandal which, happily is now over. If God finds this textual verification work inadequate, then he will correct the problem himself at a time and place of his own choosing.
g) observations: All books of the Torah, and Prophets are primary revelation; among the Writings Proverbs, The Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles, are reliant books. Daniel, Psalms, and Job are classed as primary revelation. Mathew, John, and Revelation are primary revelation, because they contain the original prophecies and miracles of Yeshua. Mark, Luke, Acts, Paul's letters, James, 1-2Peter, 1-3John, and Jude are reliant books. Mark, Luke, Acts, and Jude are reliant because they were not written by prophets (an apostle is a type of prophet). Though Paul did miracles and prophesied, he cites primary revelation to prove his points. This makes his writings reliant; he makes brief references to revelations from the LORD, but he only gives the result of it using citations in the course of reasoning and no references to the actual word he received. He expects his readers to believe because his teachings are based the correct use of primary revelation, and not because he can repeat directly what he was told. It is therefore evident that he wanted his letters to be treated as reliant books. 1-2Peter and 1-3John are reliant because neither apostle prophesies anything new, or quotes any direct revelation from the LORD. Peter relies on citing scripture, and though John does not cite scripture, he is clearly teaching on the basis of primary revelation. Among the Apostolic Writings, only Matthew, John and Revelation rise to the primary revelation level. In this respect Matthew and John are comparable to one of the five books of Torah, and Revelation to Isaiah.
g) #5: Mistranslation does not disqualify a book from canon (see Jeremiah 8:8). But mistranslation has to be corrected before the word of God can be clearly seen. Mistranslation is by far a more serious problem than textual uncertainties arising from scribal errors (see f., #4b above). This is especially a problem in Paul, which must be corrected in the direction of agreement with primary revelation, since clearly Paul intended his letters to be reliant on the primary revelation for validity. Paul's letters can be sufficiently recovered via legitimate translation corrections to agree with the primary revelation of the Torah and Prophets, so that the question of his place in the canon need not be re-opened due to the reliant status of his letters. The little that remains discrepant can be assigned to textual corruption or minor scribal interpolation.
h) #6: A reliant book is not intended to modify previous revelation. Ezekiel is a primary revelation because it is verified by fulfilled prophecy. It does have the authority to reveal a modification to Torah. There may be some such modifications in the Millennial Revelation for the age to come (cf. Ezek. 40-48).
i) #7a: A prophetic revelation is not disqualified by virtue of non-acceptance by the majority of the people of God, #7b: nor is a claim to prophetic revelation canonical because it is accepted by the majority of the people of God. 7b: Israel and Judah listened to false prophets at many times. One particular case is the case of Pashhur (Jer. 20:1-6), and at another time there were 400 false prophets of Baal. See also Jer. 14:14. 7a: Jeremiah was not believed by the people. The prophets were stoned and rejected. This last principle destroys the often taught principle that canonicity is recognized by God's people; the Scripture shows that this is not true in both directions. What should be canonical has been denied by Israel, and what shouldn't has been accepted: 'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment:' (Ex. 23:2). #7c: The Bereans searched the Scriptures testing to see if what Paul said was so (Acts 17:10-13), so the appeal to authority accepted by the majority is a poor excuse for not actually examining what the author said to see if it agrees with the Scriptures. Those who say it would not be allowed in the 'cannon' by God, were it not canonical are simply excusing themselves from the more noble task of comparing it with the Scriptures (2Tim. 3:15-16), or honestly considering the findings of those who have done such comparison. And this failure to be Bereans is the very reason why the error persists to this day.
j) God does reserve the right to make changes himself, though man may not change what he says (cf. Deut. 12:32 and Deut. 18:18-19). The prophet must give the signs of a prophet by foretelling the future (Deut. 18:21-22), but if he even does this but says to worship other gods, he is not to be listened to (Deut. 18:20); if he teaches differently than what God said before, then we do not have to listen if there are no signs (Deut. 18:20-22). We expect that if any prophet or apostle reveals a major change, then it will be attended by sufficient prophecy and power of miracles to verify that the source is indeed the Almighty. Outside the books of Matthew, John and Revelation, no NT book has the miraculous status or prophetic status to modify the revelation at Mt. Sinai. And, it is evident, that none of these three books made any modification.
1.5 Summary of Reasons why Hebrews fails the Valid Criteria for Canonicity.
a) Hebrews clearly can only claim reliant status. i. It lacks original prophecy that is confirmed by fulfillment. ii. It lacks miraculous circumstances. iii. The author aims to prove his argument not by fresh prophecy, but by quotation and reasoning. iv. the author was not an apostle or prophet. Therefore the test of rule #3a must be applied. A book fitting the reliant description claiming canonical status, that does not agree with primary revelation must be rejected.
b) Hebrews contradicts Torah at not a small number of points. These will be highlighted in red in the following commentary. Therefore, Hebrews must be rejected in accord with rule #3a.
f) If the reader wishes to reserve judgment, then they may opt to view the following critique of the book as a critic of the standard Christian theology of the book. This is a valid position for one who is not sure. It could conceivably turn out to be that our current Hebrews is a corrupted Greek version of some Hebrew or Aramaic original, though this seems highly improbable to me, my main concern here is not to get confessions of anti-canonicity on this book in the original as to correct errant dispensationalist and Catholic theologies on this book. And for those who agree on my anti-torah or Gnostic-Dualistic-Docetic understanding of the author of the book, and believe that it is the original intent of the author, then my response to all their arguments is simply this: it is not canonical because a reliant book cannot introduce a change in the Torah. And even those who would disagree that my reading is surely correct, then they would still have to agree that the book can claim no more than reliant status, and then proceed to disregard what would then only be apparent contradictions to Torah.
g) The fact that Hebrews is considered canonical by the vast majority of Christians must have rule #7b applied: nor is a claim to prophetic revelation canonical because it is accepted by the majority of the people of God. Very often, it becomes evident that a godly minority has been led astray by an undiscerning and ungodly majority who have passed themselves off as the people of God. Therefore, all things need to be tested by Spirit filled believers. We cannot opt out by appealing to a dead majority. God does allow sin to go uncorrected among godly people. Therefore, it is also possible that the sin of canonizing a false prophet may go uncorrected.
1.6 While most suppose that Paul wrote Hebrews, several facts make this improbable.
a) In vs. 2:3, it says, "and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him" (KJV). The author speaks as if his information is second hand. Paul received a direct confirmation of the truth from Yeshua on the Damascus Road, wherein Yeshua actually spoke to Paul and told him what his ministry would be (Acts. 9:3-18) and who confirmed the good news directly to Paul (Galatians 1:12). Indeed, the case is made stronger by the words, "and was confirmed"; certainly the truth was not confirmed to Paul second hand, but directly by revelation, and also in vision.
b) In Hebrews 10:38, the author quotes Hab. 2:4 differently that Paul does in Romans 1:17 and Galatians 3:11. The author includes words from the LXX, "but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him"; the Hebrew texts reads, "Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him:" (KJV). P46 (ca. 200) also shows that the author probably had, "But my righteous one will live by faith" (NET Bible), which has transposed the "My" in the LXX to modify "righteous one" rather than "faith"; the LXX reads, "the righteous one will live by My faithfulness". Paul, in his two quotations leaves the word 'my' out of the text because the Hebrew reads "His/his faithfulness"; nor does Paul quote the LXX for the beginning of the verse.
c) Paul's customary greeting does not occur at the beginning of the book. Reasons urged for this (that Paul wanted to remain anonymous) do not outweigh this difference between known letters of Paul and the lack of the proper introduction as a point pointing against Pauline authorship. When canonicity of Hebrews is in question, apologists tend to ague from the assumption of inspiration, to the conclusion that Paul wanted to be anonymous based only on the logic of the first assumption (inspiration). But when evidences are weighed, they should not be weighed based on other assumptions. Otherwise, they are not being weighed at all. This is all the more proved by the fact that many do heed this piece of evidence in its own right, and yet still hold to inspiration. The lack of Paul's greeting argues for a probability that he was not the author.
d) In Hebrews 13:23, the author refers to "the brother of us, Timothy" (NA-27th) whereas Paul says, "Timothy, the brother" (NA-27th) (2Cor. 1:1; Philemon 1:1). The difference is merely style, but style is like examining bullet marks in a forensic case. It shows the probability that whodunit was other than Paul.
e) Hebrews was evidently composed somewhere in the west, if we assume that the Timothy referred to in 13:23 is Paul's companion, and we must if Pauline authorship be assumed. Also, the author mentions, "They of Italy salute you" (Heb. 13:24). The first person to mention Hebrews is Clement of Rome (ca. A.D. 95), so this reinforces the probability of Italian origin. Yet it was the Western Church that rejected Pauline authorship at the first, while the Syriac (Eastern Church) embraced it. So the Christians in whose provenance Hebrews was written rejected it, while those far away accepted it based on the hearsay that Paul wrote it. The inferior witness of the Eastern Church may be regarded as a point against Pauline authorship.
f) The canonicity of Hebrews depended on Pauline authorship in the first four centuries of the Church. Those who rejected Pauline authorship denied canonicity, and those who accepted Pauline authorship affirmed canonicity. In the days when it was known more clearly who the author was, the question was resolved by authorship. Now days, where the author is unknown, the question of authorship is resolved by assuming canonicity, and then concluding that Paul must have wrote it. The tradition, therefore, has become the driving force of most arguments. In order to be objective about Pauline authorship, one must step back from this traditional dogmatism in order to weigh the case correctly. This lack of objectivity in the dogmatism actually strengthens the case for non-Pauline authorship, since it shows that the reason the evidence for non-Pauline evidence is rejected is probably merely this traditional dogmatism.
g) By the time of Jerome and Augustine, Pauline authorship had won the day in the western Church, and so also canonicity with it. It was only accepted as fully canonical in the west at the time of the western Church's greatest apostasy. This apostasy was not seriously challenged again until the time of the Reformation. But, then when people started to study and read their bibles at the time of the Reformation, the authorship of Hebrews was again called into question, only this time those who observed the facts were fighting against an entrenched dogmatism of Pauline authorship. So those who realized the implications of non-Pauline authorship for the canonicity question were unable to bring the issue forward.
h) The style of Greek in Hebrews is different than that of Paul. It is a more literary and polished Greek than Pauline Greek, which is more common, everyday, and down to earth. Hebrews breathes a style that is more likely to have been written by someone from Alexandria than Tarsus.
i) The suggestion that Timothy delivered the letter, or was scribe for Paul is without weight as the Subscriptio in the original text of the KJV at 13:25 was deleted in the revisions for good reason -- it had very poor textual support.
j) The title of the book, which sometimes ascribes it to Paul is also without merit as it has no textual support whatsoever.
k) This does not exhaust all the evidence that Paul did not write the book.
2. Other Criticisms that can be put against the canonicity of Hebrews -- prolegomena.
a) Conservative scholars never mention the problems in the book because that would only raise questions about it that they do not want raised. They sweep it under the rug. Liberal scholars point out some of the problems, but never apply the questions to canonicity since they do not care about canonicity. Canonicity is only the concern of those who believe in the bible, and so is the motivation to examine and determine the canon. Liberal scholarship or higher criticism tends to believe that all of the bible is equally errant, and so they have no care to sort out the canon, nor do they have a care to solve only apparent problems that can be solved.
b) In examining this question we must also reconstruct the thinking of the author. It is not enough to just catalogue disagreements between Hebrews and other texts. This is what skeptics do. Liberal commentaries tend down the same path. They merely mention the differences that are factual in nature, and fail to figure out what led to the differences in the author's thinking. Also, an argument by conservative apologists for the canonicity of the book often overlooks what is suggested by the author because canonicity is being assumed in the argument. In other words, many assumptions are made in interpretation merely in order to relieve some difficulty. Where these assumptions have the most impact is when one supposes the thinking of the author was orthodox, when in fact what he wrote suggests something else.
c) It is granted that many an assumption can be made that will relieve the implied difficulty, yet when the question of canonicity is on the table, such assumptions must be considered speculative supports, which is to say, they offer no direct support in favor of the book.
d) At the same time, it must be admitted that interpretations that tend to put the book in a bad light can also be assumptions or involve some assumptions. For this reason, sans a direct connection with the Apostle, examination of the evidence is often more art than science. However, it needs be no less factual in that the line between intent of the text and the facts of the text are easy to see. A picture of the author's heart and intent, however, is as necessary as the actual facts, if we are to judge what more probably lies behind this book, whether the Spirit of God or human reasoning.
e) The author speaks many things that are true amidst things that can be questioned. He quotes from Scripture, or cites known facts. These things really do not bear on the question of canonicity since any book can quote Scripture and cite known facts. In other words, that the book often says something quite profound or true is no certain proof of canonicity any more than bible commentators often say things profound and true, but their words are not canon either.
f) It goes without saying that the book has no original prophecy to confirm or commend it, which is to say we cannot point to any prediction made in the book that has come true.
3. Hebrews 1:1-2, "... hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son"
a.0) As I begin here, keep in mind that the comments are based on the context of the whole book. It may seem hard going at first because the average reader tends to cast an orthodox interpretation to whatever the author says, because the average reader is not aware of the Gnostic and Docetic/Dualistic possibilities or the philosophical and religious context of the books original audience. The author's positions are not entirely clear until one gets through chapter 10.
a) In Hebrews 1:1-2, the author seems to be saying that past revelation is now superseded by the new revelation of Christ. This idea fits with his interpretation of Jeremiah 31:31-34 as a 'new' testament that replaces the 'old testament'. If this is what the author is saying, then he is errant at least on the point of implying that God did not speak also in the past through the Son, who in the form of the angel of the LORD appeared and spoke to Abraham, wrestled with Jacob, and appeared to Moses and the Seventy Elders of Israel on Mt. Sinai. Indeed, the LORD spoke face to face with Moses as a man speaks with his friend. The author's intent is damaging to the Torah and Prophets, because it is precisely the Tenach that bears the greatest witness to the Messiah, yet the author de-emphasizes this. Also Peter wrote, "a more sure word of prophecy" (2Pet 1:19). In this regard, the gospels or Apostolic Writings are the desert after the main course. And most Christians had only one gospel in addition to the Torah and Prophets until about A.D. 100. So, while what the author says is factually true, his intent for saying it this way seems to devalue the Torah and Prophets. This motivation of the author will become more clear as I proceed.
b) In 1:1-2, the author is signaling, his whole approach to the gospel which is basically to nullify Jewish arguments against it by nullifying the Jewish covenant, or by superseding it with changes. This has always been the approach of the post first century Church viz. a viz. revelation, and the Church has suffered for it.
c) This text has often been argued for closure of the canon. This view is nonsense since in the former days he also spoke by the Son, who is YHWH, and doubly nonsense since John reveals that two witnesses will prophecy the word of YHWH in the end of days, doing miracles and validating their message at the level of primary revelation. One does not have to take this view as the meaning of the author. It is simply one of the Church's interpretations.
3. Hebrews 1:3, "when he had by himself purged our sins"
a) In 1 John 1:7 uses the present tense, "cleanses" and 1 John 1:9, "so he may cleanse" (subjunctive), which shows that the cleansing process is ongoing or contingent. Cleansing is not 'forgiveness'; forgiveness is cancellation of the penalty, whereas cleansing is removal of the sin nature. The author of Hebrews, however, seems to believe that the sin nature is 'cleansed'; and not in just this text alone. See also 9:14, 9:22, 10:2, and 'perfected' (6:1; 7:11; 7:19; 9:9; 10:1; 10:14; 11:40; 12:23). The author teaches that, "For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified" (10:14). In 10:14, he uses the perfect tense, and in 1:3 the aorist tense, customarily used for an event viewed from the standpoint of completion. This view of atonement is the same as the Catholic view, i.e. that of expiation, or total annihilation of the presence of sin, often with no understanding of the biblical concept of substitutionary atonement.
b) The Hellenistic world view was dualistic, i.e. the mind or spirit was in one part, and the flesh or body in the other part. For this reason, the author views the spirit or mind as purified. The body does not matter. (cf. Heb. 12:23, "spirits of just men made perfect"). This view was held in common with the Gnostic teachings of the day. And even today it is with us in the Church, with many Charismatics or other Christians telling us that their spirit is wholly perfected or sanctified.
c) The death and resurrection of Messiah Yeshua is the basis for our cleansing (as well as forgiveness), however the cleansing part is not completed. For the Torah tells us that the cleansing will take place on some future day of Atonement (cf. Lev. 16:30). So the understanding that the atonement supplies a complete expiation at the present is an error.
4. Hebrews 1:4, "Being made so much better than the angels"
a) The book of Hebrews gives a weak argument for the deity of Messiah, as we shall shortly see. The reason for this is that the author probably believed that Christ evolved to Godhood, and not that he eternally possessed it! This belief is hinted in the word, "being made so much better than the angels." But the truth is that Messiah was better all along. He did not have to be 'made so'; if the author is a dualist, in the sense of an eternal existence for both good and evil, then the eternity of the son (cf. 7:3) need not be urged as a barrier to this evolution of divinity doctrine. The author surely believed that Christ was the express image of the Father, as we do too. That is not the question here. The question is how Christ got into that position. Hebrews says he is in that position, but leaves several hints that he evolved into that position. He says Christ "yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered" (Heb. 5:8), and "And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him" (Heb. 5:9). "Being made perfect" hints that at some point previous, he was in a state of imperfection. If so, then this squares with the Gnostic belief that Christ was the first man to make it through the seventh heaven and the realm of the demiurge to evolve into ultimate godhood, and the 'salvation' of which the author speaks hinting that everyone else may follow in his train to godhood.
b) This belief about godhood is still taught by the Catholic Church in canon 460 of the Catechism, "'For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.' 'The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods'" (pg. 116, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd edition). This is based on the Gnostic tenet that every person has the divine spark (pneuma) that is eternal and was once part of the eternal pneuma before creation. Wherefore all spirits are divine to them, and eternal, and the secret gnosis is that the spirit realize this through enlightenment.
5. Hebrews 1:5, "this day have I begotten thee"
a) The key word here is 'begotten'; But in what sense does our author mean it? The Arians taught that Christ was 'begotten', i.e. had a beginning. The best we can do here, is say that the Messiah, who existed in the Spirit of the Father from eternity past, took on unique personality and human form. That is the the most we may get from the biblical sense of 'begotten' here. Whereas, with humans it implies a beginning, it is not so with Messiah. With Messiah, it merely means that the Father has begotten a new way of manifesting himself to his creation.
b) But our author subscribed to an Ebionite or Gnostic view that Christ did not have an exclusive divine beginning (i.e. unique from man). The Gnostics might believe in some kind of 'pan-theism' wherein people merely have to 'realize' their godhood. So they believed in a divine beginning in that sense. Again, I am painting a picture of the author's beliefs here from the overall context of the book. The author does not deny this position that I ascribe to him. Of course, one does not have to interpret this text this way. But it seems to me to be the author's intent. The author is not an Arian, but the eternity he ascribes to the Son seems to be dualistic, i.e. that he was eternal, but not perfect divinity in the past.
c) The text is quoted from Psalm 2:7, so the text is not an actual contradiction.
6. Hebrews 1:6, "And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him."
a) It is a curious thing that if the author wants to make a case for the deity of Messiah, but he wants to do it without saying that he is YHWH in the flesh. He will say that he is 'god' implying an evolved one, but identification with YHWH is out. Why is this? Because the Arians and Gnostics denied this. The Gnostics, in fact, taught that the God of Israel was the demiurge, an evil malevolent being that created the world in six days and rested on the seventh. The author, probably does not go this far, but the influence shows up in the weakness of the argument assuming it is an argument for deity per se.
b) Nevertheless, the author is willing to identify Christ with the Father, but not YHWH. This is because the Father was not the same as YHWH for the Gnostic. So he leaves out all those beautiful proof texts showing that Yeshua is YHWH in the flesh (cf. Zech. 12:10; Jer. 23:6; Isaiah 9:6; Gen. 19:24; angel of YHWH passages).
c) Looking at the context of the text from a temporal point of view, it appears that when the Father 'begets' Christ, and brings him into the world that, then, at that point he says, "let all the angels of God worship him"; How can this be? Was not Yeshua in his pre-born state worshipped by the angels, and indeed the angel of YHWH was worshipped long before being begotten of a Virgin, and indeed, even before creation from eternity past, when he was one with the Spirit of YHWH.
d) In order to make this temporal initiation for a beginning to the worship of the Son, the author of Hebrews must use a questionable text from the LXX (cf. Deut. 32:43 'sons of God'; Ps. 97:7 'angels of God'). The Hebrew text omits the words in Deut. 32:43. The LXX does not identify the person to be worshipped as "the firstbegotten", but only as the LORD, and it is not combined as to suggest a temporal beginning to the imperative to worship the LORD. Therefore, the author of Hebrews is taking even the LXX out of context with its questionable reading.
e) Of course, if what the author intends is to show a beginning to the worship of Messiah, when he was born, and not that he is YHWH in the flesh, then he has done it the only way he can. This is not an Arian view, but more like the eastern view of an eternal transmigration of souls. It is the difference between Fred Hoyl's steady state theory of evolution, and big bang evolution. The eternity of the human spirit, at least in origin was taught by various Church Fathers. The Biblical view is that man did not exist until God breathed the breath of life into him. Man had no pre-existence. Yeshua, on the other hand did pre-exist from eternity with the Father. Gnostic dualism reduces both man and Christ to the same level by ascribing dualistic eternity to both.
7. Hebrews 1:8-9, "But unto the Son he saith, 'Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.'"
a) The quotation, underlined, is from Psalm 45:6-7. The author of Hebrews does two things here. First, he takes liberties with the interpretation of the Psalm, and second he makes a poor argument for the deity of Messiah. The Psalm does not in fact address the passage to, "the Son", in any explicit way. Attributing it to the Son is the thought of Hebrews. Of course, it is true, but to adduce it as an argument for the deity of Messiah is of no force, because the Psalm says no more than God is God. It does not say, "who" God is, i.e. the 'Son'.
b) Psalm 45:6-7 has been translated two ways, "Your throne is from God ... therefore God, your God, anointed you ..." (Stone Edition, Tanach), or as above in Hebrews and other translations. "Thy throne, O God ..." is strictly accurate, but the sense given in the Stone Edition is correct. How is this to be? The Psalm is a song or poetry. The Psalmist has merely switched in vs. 5. from speaking explicitly of king Hezekiah, to an aside, ascribing the throne of Hezekiah to God, because Hezekiah was the regent on God's throne. If one can picture the Psalmist reciting before the king, and then turning to face heaven and looking up as he recites vs. 6, then it will be clear that the addressee has changed from the king to God in vs. 6, and that the point is to ascribe Hezekiah's throne to God. Hezekiah himself is merely the regent king on God's throne.
c) The statement in vs. 6 is not a hyperbole, but an aside. It has been suggested that Isaiah 9:6 is a hyperbole, but then Isaiah 9:6 is explicitly addressed to the future Davidic King Messiah, whereas the context of this Psalm is clearly about Hezekiah and his Queen, (Ps. 45:9), and daughter (vs. 15). The reason the king's son is not mentioned, is that Hezekiah had no heir yet (Manasseh was only 12 when he received the throne).
d) One of the reasons that the Rabbis are able to pull so many Messianic Believers into the orbit of Judaism is the poor arguments made in Hebrews, especially this one, which can be shot down with a better understanding of the Hebrew source. The Church has wounded itself in this respect even before it meets the enemy. But this is only because there are many things said in Hebrews that they want to hear.
8. Hebrews 1:10-12, "And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and like a garment they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail."
a) This passage from Psalm 102 is essentially in agreement with the Hebrew text, but the quotation shows that a Greek translation was being used, even if a bit different from our current LXX. P46 reads a second, "like a garment", and since it is from ca. 200, it is probably what the author wrote, either by careless citation or because the Greek text he used was not as accurate a version of the LXX as could be at that time.
b) The text is a good reminder, but really adds nothing to the argument for the deity of Messiah.
9. Hebrews 1:13, "But to which of the angels said he at any time: 'Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?'"
a) Finally, we touch on a good argument for the deity of Messiah! The citation is from Psalm 110:1. We do need the whole context of the Psalm to complete the argument for the deity of Messiah here. This verse itself is insufficient to make the main point, and Hebrews is doing a disservice not to cite the best part. This is probably because the argument was too well known, but also the author did not want to repeat it because it so clearly identifies Messiah with YHWH, something he or his Gnostic friends resisted.
b) The Psalm reads, "YHWH says to my Lord"; so the speaker is YHWH, who is speaking to someone who is David's 'Lord'; Now, nobody else on earth was David's, 'Lord', so he must be referring to the Messiah. It is made clear in vs. 5 who the Messiah is, "YHWH at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath." This is one of the 134 places that the Sopherim changed YHWH to Adonai (cf. BHS mlt mss, Ginsburg). This is the second YHWH of Gen. 19:24. These facts indicate that the Adonai at YHWH's right hand is YHWH, who is in the order of Melchizedek, who executes the judgment on the nations in the end of days.
c) The reason Psalm 110:1-7 makes a good argument for the deity of Messiah as YHWH in the flesh, and Psalm 45:6-7 does not is that the person referred to in Psalm 110:1 as "Lord" is in fact intended to be the Messiah, and is identified as YHWH in vs. 5. Psalm 45 makes no argument because the Messiah is not identified in the text, or if typologically present, he is not connected with the aside in vs. 6.
d) The way the author of Hebrews quotes the passage shows some knowledge of the argument for Messiah's identity, but he has a faulty and partial knowledge of the full argument. So do most Christians. Nevertheless, Matthew 22:44; Mk. 12:36; Luke 20:42-43 and Acts 2:34-35 quote all of Psalm 110:1, whereas Hebrews quotes only the second clause, which is almost unimportant to the argument in comparison to the first clause. It is one thing to summarize an argument by introducing it. It is quite another to summarize it in a non-conventional way by referencing a relatively unimportant part of it. That's what Hebrews does. Sure the other texts do not have the full argument either, but they do cite the most important part of it, knowing that the community was familiar with Psalm 110:5 reading "YHWH" and that logic would connect David's, "Lord" with YHWH who is the angel of YHWH.
e) This brings up another suggestion. It is possible that the Gnostics interpreted "Lord" in Psalm 110:1 as the Father, and YHWH as the demirge speaking to the Father. Therefore, they identify Christ with the Father, but not with YHWH. This would be their convenient way of getting around the popularity of the argument. It easily explains the motivation for Hebrews to omit the key part of the argument. It is an argument that wants Messiah to be God, but not YHWH God. So the Gnostics did not worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They worshipped another 'Jesus'/'Yeshua' who was not the God of Israel.
d) Hebrews seems to be attacking an argument where Messiah is considered the angel of the LORD. While Messiah is no mere angel, we must consider that the early believers presented the argument as Messiah Yeshua, who is the "angel of YHWH" who is YHWH. "Angel" means 'messenger' in any case. But the faith of some can be undermined by confusing the created 'angels' with the 'messenger of YHWH' who is YHWH, and then by showing that created angels are only created angels. This seems to be the source of the Hebrews argument. What is underneath the argument with angels not being divine here is the attempt to destroy the concept of the 'angel of YHWH' who is in fact YHWH in the flesh.
10. Hebrews 1:14, "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?"
a) Well, no, not every 'angel' is a ministering spirit. The very first use of the word in the Bible is in Genesis 16:7 where the, 'angel of YHWH' appears to Hagar. In vs. 13, the narration identifies this angel as YHWH.
11. Hebrews 2:1-2, "Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward;
a) "more earnest heed"; The author is arguing for the superiority of the message that have heard, over and above the Torah and Prophets, which he attributes to mere "angels"; they should pay more attention to what they 'heard' in comparison to that which was spoken by mere, 'angels'! Yet, Peter wrote, "a more sure word of prophecy" (2Pet 1:19). If one should heed all the more, then one should heed what Yeshua has said already in the Torah and Prophets. For it is the 'more sure word of prophecy' (2Peter 1:19). Now if what they had heard was the truth, then it is equal to the word of prophecy, but by no means is the heard truth greater than the word of truth revealed in the Torah and Prophets, because it was spoken by YHWH himself.
b Notice how the author attributes the Torah and Prophets to 'angels' after reducing the concept of 'angel' so that Messiah cannot be the 'angel of YHWH'; it was YHWH himself who appeared on Mt. Sinai, and who was seen of the elders of Israel, and who spoke the 'word' to Moses 'face to face, as man speaks with his friend'; this stratagem is a necessary precursor to reducing YHWH's covenant with Israel to irrelevance. For if the author can show that the "Father" actually did not give the Torah and Prophets, then it is easier to denigrate the covenant.
12. Hebrews 2:3, "How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;"
a) The author does not really acknowledge that 'salvation' was preached to Israel, despite 4:2 and chapter 11, which are mere sops, woven into a Hellenistic concept of 'faith'; I will get to this later. Briefly, though, the author excludes pre-cross 'saints' from perfection of spirit, which he equates with salvation, until the cross. Here he puts the message of salvation as "at the first began to be spoken by the Lord"; Of course, salvation was not first spoken by Yeshua in his earthly ministry, nor is it merely oral. For what is written in the Torah and Prophets was sufficient to save the faithful.
b) Also do you notice how the author manages to demote the authority of the message of salvation in the Torah and Prophets by the way he speaks, an authority which was backed up by judgments that did not allow the disobedient to escape? Yet, he leavens the Torah and Prophets behind, keeping just the judgments so that his audience cannot escape from judgment should they question his re-interpretation of the word of YHWH. Making the Torah out to be harsh and unmerciful is the constant tactic of temporal dispensationalists even today (the author was a vertical dispensationalist).
c) Almost incidentally, the author admits that the revelation of the truth was not confirmed to him personally by the Lord. Rather his information is second hand. This all but proves that Paul did not write the letter, because Paul could never say that Yeshua had never personally confirmed the word of salvation to him.
13. Hebrews 2:4, "God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?"
a) Again, the author does not seem to lie in the generation that saw the signs and wonders with the preaching of the message of salvation. Therefore, it cannot Paul, and we must remember that Hebrews was canonized on the supposition that Paul wrote it given it apostolic confirmation.
14. Hebrews 2:5, "For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak."
a) "The world to come" is not the typical Jewish phrase, the "age to come"; the Greek is different here that the typical manner of expression even in Greek. When we see that the author spiritualizes the concepts pertaining to the institutions of Israel, it is easy to see that heaven, or the world to come, is not the restoration of the kingdom of Israel in the age to come.
b) Even in 6:5 the author has reversed the usual order saying, "coming age" rather than the usual, 'age to come' in the gospels. This style is definitely un-Pauline, and also reflects an ignorance of the stylistic Jewish way of referring to the, "age to come" in Greek.
c) Again, 'angels' are put in second place, not because this is obviously true for angels in the plural as mere created beings, but because the author seems to agree with the Gnostic view that the 'angel of YHWH' is merely an angel. By attributing the Torah and Prophets to an, 'angel', he is then able to lower its value, just like the Gnostics.
15. Hebrews 2:6-8, "But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? 7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: 8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him."
a) These words are quoted from Psalm 8. Clearly, angels here means the created messengers. But one cannot help but think our author has quoted this text, not to show that Messiah lowered himself, but to inoculate his audience against the concept of the angel of YHWH being Messiah himself in the flesh. The author manages to use the term 'angels' in the plural 13 or so times in the book, and never once in the singular, and most of those times to illustrate who Messiah is not, without clearing up for anyone when the term 'angel' does apply to Messiah. Such a deficiency from the argument for the deity of Messiah is most astonishing in a book that is supposed to be divinely inspired.
16. Hebrews 2:9, "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man."
a) Finally, something I find no further need to pick apart.
17. Hebrews 2:10, "For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings."
a) O.K. so if the Father must 'make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings' then this implies imperfection before the sufferings. Yeshua willingly laid down his life, but the purpose of the atonement was not to perfect the Messiah. He was already perfect, as is made clear in Joshua 5:14-6:2 that the "captain" was YHWH himself, who is one and the same with the "angel of YHWH" (Judges 2:1), before whom Joshua had to remove the sandals off of his feet. It is holy, holy, holy, which is to say already as perfect as perfect can be.
b) What we have here with the idea of a need for perfection, is the idea of the Gnostics, wherein the spirit deep in man is considered part of the spirit of the Father from the eighth heaven. The demiurge (the God of Israel) controlled the first seven heavens, and prevents this 'inner spirit -- perfected' from finding its way to the 8th sphere. Christ is supposed to have realized his spiritual potential, perfected his spirit by suffering, and made it through the 7 heavens to the eighth sphere. However, when the Gnostics say that Christ died, they mean only the man part of him, and not the that the 'Christ spirit' experienced death. The author does not make it clear where he lies with respect to all of this pagan theology and philosophy, but clearly, he is being influenced by it.
18. Hebrews 2:11, "For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,"
a) If the Gnostic undercurrent is correct here, then what the author means by 'one' here is not just the unity that Yeshua taught in John 17. The Greek reads, "from one" or "out of one," and may mean that he considers all men to have a piece of the divine spirit as their identity. This is not the same as the Holy Spirit dwelling in man, because the Holy Spirit dwells with man's spirit, and is not identified as man's Spirit. The Creator and the creation are not the same entity - in any sort of mystical sense. The Gnostics considered all men brothers based on the origin of their untapped divine potential -- something Yeshua calls the "deep things of Satan" in the book of Revelation (Rev. 2:24). The way to rejoin the original divine spirit was to realize one's potential and then to set out on the path of perfection.
b) The present tense of the verbs, "sanctifieth" and "sanctified" (really 'being sanctified') should not deter us here from grasping the author's meaning, because he speaks of a plurality. In the authors view, as soon as one becomes a Christian, then their inner spirit is perfected. Since there were a continuous number of people becoming Christians, sanctification is spoken of as present progressive. But in the author's view, once a person is a Christian, then he is fully perfected in the 'conscience' or inner man.
c) What makes true believers one with Messiah and his brothers is not origin so much as being grafted into the nation of Israel. "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren" (Rom. 8:28). It is Israel as a collective people that is 'foreknown' (really, 'acknowledged beforehand'), whom are predestined (really, 'appointed beforehand'). It is by joining with Israel, the nation of Yeshua that that we become one as brothers with Him. "Firstborn" does not mean 'first born' but pre-eminent, or having the rights of the first born.
19. Hebrews 2:12, "Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee."
a) Psalm 22:22. Except that it should say, "congregation" and not "church";
20. Hebrews 2:13, "And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me."
a) Isaiah 8:17-18; 2 Sam. 23:3; Isaiah 12:2. The author seems to do well when he just quotes from Scripture. He does tend to mix and match texts, but then this is partly because quotations often were put together from memory and not quote unquote citation.
21. Hebrews 2:14, "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;"
a) This is the only place that I know of where the devil is said to have had the power of death. However, the devil's power over death was never any more than the power to deceive and kill people who have already offended God, such as Hitler deceived and killed people. God is the one who passed the judgment of death, and it is by his will that people are subject to the possibility of death. In the Gnostic world view, the Father never passes judgment on anyone. Rather the power of death and its origination as a penalty is passed to the demiurge, which they regard as the God of Israel. The God of Israel was the Gnostic Devil. It is too much to say that our author subscribed to such a view for certain, but he seems to be influenced by it in the way he presents the penalty of sin. Death is not here presented as God's just sentence against man. Because of the likely milieu of this author we may expect some cognitive dissonance to show in his thinking. For try as one might, such views and the Bible can never be really married. We will see were the cracks show the most.
b) Possibly, what we have here is a Dr. Jekel and Dr. Hyde theology, were the God of the 'old covenant' is judgmental, and it is this judgment that one must be delivered from (as well as the laws). And then there is the God of the 'new testament' that is merciful and loving, and never judges anyone. What the author should have said here, though is that the wages of sin is death, and that it is God who brings the whole world under judgment (Romans 3:19, 23). The problem isn't just that death is the boogie-man from which one must escape. Death is the justified penalty, and it must be admitted as so.
22. Hebrews 2:15, "And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage."
a) Certainly this is a true statement, but we must remember that God put death into the picture so that men would learn to fear him and not to sin with the expectation of immorality. The problem with mankind is that it really does not fear death enough to seek God. People do not feel their mortality until a situation comes along, or they live to their later years.
b) Death subjects us to bondage. However, even Christians are subject to death! But our author seems to limit the words 'all their lifetime' to Israel before the coming of the Messiah, and then subject to the bondage of sin seems to cease. This view is reflected in the theology that Christians don't really die, i.e. they go to heaven as soon as they 'die'; the resurrection of the body, or the reality of physical death for the believer, who sleeps until the resurrection, is not something that is compatible with the theology of the Church that was influenced by Gnosticism in this way.
c) The real issue is not physical death, but guilt. The guilt of sin is what makes one liable or deserving of death in God's sight. Israel was not continuously subject to guilt. They had relief from guilt by the animal sacrifices God ordained, and even relief from transgressions they had repented of, knowing that God would take care of them in the time to come, as they were sent away on Yom Kippur. After this was explained, the Prophets reveal more and more about how the final forgiveness would be accomplished.
d) What Yeshua brought was the historical fulfillment of the promise of atonement for transgression and iniquity. However, believers are still subject to physical death, and unbelievers to guilt, and if believers fall into transgression, then they should rightly feel guilty and fear again the judgment of the holy God. So nothing has changed existentially for the condition of man yet, just for those individuals who are in the faith, and only as a down payment on redemption. Physical deliverance is still to come at the end of the age.
e) What the author presents as the bondage to physical death, or even spiritual death, Paul presents as 'under the norm' or 'under sin' (Gal. 3:22-23), and by this he means subject to the norm of the Torah that the soul who sins should die for their own sin. The author to Hebrews stops with the threat of death itself, and does not give sufficient explanation to the the justness of it, and why it continues to apply to unbelievers.
23. Hebrews 2:16, "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham."
a) We cannot say that Messiah never manifested himself in the form of an angel. We speak of the dual nature of Yeshua as the God-man; this is surely so after he was born of a virgin. Yeshua appeared as a man to Moses, or then again as the "angel of YHWH" who is YHWH, and he may really have had the dual nature of the God-Angel.
b) Angels were the "sons of God" who were able to marry women and have children in Genesis 6. We should not suppose that just because God created man in his own image that angels were not also in the image of God. Nor should we assume that angels are purely servants to be 'used' so to speak.
c) The class/kind distinction between men and angels has to do with the primal rebellion of the sons of God, and God's plan to replace the rebels with the redeemed children of men. The difference is not of a permanent kind, but of class/kind based on history and the choices that the heavenly beings made for or against the Almighty. Eventually, the redeemed will inherit the kind and status of the 'sons of God';
d) A comparison of Hosea 12:4-5 and Genesis 32:24-31 will show that the God of Israel appeared to Jacob as man, with whom he wrestled. But in the prophet Hosea, this same "man" was called a "angel" and identified as YHWH of hosts. The Messiah took the nature of man as the seed of Abraham, but it was unnecessary for Hebrews to deny that he ever took the form of an angel. Clearly, according to the Torah and Prophets, he did. And I can think of only one reason that the author is at great pains to completely separate Messiah from appearing as an angel -- and that is because he is reluctant or opposed to the identity of Messiah as YHWH in the flesh. Gen. 48:16 says, "The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads" (KJV).
e) Even today there are Christians who refuse to, or who are reluctant to accept the basic identity of Yeshua = angel of YHWH = YHWH.
24. Hebrews 2:17, "Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people."
a) God in his mercy became a man. Was this necessary as the author implies so that he might be merciful and faithful? I think not. God was already merciful and faithful in full perfection. The reason he became a man was not to make himself more merciful or faithful or to enable himself to be more merciful or faithful. Rather it was so that men would realize that God loved them enough to do this, and to experience their trials and tribulations, and to sympathize with a common experience, so that men would realize that God knows all about it in experience. But God did not need to become a man to do this. There was no need on God's side; God could simply will himself the experiential knowledge another way. The need to know God knew experientially of man's sufferings was purely on man's side of the question, and the need for man to know that God acquired his sympathetic knowledge by actually becoming a man is a human need. It was not a divine need. Yeshua's ability to be merciful was not contingent on becoming a man, yet that is exactly what the text implies, "it behoved him .... that he might be ...";
b) The doctrine of Yeshua as the, "high priest" is exclusively from the book of Hebrews. Outside Hebrews this argument may only find support in three places, and without the word 'high' and its suggestive connection to the Levitical Priesthood. One is Psalm 110:4 where Messiah is in the order of Melchizedek, and the others are in Zechariah 6:13 and 1 Samuel 2:35. The problem the author's use of Psalm 110:4 is that the priesthood of Melchizedek is one of mediating judgment on the nations (cf. Psalm 110:5-7). In this sense the Davidic King is a mediator between the people of God and the nations. He is the instrument or mediator of God's wrath upon the nations. However, the author of this book wants Yeshua to have this priesthood, "to make reconciliation for the sins of the people"; There is really no need for him to be a priest to do this. This was the domain of the Levitical Priests. Yeshua was not such a priest. He was the sacrifice. Just as in the binding of Isaac, it was not the sacrifice that was the priest. Abraham acted in the place of the priest. And according to Isaiah 53:10, it was YHWH the Father who acted in the place of the priest at Yeshua's death, "Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him;" In some sense, Yeshua offered himself, and was his own priest, however, this is not what Psalm 110:4 was teaching, and there is certainly no attempt to claim the 'high priesthood' for Yeshua in the Levitical sense. For it is clear that the Melchizedek priesthood was intended to be an order or title conferred on the Davidic King for the purpose of mediating 'justice to the nations'; The word 'Melchizedek' means 'king of justice' in accord with the context of Psalm 110:5-7. So the author's use of this Psalm really does nothing to support his argument of Yeshua as 'high priest'; it can only be observed that in some sense Yeshua acted as a priest in offering himself, but this is not what the Psalm is really talking about.
c) The other text that might be urged to establish a priesthood for Yeshua is Zechariah 6:13, "and shall sit and rule upon his seat; and there shall be a priest upon his seat: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both"; again it does not specify the type of priesthood. Actually, Yeshua is the Melchizedek priest mediating justice to the nations, and in that sense he is a priest or will be a priest when he rules on earth, however, this is not Levitical. And the Zechariah text does keep the king and the priest separate, "peace shall be between them both".
d) We may expand the idea of the Davidic King being a priest in the sense that he teaches the Torah to the people, a function of the priests that was not forbidden to the King. Only the role of the high priest in matters of earthly offerings was the king excluded. Yet the king will provide offerings, and pray before the altar, though he himself will not perform the ritual of sacrifice. Therefore, Yeshua is not the 'high' priest or a replacement for the 'high' priest. The 'high' priest will serve as before (cf. Jeremiah 33:18-22). Yeshua is a 'priest-king', but not the 'Cohen ha-Gadol';
e) The 1 Samuel 2:35 text prophesied that a "faithful priest" would come, however this priest is said to "walk before mine anointed all the days", which would exclude Yeshua, since Yeshua is the Anointed One. Even so, if there is typological overlap here, the prophesy does not mean to assign the right and duty of the 'high priest' to Yeshua.
25. Hebrews 2:18, "For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted."
a) The word 'succour' means 'help'; Did Yeshua need to be tempted to be able to help those who are tempted? Hardly! How is it that God who knows all things and possesses all wisdom is a better counselor because he, 'suffered being tempted'? That's like saying that he gave inferior counsel in the ages before he suffered at the hands of evil men.
b) However, if we consider that our author holds to a view of evolved godhood, or was influenced by the Gnostics in this thinking, then what he says makes complete sense to that world view, for then in that case Christ would have started out as a mere man, but would have learned obedience through suffering till he became perfected by connecting with the father spirit in the eighth sphere. Then he would merge with the father spirit and become the substance of his glory.
c) The Gnostics considered the physical realm the creation of on an evil being. They therefore separated the Universe into the spiritual and the physical. The father, who was not the creator, to them had nothing to do with the physical. He was totally transcendent from the physical. The Gnostics did not just get this idea themselves, this dichotomist view of the world was part of Hellenism. The upshot of this is that for the Gnostics, God could not sympathize with the physical creation. The author does not subscribe to the Gnostic extreme rejection the God of Israel at all, but seems to be affected by the anti-physical component of the Gnostic theology.
26. Hebrews 3:1, "Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;"
a) I have critiqued already the ascription of 'high' priest to Yeshua. No where else is this claim made, but in this book.
b) The word 'Apostle' comes from the Greek and Hebrew word for 'send', used in Isaiah 48:16 (LXX and MT respectively).
27. Hebrews 3:2-6, "Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house. 3 For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house. 4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God. 5 And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after; 6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end."
a) "all his house"; this refers to the 'house of God', i.e. either the temple or the people of God. In all fairness, there are passages elsewhere in the NT that do this sort of compare and contrast. There is Gal. 4:24, except that the two covenants being compared are not the 'old testament' and 'new testament'; the unbelieving Jews did tend to exalt Moses to excess. In Gal. 4:24, Paul is comparing the covenant results with the results of the same covenant renewed, i.e. two bindings, but part of the one covenant, which are the blessings and the curses of the same covenant.
b) Numbers 12:7 reads, "My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house." Notice that Hebrews uses 'his' rather than 'mine'; The author would have done better to preserve the original, 'mine' (i.e. 'My') referring to YHWH, and then to simply finish the argument by showing that 'My' = YHWH = Yeshua. This very point is made in the next verse, "With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?" (Numbers 12:8). The author his missed a grand opportunity here to make the correct point about who Yeshua is.
c) The author's change of 'My' to 'his' is not even according to the LXX. The LXX has the word 'my' to modify 'house';
d) The author says, "Moses ... was faithful ... for a testimony of those things ... after"; this is a very utilitarian statement. It reduces Moses as merely a witness to Messiah. That is not the apparent meaning of Numbers 12:7. Moses did witness to Messiah, and will yet witness to Messiah. However, the Torah is not just a mere collection of arguments for Messiah, and then it is useless after that. This is indeed the Church's theology, and the usual interpretation of this text. It was also probably the author's thinking when he said this. I know the text does not say this thinking directly, but this is the thinking that it is put to.
e) The author said, "whose house we are", but by failing to call Moses house 'my house', and failing to identify the LORD as Yeshua in Numbers 12:7, he has opened the door to Church thinking, i.e. that the 'house' spoken of that Moses ruled is not the same house that Christians join. Yes, the author has God, who is Yeshua ruling over both houses, but the way he writes allows the houses to be different. Notice that the author only brings the possessive into vs. 6, 'own house'; and if he has two houses, then in the author's thinking the first is history and has no future.
28. Hebrews 3:7-11, "3:7 Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice, 8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness: 9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years. 10 Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do always err in their heart; and they have not known my ways. 11 So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)"
a) quoted. Psalm 95:7-11. But the author has used the word "always" which occurs only in the LXX but not in the Hebrew.
29. Hebrews 3:12-19, "3:12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. 13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end; 15 While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation. 16 For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses. 17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness? 18 And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? 19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief."
a) We should notice that the author's presentation of the gospel is 'hold ... to our confidence"; while this is good, it is not the substance of the gospel, but merely an exhortation to it.
b) In Hebrews 11:1, the author defines 'faith' as confidence in a hope that is unseen in the future. However, that is not the reason why they could not enter into the land of Israel. It was because of 'unfaithfulness' i.e. disobedience to God's commandments. It is true that the unfaithfulness was preceded by a lack of confidence that the result of God's promise and commandment would be good for them. However, there may be those who lacked confidence, yet who feared the LORD sufficiently to obey him in the matter of conquering the land. In fact, if all the nation had been willing to obey, but had just kept their fears and doubts private, then the outcome would have been different. It did not depend on 'confidence in confidence' so to speak.
c) While it is only fair to say that this text does not contradict the truth when interpreted one way, it could have been the author's intention to reflect the thinking of Hellenistic Christianity wherein everything depended on 'confidence'; In this view 'obeying God' was redefined as 'confidence in God', but as to physical obedience to God's commandments, this was disconnected in greater or lesser degrees from the idea of 'faith', and this is very much the case to this day. Such a view, however, is not biblical.
30. Hebrews 4:1-2 "Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. 2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it."
a) What the author means here is taking up the promise and believing it, or placing confidence in the promise. Such promises should not be neglected.
b) However, the author has misdiagnosed his contemporary problem. It is true that one must have a degree of confidence to be faithful to God, but there was plenty of confidence to go around in Hellenistic Christianity. The contemporary problem was that such confidence was just that confidence and nothing else. Yes, people can deceive themselves this way. If confidence is to mean anything, then it must have the biblical result, i.e. 'faithfulness' which is the real definition of pistis. One should look for the faithfulness, not just the confidence in the promise. For you cannot have one without the other, but if one is lacking, then it would be better that the confidence was weak, but that faithfulness was there.
31. Hebrews 4:3-11, "4:3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. 5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest. 6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief: 7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. 8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. 9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. 10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. 11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief."
a) The author is operating under a different definition of 'faith' than the biblical "faithfulness" or "faithful trusting"; (cf. Heb. 11:1). Therefore, I think it not best to correct things here as Paul's writings can be corrected. The context of his thought prevents such a correction being legitimate.
b) This passage really has nothing to say against Sabbath Observance. The author has not made his position clear at this point. It is likely that Sabbath Observance, or some respect of it, continued in many places long after the theology and other key doctrines had become corrupted.
c) in vs. 8, "Jesus" should be corrected to "Joshua". This is not the fault of the author, but of the KJV translators. But Joshua did indeed give physical rest to Israel when they entered the land, just as had been promised. The ultimate spiritual salvation rest was future to them, i.e. 'another day', but again the ultimate spiritual salvation rest is future to us also, and it includes the physical as well.
d) There remains this future spiritual and physical rest in the Millennial Kingdom, but it cannot be entered into now, while we are in exile, any more than Israel could enter into it while they were in the wilderness. Joshua and Caleb had to wait until the appointed time to enter in. So also, we must wait till the appointed time.
e) However, our author has taken the word 'today', not in the sense of solemn exhortation not to be disobedient 'today,' but in a temporal fashion that the rest must be entered into 'today' in the fullest sense. The Psalmist merely exhorts us not to harden our hearts 'today'. The author to Hebrews has interpreted this as 'another day' i.e. with the 'new testament' after the cross, in which he believes the full promise of spiritual rest is achieved. How can he say this? Because, as a typical Hellenist, he had disconnected the spiritual and the physical. Spiritual perfection is immediately achievable to him, and the physical imperfection evident all around counts for nothing. But the truth is that believers are neither spiritually or physically perfect, and the promise of the kingdom rest is still future to us, although nearer than it was for Joshua and Caleb.
f) "There remaineth a rest to the people of God"; while this be true, the author is not thinking of himself or perfected Christians. He is being charitable to those 'people of God' he deems not to have entered into the rest. The author hints in various places, which we shall get to, that these people are the one's who think they ought to obey God by observing the laws of Moses.
g) Finally, we get to the point about 'works' and 'labour'; Clearly, this point is aimed at defining 'faith' as confidence in the promise sans works (cf. Heb. 11:1). Surely the faithfulness that saves us is the "faithfulness of Yeshua" (Rom. 3:22; Gal. 2:16), however, the idea that our "faithful response" is to be without works is pure Hellenistic thought. "Faith without works is dead", says James. So the author to Hebrews has redefined, 'labour' to mean confidence only, or faith without works. In other words, he wants his audience to labor to have confidence.
32. Hebrews 4:12 "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."
a) This is one of the most loved texts in the book. On the surface, if taken somewhat metaphorically, it is a sound sentiment. Taken more literally, it is more sinister.
b) Hellenism with its dichotomy between the body and the spirit would have loved to hear that the intent of the word was to divide their body from their spirit. The reality is that when soul and spirit are divided that death is the result, quite the opposite of what you might expect with the living word of God. That is what the word 'quick' means in the text, i.e. 'living'.
33. Hebrews 4:13, "Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do."
a) Finally, a statement this is not peppered with Hellenism.
34. Hebrews 4:14, "Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession."
a) The Greek texts say "passed through the heavens"; This seems to be some accommodation in the author's idiolect to the Gnostic idea that Christ went through seven heavens to arrive at the eighth sphere beyond the domain of the demiurge.
b) Again we have the author identifying Yeshua as the 'high' priest, which I have before discussed. He is the priest-king, but this is not to be confused with the 'high priest".
35. Hebrews 4:15, "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."
a) 'high' priest. See above.
b) Considering Hebrews 2:10, it could be that the author's theology allows Christ to have simply been successful at resisting temptation without sin at the final point, without commenting on the beginning of his life. In other words, this verse does not rule out Arianism. It only makes himself sinless at the cross. However, the author's theology is not Arian. Hebrews 7:3 ascribes eternity to the Son through the argument concerning Melchizedek. However, he can still be dualistic, i.e. good and evil exist in eternal interchange so that the eternity of a person need not imply goodness at all points in time. Dualism is a part of both Gnostic and Hellenistic thought.
c) The only surefire way to guarantee Messiah's sinlessness is to understand that He is YHWH himself in human form, and to argue from the nature of God to the conclusion of sinlessness.
36. Hebrews 4:16, "Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need."
a) The theology of the author says that Christians 'spiritually' approach the throne in heaven to obtain mercy. This idea is not biblical. Any Christian entering there will find his or her experience similar to Isaiah, "Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts" (Isaiah 6:5). "Boldness" was the last thing on Isaiah's agenda. Likewise, it was the last thing on John's agenda (for those dispensationalists who think things have changed), "And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:" (Rev. 1:17).
b) Mercy is obtained in the here and now by believing that Yeshua died for our sins and was raised on the third day. We do not have to go into the third heaven to obtain it: "For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? 14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it" (Deut. 30:11-14).
c) One may say that the author is only speaking
metaphorically, but I think not. With the body/spirit dichotomy of
Hellenism, and his further theology in 10:19, "Having therefore,
brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus," we
see that in the spiritual sense, he believes the faithful make it to the
third heaven now. This may seem a bit ethereal or existentialist,
however, it is what the Gnostics taught, and Christianity was heavily
influenced by Gnostic thought at this time, even where the Christians
were not actual Gnostics.
37. Hebrews 5:1-6 "For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: 2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. 3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. 4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. 5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. 6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec."
a) The author now begins to offer his apologetic for making Yeshua into the 'high' priest.
b) The idea in vs 2. is questionable, "Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity." Certainly Eli was a high priest compassed with infirmity! Yet, did his infirmity lead to him doing right and justice and mercy upon Israel. Hardly! God judged him because sin had prevented him from being a righteous priest. The idea here is the same as the idea that 'evil is necessary for good' or that imperfection is a precondition for the best of perfection. This is a dualistic view of the universe.
c) While one who has sinned may take the lesson well and be less hasty to judge another who has sinned too quickly, it does not follow that a perfect priest who never sinned, or theoretically had never been tempted would be too hasty in judging, or that he would be less then merciful in the perfect measure.
d) vs. 3 says, "so also for himself, to offer for sins"; Lev. 9:7; 16:6 and 16:15 speak only the the "sin offering," and not for 'sins'; the difference may seem trivial, but it is not. The sin offering could be used to merely wipe away ritual impurity. It may not have been a personal 'sin' as people think of commandment breaking. Rather the /ħatTAA'Th/ offering was used to prevent uncleanness from being communicated to the holy places, or to remove it from objects after it had been communicated. Such use of the sin offering is seen in Ezekiel 45:17 in the age to come. Personal sin offerings are also part of the Torah, but these do not seem to be part of the regular ritual, but were only brought on the contingency that a commandment was broken unintentionally. The sin offerings of Yom Kippur appear to be oriented toward ritual cleansing only. Because of this it would be wrong to automatically ascribe the use of the 'sin offering' to 'sinful infirmity'; the uncleannesses cleansed by the sin offering were part of the normal order of the world, such as the issue of blood after childbirth (cf. Lev. 15:30). See Heb. 7:27 comment.
e) Therefore, all barriers to King-Messiah serving as Priest-King with the Levitical High Priest before the Messiah are removed. (1Sam. 2:35), "And I will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall do according to that which is in mine heart and in my mind: and I will build him a sure house; and he shall walk before mine anointed for ever." One wonders why this text gets no mention in Hebrews. The word 'anointed' is the same as "Messiah". The reason it gets no mention is that it places the 'faithful priest,' who is to serve 'forever', literally, 'all the days,' at the feet of the Messiah. Messiah is also a priest, i.e. the Priest-King, but the priestly roles are different, yet compatible.
f) Zech. 6:13 says in the LXX that the priest is at the right hand of the king, in apparent agreement with 1Sam. 2:35. The Stone Edition of the Tenach gives a good clue as to how to resolve the MT on this, "The Kohen will be upon his own throne", i.e. literally, "Will be a priest upon his throne" refers to a second throne before the throne of King Messiah, and not to the same throne. Young's Literal Translation gives the same sort of idea, "And Bath-Sheba cometh in unto king Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, and the king riseth to meet her, and boweth himself to her, and sitteth on his throne, and placeth a throne for the mother of the king, and she sitteth at his right hand."
g). "So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee." The author admits this as a concession. The key is in 'glorified not himself'; for the author will still argue that Christ was made the 'high priest', in spite of 1Sam. 2:35 and Zech. 6:13 refuting this, by being glorified by God and not himself. He quotes Psalm 2:7 again. The sense of "begotten" in Ps. 2:7 is less literal birth, than a simile as 'bringing forth' in a situation of distress. He lines this up with Psalm 110:4 and says that Messiah was begotten into the order of Melchizedek. There is nothing wrong with this reasoning, except that the order of Melchizedek does not replace the high priest. It is the priest-king that is the complement of the Levitical high priest, not his replacement. The author has simply inserted the assumption into the text that Messiah is the 'high' priest, whereas, there is nothing that equates Messiah to the 'high' priest in the Torah or Prophets, and several statements to refute it. The Zechariah 6:13 passage says, "the counsel of peace shall be between them both" showing two thrones, one with the king, and the other with the priest.
38. Hebrews 5:7, "Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;"
a) Yeshua was not delivered from suffering and dying, but I suspect the Gnostic mysteries are having an influence here because of the last phrase, "and was heard in that he feared". Yeshua's prayer that the cup should pass from him was answered in the negative, as he knew it would be. Yet the Gnostics were great for theories trying to explain that Messiah really did not die, but it was only the man part of him, and that the Christ personality left before the crucifixion. Yeshua did give up his spirit to the Father, but does not mean Yeshua did not experience the first death, body and spirit, nor is it the Gnostic dualism
39. Hebrews 5:8, "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;"
a) Again, we have this dualistic idea that suffering is necessary for obedience, or that badness is necessary for a good result.
40. Hebrews 5:9, "And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;"
a) I mentioned this before. The idea that Yeshua was 'made perfect' by suffering is not orthodox.
41. Hebrews 5:10, "Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec."
a) The author is summarizing here, including his assumption that the scripture called Yeshua the 'high' priest. But this is only this theology speaking here and not the Torah or the Prophets.
42. Hebrews 5:11-14, "Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. 12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. 13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. 14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil."
a) Here the author is asserting his superior knowledge of Scripture. He has certainly been skillful in his contemporary context. And it may be that his audience is somewhat dull. However, the author has managed to take Psalm 45:6-7 out of context already to make a weak argument for Yeshua's deity (Hebrews 1:8-9). Then in Hebrews 2:16, the author's argument against the "angel of YHWH" being Yeshua reaches its climax. Since the angel of YHWH is YHWH, the author has managed to lay the his presumptive basis for destroying one of the best arguments there is for Yeshua's deity. Then the author turns to Psalm 110:4 in an attempt to transfer the 'high' priesthood to Yeshua, even if in a non-Levitical sense, we will see that the author is going to use the statement to show that one replaces the other. These are just the highlights of the author's thinking.
b) We have seen that probably Hellenistic, Gnostic, Dualistic and other influences foreign to the Scripture have motivated the manner of the author's expression.
c) What is he berating the audience for? 1. His audience probably denied the deity of Yeshua, saying that he was a mere angel, a created being. 2. The audience probably gave greater place to the Torah and Moses than he liked. 3. The audience may have emphasized faithfulness over mere confidence. 4. The audience still kept the Sabbath and respected the Temple in Jerusalem, or at least the idea of it if after the destruction.
d) It amounts to one heretic berating other heretics, much like a Mormon or Catholic might carry on a debate with Jehovah's Witnesses or other Arians.
43. Hebrews 6:1-3, "Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 3 And this will we do, if God permit."
a) The author believed that 'perfection' was possible and necessary in the inner man in this life. This is because his worldview divided the physical and the spiritual. The physical was evil, and the spiritual was pure. Evil had to do with physical contaminations, but the spirit was made free and pure. If you were to ask him if he was without sin, he would reply that his spirit was without sin, and say that anything looking sinful is just evil matter that he has to be around. This is the kind of rationalization of Gnostics, and it was thoroughly condemned by the Apostle John (cf. 1John 1:7-9).
b) The author urges the reader to reach perfection of the spirit, which he teaches is through 'faith' in whole purification of the spirit by Christ. Baptism, according to this teaching, is part of the purification of the spirit. So also the Catholic Church teaches, having imbibed much of this Gnostic thought.
44. Hebrews 6:4-6, "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame."
a) By 'enlightened' here the author means having seen his
point about the perfection of the spirit, and the need to grasp it by
'faith' (the substance of things hoped for, the
b) "Repentance" is equated with this idea of embracing the perfection of the spirit via 'faith' in this unseen 'reality'. It is sort of like the Hindu idea of illusion, where one is urged to believe that which is not in evidence, and is in fact contradicted by reality.
c) "Falling away" is equated to firm intelligent rejection of the author's definition of 'faith', in the author's definition, embracing as a present reality (i.e. the substance) the perfection of the spirit through Christ.
d) Why does the author say, it is impossible ... to renew again those who reject this idea to this idea of 'faith'? The answer has more to do with the tactics of deception rather than logical possibility. Of course anyone can change their mind. The tactic here is 'fear'; the author wants to create a total fear of questioning the idea of faith he has taught, i.e. certain confidence of one's immediate perfection of the spirit through the sacrifice of Christ. In a similar tactic, Calvinists try to imbue the people with the fear of questioning the doctrine of Eternal Security. The reason this is necessary, is that these doctrines of salvation are not built upon logical thinking from the Scriptures. They are built by assuming the doctrines by osmosis based on the charisma or personality of some errant teacher, and their are kept in the assumption by fear of questioning it, and then finally by the mistranslation or misinterpretation of various texts. Once these doctrines are intelligently questioned and then rejected, then it is 'game over' for the deceiver.
e) The author says "seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh"; The author's theology is that the offering of Christ is once for all, and that when embracing it, the whole spirit is purified once and for all. He has no concept of Christ's atonement being applied on a continuous basis to himself. And it is this truth that he criticizes when saying, "seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh"; Our author almost certainly subscribes to the idea that the perfection reachable is that 'as if I'd never sinned' in God's eyes. For this idea removes the need for the eternal application of Christ's atonement. But God never sees us 'as if we'd never sinned'. For the fact will always remain that we have sinned, therefore the pre-fall perfection, with no sin in past history, is unreachable. The Gnostic, of course, hates the admission of this idea.
f) The Christian Gnostic theology, therefore, would admit the atonement of Christ only as a one time shot to perfect the spirit. Any need of further sanctification was rejected. And to maintain their doctrine, they accused anyone who would repeat the application of the atonement to their life whenever they sinned of "crucifying the Son afresh"; such was an effective means of deception of the ignorant.
45. Hebrews 6:7-8, "For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: 8 But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned."
a) The author reinforces the threat of damnation for disagreeing with his teaching, though he is quoting Scripture here out of context when he applies it as a threat against disagreeing with his teaching.
46. Hebrews 6:9-18, "But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak. 10 For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister. 11 And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end: 12 That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises. 13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, 14 Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. 15 And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. 16 For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. 17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: 18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:
a) vs. 9-12. The author switches from threatening to assurances to relieve his audience. For they will not be relieved unless he says so. This is the habit of people who let their leaders do their thinking for them
b) vs. 12 "faith"; remember the author's definition, "the substance of things not seen" (11:1) i.e. believing in the unseen doctrine of perfection, which is only visibly realized through 'patience';
c) vs. 15. Compare 11:39-40. The author says that 'they' did not receive the promise, although they 'obtained the promise'; he says this because he does not want the promise to be part of God's covenant with Israel, but only part of the 'new covenant', in which he believes perfection is a present reality. Saints, have the 'better' he says, because they are "made perfect" (Heb. 11:40). This view of the renewed covenant in Jer. 31:31-34 fails to see that perfection is yet an unfilled prophetic element of the text. The author totally ignores this ascribing it wholly to the present.
47. Hebrews 6:19-20, "Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil; 20 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec."
a) Author's view: faith = hope = confidence of present perfection of the spirit. And so he believes he has the right to enter the most holy place, not merely on earth, but into heaven, on the basis of his present perfection of spirit. Yeshua certainly has the right to enter these places, due to his perfection, but on earth, he would surely go through ritual cleansing first to remove any impurities that might cling to the body. In heaven, he would have his glorified body, and need no such cleansing.
b) The author calls Yeshua the 'forerunner' reinforcing the idea that we too can enter the most holy place. For a forerunner has those who follow. Yet he uses the present tense "enters ... within the veil"; this point is reinforced in Hebrews 10:19, "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus";
c) The author has fallen for Korah's arugment, "Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD?" (Numbers 16:3). They approached and were consumed by fire.
d) One cannot enter into the most holy place unless they are perfected. By saying believers can enter the most holy, the author is making the strongest possible argument he can for the doctrine of perfectionism.
c) The blood of Yeshua does two things. By it we are forgiven the penalty of sin, and by it we are cleansed from sin. However, the cleansing is still ongoing, and will not be completed until the eschatological day of atonement (cf. Lev. 16:30; Zech. 3:9). Therefore, we are not perfect enough to attempt what the author claims to be able to do.
d) Yeshua is the Priest-King, but not the 'high' priest. Melchizedek was a Priest-King also, but not the high priest. After Israel rebelled in the sin of the golden calf, the duties of the altar were assigned to Levi alone. The priestly function of Melchizedek and Yeshua are that of Priest-King, which is to say the administration of justice and righteousness to the people. The Priest-King will have his throne, and the High Priest his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between the two of them (cf. Zech. 6:13). The Priest-King will not usurp the role of the 'high priest,' nor will the High Priest usurp the role of the Priest-King, as it has happened both ways in the history of Israel, e.g. Uzziah tried to enter the holy place, and the Hasmonean Priests usurped the throne of David.
48. Hebrews 7:1-4, "For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; 2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; 3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually."
a) "Melchizedek" means 'king of justice' as well as 'king of righteousness'; In vs. 3, the author makes Melchizedek eternal. Since, only God has no "beginning of days", it is clear that the author is making this king equal to God.
b) The author wants to make Melchizedek more than human, and his life continual so that he can effectively overrule the Levitical Priesthood. In all likelihood, Melchizedek was not Yeshua in human form. Melchizedek was undoubtedly one of the descendants of Noah who remained faithful to the Most High God, who had had a great span of life, as those born soon after the flood did. As far as we know, the angel of the LORD, i.e. Yeshua, did not take up administration of Jerusalem. If he had, then he would have never left the city to the Canaanites.
49. Hebrews 7:5-7, "And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham: 6 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises. 7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better."
a) In vs. 5, the author implicitly denies that tithing to the Levitical Priests applies to him, i.e. "their brethren";
b) The argument that the "less is blessed of the better" as if it is some sort of principle, is patently false. We bless God, and God blesses us. It works both ways.
50. Hebrews 7:8, "And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth."
a) Again, the author asserts that Melchizedek is still alive. This is necessary for his argument and he cites Psalm 110:4, "The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek." If Melchizedek is dead, then this is a priest who can die, and then in that case the "order of Melchizedek" cannot be superior to that of Levi! Of course, Melchizedek did die, and Psalm 110:4 says nothing about him not dying. "Thou art a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek". "For ever" applies to "Thou" i.e. Adonai at YHWWH's right hand, and not to Melchizedek. Melchizedek is mentioned merely to give the type of priesthood, i.e. Priest-King, who administrates 'justice' (cf. Ps. 110:4-7), not to ascribe eternity to Melchizedek's rule.
b) Also in the order of Melchizedek were the Davidic Kings, David, Solomon, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah. All these Kings filled the priestly function of administration of justice, yet like Melchizedek they all died. So the Melchizedek, priesthood, though it rule over the Levitical Priesthood, it is not superior by length of life.
51. Hebrews 7:9-11, "And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. 10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him. 11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?"
a) This principle of the vicarious paying of tithes is totally unique to this book (vs. 9), and is assumed only to lower the esteem of the Levitical Priesthood in respect of the Priest-King, who is being confused with the 'high' priest.
b) The author begs the question with vs. 11. Or we may call it a straw man argument. Of course the Levitical Priesthood has not given perfection. This is only of value to our author, because he believes that he has perfection of the spirit, something which the Levitical priests could not impart to the people. But this is only because our author is somehow ignorant of the prophetic future for the sons of Levi, who will in the age to come teach what is necessary to maintain perfection, "And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean" (Ezek. 44:23).
c) In the age to come, all Israel shall know YHWH, and none shall teach his neighbor saying, "know YHWH" (Jer. 31:34), however, the priests shall teach the Torah to people who already know YHWH, and who already are circumcised in the heart, who are already perfect in the sight of God, and what they teach will help maintain that perfection. Jeremiah 33:17-22 prophesies a great and glorious future for the sons of Levi in the service of the altar to cleanse the ritual impurities of Israel.
d) The author's conclusion that another priest was needed is simply invalid, seeing that the Levitical Priests will complete the teaching of righteousness to Israel as the right hand of Yeshua the Priest-King, who will also teach righteousness to Israel. The one will cleanse the heart, and the other will teach how to cleanse the body. Of course, a future for the body to need cleansing is anathema to the Hellenistic mind, which abhorred even the idea of the bodily resurrection. However, this Greek thinking system has sunk into the theology of the Church like a fiery dart.
52. Hebrews 7:12, "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law."
a) The author drives his assumption home here that the priesthood was 'changed'; there can be no other meaning here (cf. 7:18). The author means to say that the commandment to Levi is now invalid. Moreover, this contradicts Jer. 33:17-22.
b) But if Melchizedek lives continuously, as the author has supposed, then the order of Melchizedek was contemporary with the order of Levi for more than a thousand years. Did the existence of the order of Melchizedek with the order of Levi necessitate a change in the Torah then? Hardly! And in fact, even though Melchizedek did die, the order of Melchizedek continued in all the Davidic Priest-Kings to serve Israel. So the Priesthood of the throne was contemporary with the priesthood of Levi, yet as the prophecy says, the "counsel of peace shall be between the two of them" (Zech. 6:13) and, "I will raise up a faithful priest ... who will walk before my Messiah forever" (1Sam. 2:35). Therefore, the Levitical Priest has his throne, and the Messiah Priest-King has his throne.
c) There was no change of Torah then, so there is no change of Torah now. For there is no contradiction in the Scriptures. Just here in Hebrews.
53. Hebrews 7:13-14, "For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood"
a) The author anticipates an objection, and answers it. Clearly, he wants Yeshua to serve at the altar. This sort of dialectical reasoning is still contradictory. Moses did speak of a priesthood for the tribe of Judah (cf. Exodus 19:6; 1Peter 2:9). Although this applies to the whole nation, it is only a matter of application of the general statement to Judah. But the author is correct, that the altar pertains only to the tribe of Levi, and because of this, he is forced to argue for a change in the Torah, because he assumes that the altar goes with the priesthood of Melchizedek. This is the glaring hole in his argument. Where does it say that the altar pertains to the priesthood of Melchizedek? Nowhere! Where does it say that the altar goes with the priesthood of the whole nation either? Nowhere!
b) It was because of sin that God separated the office of Priest-King (under Judah) from the office of the High Priest (under Levi). This is part of the checks and balances that He instituted.
54. Hebrews 7:15-16, "And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, 16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life."
a) Here again, the author insults the house of Levi, calling it 'the law of a carnal commandment'; But the Scripture says, "And ye shall know that I have sent this commandment unto you, that my covenant might be with Levi, saith the LORD of hosts. 5 My covenant was with him of life and peace; and I gave them to him for the fear wherewith he feared me, and was afraid before my name. 6 The law of truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found in his lips: he walked with me in peace and equity, and did turn many away from iniquity. 7 For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts. 8 But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of hosts" (Mal. 2:4-8).
b) Again, the author ascribes endless life to Melchizedek, though the Scriptures do not say this. Inasmuch as Melchizedek lived before the giving of Torah on Mt. Sinai, the author assumes that the 'order of Melchizedek' has no connection with Israel. His view of the matter is that there were parallel dispensations, one for the flesh, and one for the spirit. In other words, the enlightened Gnostics were freed from the law when they ascended to the plane of 'perfection'. Modern dispensationalism separates the economies chronologically. The ancient dispensationalism separated economics vertically.
c) Vertical dispensationalism views the divine revelation as given at two levels. The simple level is for the simple. This is the milk. But for the enlightened initiates there is the secret knowledge of the higher plane that frees one from the milk of the lower plane. This is the essence of Gnosticism. Such a world view requires the acceptance of dualism in divine revelation, and indeed, the Gnostics believed that the simple revelation was revealed by the demiurge, while the 'spiritual' revelation came from the 'Father'; Such a view is contrary to the Scriptures. For the God of Israel challenges all those 'gods' who would claim to usurp His glory to predict the future. And the Torah and Prophets do this at the 'simple' level. Therefore, the true God is the God of Israel, and not the hypothetical 'spiritual' god that contradicts the simple message of divine revelation.
54. Hebrews 7:17-18, "For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. 18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof."
a) Again Psalm 110:4 is quoted. Yet, the conclusion does not follow. First, the correct view of divine revelation is not a two story vertical view, but a unified view of one coherent message to Israel. As we have shown, both the Levitical Priesthood, and the Priest-King priesthood of the line of David are mutually compatible and legally separate. And further, the priesthood of the whole nation is separate from those two priesthoods.
b) Second, the priesthood of Levi was not unprofitable. See the forgoing quote of Mal. 2:4-8. And prophetically speaking (cf. Jer. 33:17-22) it will function in conjunction with the Priest-King (being Yeshua) in the age to come to bring perfection to Israel. Yeshua will perfect us spiritually in the heart, and the Levites will serve under Messiah to provide for ritual cleansing and they will teach the Torah.
c) The rightful position of the Levites is to be restored in the age to come precisely because it is profitable to the LORD.
55. Hebrews 7:19, "For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God."
a) Here again, the author begs the question, i.e. a straw man argument. For the Church has not lived any better than Israel of old, nor has the so called 'new testament' been an improvement on the 'old'; what the author is really saying is that 'in spirit' the 'conscience' of the worshippers under the 'new testament' are perfected.
b) He can point out the obvious with respect to Israel, but can he apply the obvious to himself? Nope. Further, has he drawn nigh unto God? Does all Israel know 'Know YHWH'? This is hardly the case. The renewed covenant is still not fulfilled touching the point of perfection. We do not draw near to God by realizing our secret inward perfection. This is the hidden heresy of Gnosticism. We draw near to God and know him by observing his commandments (1John 2:3), and not by redefining this in terms of 'faith-unseen-substance of inward perfection' (or even perfection in God's sight).
56. Hebrews 7:20-21, "And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest: 21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)"
a) Yes, Yeshua was made Priest-King by YHWH's oath, but I have explained this in the context of the Scriptures as compatible with the Levitical Priesthood.
b) But the author simply contradicts scripture by saying that the Levites were made priests without an oath. For it is written, "Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace: 13 And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel" (Num. 25:12-13; Mal. 2:4; Jer. 33:17-22). In the age to come, of course, the Levitical Priests will be immortal, and Phinehas will be raised from the dead. He will retain his honorable title. So how is this different, as touching death, than Yeshua, who also died and rose again. Yeshua could not serve as Priest-King while he was dead.
c) A covenant is an oath. For a covenant is binding on the covenant maker. Let us not mince words here. This is the spirit of the matter. The Scripture does not have to use the same exact words as it uses with Yeshua in ascribing his priesthood, "The LORD has sworn ...."; The Levitical Covenant is just as binding as any oath spelled out with the word, 'oath' or 'sware'; so again, the author's attempt at demoting the Levitical Covenant is merely invalid. Also there is an oath in Jer. 33:17-22.
57. Hebrews 7:22-25, "By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. 23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: 24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. 25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them."
a) The 'better testament' here is the 'renewed covenant' of Jer. 31:31-34. The renewed covenant is not better than the covenant. It is simply the same covenant that is renewed. The proof is that the terms of the covenant are the same. He will write the Torah on our hearts (Jer. 31:33). This is the same as the terms when first stated in Deut. 30:6, "I will circumcise your hearts";
b) Yeshua renews the covenant by paying the penalty brought on by transgressions and the ensuing curses. For the repentant the blessings may now be renewed. However, Yeshua's atonement does not guarantee better terms or blessings than the original. The original blessings were as best they could be. God makes no inferior covenants. If the believer in Yeshua returns to their transgression, the curses will be visited on him or her anew.
c) The Levitical Priests did not continue by reason of death. However, why should the interruption of death demote the Levitical Priesthood seeing that Yeshua's ministry was also submitted to interruption by death? The same God who raised Yeshua from the dead will raise the sons of Levi to serve in perpetuity (Jer. 33:17-22).
d) With the words, 'unchangeable priesthood' the author begs the question again. The Levitical Priesthood is equally 'unchangeable' (cf. Jer. 33:17-22).
e) With the words "he is able to save them" the author begs the question again. We are not told that the Levitical Priesthood was meant "to save ... to the uttermost"; We are told that it is YHWH who does the saving (Joel 2:32; Hosea 13:4). Putting down the Levitical Priesthood because it does not "save to the utmost" and elevating Yeshua's ministry because He is YHWH who saves is like putting down Apples because they are not sweet like Pineapple. If the author had wanted to defend the excellence of Messiah's ministry to the Jewish People, then he would have done it best by showing the relative functions of the Levitical Priests and the Priest-King. But he does not do so. He wants one to contradict the other. Why is this? Because the proper understanding of the future fulfillment of the 'renewed covenant' exposes him as the sinner he is, and refutes his notion of perfection of the spirit based on his pagan philosophy.
f) Yeshua does live to make intercession for us. The author is correct at this point.
58. Hebrews 7:26, "For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;"
a) The words 'made higher than the heavens' are curious here. Is the author again being influenced by the Gnostic structure of the Universe, wherein there were seven heavens, and the eighth was above them all? Even in the Hellenistic Philosophy, the refrain two legs bad, four legs good, i.e. material bad, non-material good constantly echo's. The Greek rejection of the body is not accepted by the Scripture. For man was created in the image of God and the material is to serve God, and God pronounced it good seven times.
b) The divine goal is not to raise man higher than the heavens, or even for the Almighty to dwell higher than the heavens, but to redeem the earth so that he may set up his throne on earth and bring the tabernacle of God to earth. This is the lesson of the tabernacle and the Temple. It is not so that we may escape from the earthly representation of the heavenly places, but so that we may better understand how heaven will be reunited with earth!
c) Again, Yeshua is the priest-king, and not the 'high' priest of the Levitical order, nor a replacement thereof.
59. Hebrews 7:27, "Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself."
a) The author errors when he says, "daily"; there was no 'daily' sacrifice for the priests sins or the people. The continual offering was not a 'sin offering', but a daily worship offering. The passages that speak of the priests' sin offerings are for specific occasions, such as the Levitical Ordination and the Day of Atonement (cf. Lev. 16:6, 11, 15). The sin offering was not offered, 'daily' (cf. Num. 28:3), but monthly (Numbers 28:15) and at festivals, and was specified as in addition to the daily burnt offering.
b) The author's conception of perfection is a Greek idea. In his world view, everything is spiritual, or should be spiritual, and nothing physical. However, God allows imperfection in the perfect created world. In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were naked. This imperfection was permitted until they learned that it was an imperfection and were offended by it because of their greater wisdom. They also had to work the garden and subdue the earth. They had to create orderliness out of disorderliness in creation. They had to maintain or guide things on the correct path. This was all in the world that God called, 'very good'; but when they ordered things in the garden, they were making it 'better'; both the 'better' and the 'good' are 'good' until God decides for us that the 'better' is the only good, and what was just good, i.e. Adam's nakedness, will now be evil. Such degrees are anathema to Greek philosophy, which was cultivated by man, and not God.
c) The boundary between imperfections that are to be permitted and imperfections that are to be removed from creation are the knowledge of good and evil. Greek philosophy presses its rejection of imperfections, or its doctrine of absolute perfection to the extreme in Gnosticisms that rejected matter itself. Therefore, the material is evil sin to this philosophy. However, it is not man that should decide good and evil, what imperfection may remain. There are also imperfections that are the result of the fall, which God will allow to remain when the world is restored to paradise, but in his judgment, these remaining 'imperfections' will be 'good' in his estimation. One imperfection that will remain is the fact that Yeshua had to die for sins, a fact that would not exist if man had not sinned.
d) One of the 'imperfections' that will remain is the use of animal sacrifice for ritual cleansing (Jer. 33:17-22; Ezek. 45:17). One of the ideas that has to be broken in the Church is the idea that all sacrificial animal death will be done away just because it does not seem to fit into their conception of a sinless perfect world. Their misunderstanding stems in part from a narrow definition of the word 'sin' in Hebrew. The word for 'sin' is /ħat·TAA'Th/; this word means to, 'miss,' 'go wrong', 'sin'. But it does not just refer to things we typically regard as sins, i.e. lying, stealing, murder, adultery, or evil thoughts. This word refers to ritual impurity or physical uncleanness. It refers to imperfections of any sort in man at a physical level that must be covered, or cleansed before man can enter into the holy places. The sin offering /ħat·TAA'Th/ was used for ritual cleansing (cf. Lev. 15:15, 30; Ex. 29:36; Ezek. 43:22, 45:17). Ritual impurity was not evil unless it was communicated to the holy places, or objects intended for holy use were not first cleansed by the sin offering. The sin offering was a ritual cleansing to prevent uncleanness from being communicated to the holy places, where they would become evil in the real sense if it were allowed. The 'sin' or 'miss' cleansed by the 'sin offering' included the physical imperfection that was tolerated in the normal course of life. However, in the tabernacle or temple, it was regarded as evil. The imperfection of physical impurity was not permitted there. So the sin, i.e. imperfection had to be removed.
c) "For this he did once"; there is a question as to the antecedent of 'this' here. Is it just the people or does the author believe he died once for his own sins and the people's? Daniel 9:26, "but not for himself" proves the orthodox view, but since the author has already said that he "learned obedience" (Heb. 5:8) and was made "perfect through sufferings" (Heb. 2:10), it is possible that he held to the view that he expiated his own sins by suffering. Expiation means purified, or that he nullified his imperfections. This view would also be heretical, but it fits the author's theology and the contexts. It is not an Arian view, since he held to the eternity of the Son. But it does fit the dualistic Gnostic world view, (cf. Heb. 4:15), and explains how the author justifies the material side of Yeshua's existence.
d) /ħat·TAA'Th/ is translated "And thou shalt cleanse the altar" (Exodus 29:36, KJV); also, "water of purifying" (Numbers 8:7, KJV). BDB def. 5, "purification"; BDB /ħaat·TAA'/ (verb root), Hithp., def. 2, "purify oneself"; The root means miss, go wrong, sin. However, it is clear from the technical usages for sacrifice or baptisms that it is to remove some imperfection, particularly of bodily uncleanness, before a person or object takes part in the Levitical worship. It is not strictly evil sin as the definition of sin is conceived in typical Christian usage. It includes any sort of imperfection. The /ħat·TAA'Th/ covered things from the smallest imperfections that were excluded from the holy place, but allowed in normal life (without fault) up to and including the breaking of commandments in ignorance (with fault).
e) The exact boundary between imperfections that will remain in normal life, but are to be excluded from holy places, and imperfections that are deemed evil by God and will come to an end is up to God to decide. However, it will not be according to the Greek Philosophical notion of what is 'ideal' or 'perfect'; like nakedness in the garden, or the need to tend and order it, some imperfection will remain. And in the age to come the Almighty has already decided that such imperfections that need to be cleansed by the /ħat·TAA'Th/ will remain, but they will not be permitted in the holy places. In other words, what the /ħat·TAA'Th/ atones for changes according to progressive revelation.
60. Hebrews 7:28, "For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore."
a) This is a half truth. 1Sam. 2:35 says, "And I will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall do according to that which is in mine heart and in my mind: and I will build him a sure house; and he shall walk before mine anointed for ever." The prophecy is for a faithful High Priest, unlike Eli he will come in the future and walk before the 'anointed' forever. The anointed means "Messiah" or the Davidic King, obviously Yeshua. This is confirmed in Zechariah 6:13 which mentions a second throne for the high priest.
b) The prophecy of a 'faithful priest' concerns the high priest who is not the Anointed One. It is still future. For it has not been fulfilled yet. When it is fulfilled, the faithful priest will have to remain forever walking before the Messiah. This will happen in the days that Jer. 33:17-22 is fulfilled. But this will all be fulfilled after the word of the oath in Psalm 110:4 concerning the 'order of Melchizedek'; therefore, the prophecy confirms the perpetual continuance of the Levitical High Priesthood as the compatible complement of the order of Melchizedek, which is fulfilled in the Davidic Priest-King. For the 1Sam. 2:35 prophecy extends to a time beyond the oath of Psalm 110:4.
c) The author's implication is that the oath coming after the Torah making men high priests supersedes the previous revelation. But this falls flat on its face when we consider the prophecies after the Psalm, such as Jer. 33:17-22, and those before, but still awaiting fulfillment (i.e. 1Sam. 2:35). And of course, the faithful priest who, "shall walk before mine anointed for ever" must be consecrated forever.
61. Hebrews 8:1, "Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;"
a) The only word to disagree with here is the word, 'high' with its implicit replacement of the Levitical High Priest. Yeshua is the Priest-King in the order of Melcizedek, i.e. the Davidic Messiah who administrates, "justice"; Melchizedek means "king of justice";
62. Hebrews 8:2, "A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man."
a) The author is trying to demote the earthly temple here by calling God's throne the 'true' tabernacle. He is really begging the question. The earthly tabernacle was not less true than the heavenly. And in the age to come, the third heaven will come down to earth, wherein the New Jerusalem will be the holy of holy of holies, but Ezekiel's temple will be the holy place with respect to the city.
b) In Zechariah 6:12-15, the Messiah who is also a Man will invite redeemed Israel that was scattered to the nations to participate in the building project. These also are sons of Adam. In the age to come, this temple will serve as the true outer sanctuary for God's people, yet it will be built by human beings, by man.
c) "The glory of the latter house shall be greater than the former" (Haggai 2:9).
d) It is written, "Ye shall keep my sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary: I am the LORD" (Lev. 19:30; 26:2; cf. Ezek. 23:38).
e) The author does not respect the earthly temple. He considers human participation in the project an indication of something less than his ideal of perfection, despite the prophecies.
f) In any other day, someone who designs or administrates a building project is credited with building it. Is not Solomon's temple called his temple? Yet he only gave orders to have it built. YHWH is the one who designed and gave orders to have the tabernacle and temples built. Therefore, he is the ultimate builder. He is the one who conceived of the project and saw to it that it was done. Therefore, the LORD is no less the builder of the earthly temple than the New Jerusalem. And who is to say that the heavenly tabernacle, the New Jerusalem, is built without human help? Who is to say that Enoch or Elijah has nothing to do with this project?
g) YHWH filled the tabernacle and the Temple with his glory. He will fill the Temple in the age to come with his glory.
63. Hebrews 8:3-5, "For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. 4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: 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."
a) Once again the author ascribes the 'high' priesthood to Messiah, but it is true that Yeshua has something to offer in the 'order of Melchizedek'; this will be justice and righteousness. He will be the king of justice and righteousness, administrating Torah to the nations, both for judgment and instruction.
b) Yeshua offered himself for atonement. However was he acting as a priest when he did this? He was the offering. It is likely that the Father was acting as the priest in this case (cf. Isaiah 53:8-10) because to him is ascribed the making of Yeshua an offering. This is analogous to the role of Abraham in the binding of Isaac. Isaac was to be the sacrifice, but Abraham filled the role of priest.
c) vs. 4 indicates that the temple still stood when this book was written, which would make it before A.D. 70, however this early date is no proof of canonicity. Several other books of the Apocrypha were written before this. However, the end of the Second Temple was no secret. Yeshua had prophesied it, and it is recorded for us in the gospels. It is possible that our author has anticipated this and is positioning himself to take advantage of the coming destruction. It is possible that the book was written during the siege after the Romans were expelled from Judea.
d) In vs. 5 the author again begs the question, or sets up a straw man argument. The Temple wasn't merely an example or shadow of the heavenly. There were no sacrifices in the heavenly temple. In 9:23 the author presses the correspondence too far suggesting that heaven itself needed purification! The Levitical Sacrifices actually did atone for sin, everything from the smallest imperfection of uncleanness to the breaking of a commandment in ignorance. So the Levitical Service did not function as a mere 'example' or 'mirror' of heaven!
e) Real incense was offered with real prayers in both the earthly and heavenly house (cf. Rev. 8:3-4). Heaven has an altar (Isaiah 6:6), but its use was different than the earthly altar. Some objects in the tabernacle were definitely representative, i.e. the mercy seat of the Ark with the Cherubim. However, we must not assume that just because Moses was shown a 'pattern' that this was anything more than a 'plan' for the earthly tabernacle. We must not assume that it was a blueprint of the heavenly dwelling as the author seems to assume. There are differences. It is very doubtful that there is any analogue to all of the hides covering the tabernacle. Their purpose was to serve the earthly situation.
64. Hebrews 8:6, "But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises."
a) If Hebrews had been penned in the modern age with all the biblical resources and methods of testing the author and his arguments available, he probably would not have been so successful. But Hebrews was written were the average dispersion Christian depended on oral communication of the truth and the person versed in the actual texts was rare. This is why the author can constantly get away with the straw man arguments he creates to mischaracterize the Levitical Service.
b) Here again, the author begs the question. What this means is that he has assumed what he wants to prove, and then his conclusion is his assumption. The first assumption is a straw man characterization of the Levitical Service or the Covenant that God made with Israel. A straw man is a characterization of what one wants to disprove that is stated because it is easier to disprove, whereas the truth is not.
c) The author assumes that the Covenant God made with Israel has inferior promises (straw man, not the truth), and then the 'new' covenant looks better by comparison. He concludes: the new covenant is better. Now he is begging the question, because he has assumed what he wants to prove.
d) See my commentary on Jeremiah 31:31-34; Jeremiah 31:33; Jeremiah 31:34. Only the conclusions will be stated here. First the so called 'new covenant' is really the 'renewed covenant'; Second, the only difference in the situation of the ratification of the covenant and the situation at its renewal is that Israel will obey God and reap all the blessings of the covenant instead of disobeying God and reaping the curses. Third, the promises of the renewed covenant are exactly the same as the promises of the covenant when first ratified. God will circumcise the heart of Israel (Deut. 30:6), and this is restated in the renewal prophecy that he will write the Torah on their hearts (Jer. 31:33). The end result of the promise, and its repetition is the same: perfection for Israel. However, this is not completed till the return of Yeshua.
e) Yeshua confirms the same covenant that God made with Israel.
f) "he obtained a more excellent ministry"; the author is comparing Yeshua's ministry in the order of Melchizedek with the Levitical Priesthood. Certainly Yeshua's ministry is more excellent. That much is true. But the way the author says it, it is meant to put down the Levitical Priesthood, which he sees as competition with with Messiah.
g) "mediator"; Yeshua is the ultimate mediator, because he is the Divine Mediator. However, He is not the only mediator. 1Tim. 2:5, "For there is one Elohim, even one mediator of God, and of man, the man Yeshua Messiah." This does not mean 'one mediator between God and man', but it means 'one mediator from God and from man'. The Levitical Priest did not come down from God. That's what makes Yeshua the ultimate mediator.
65. Hebrews 8:7, "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second."
a) Even though the word 'covenant' has to be filled in here, there is no doubt that this is what the author means by 'first'; The author is unambiguously saying that the covenant God made with Israel was faulty.
b) But the Scripture says, "And yet for all that, when they be in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them: for I am the LORD their God. 45 But I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the heathen, that I might be their God: I am the LORD" (Lev. 26:44-45) and "Nevertheless I will remember my covenant with thee in the days of thy youth, and I will confirm unto thee the everlasting covenant" (Ezekiel 16:60, my translation).
c) God will remember the covenant, "in the days of thy youth"; He will not break his covenant despite Israel's disobedience. He will not break his covenant, and his keeping of it will result in Israel's salvation. Since this is so, the covenant is not faulty.
66. Hebrews 8:8, "For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:"
a) The author speaks correctly here, "finding fault with them", but he means the 'new' covenant to be a 'second' covenant, and not the renewed covenant, wherein God remembers the Covenant as 'in the days of thy youth'. We must remember that in the original source, the Hebrew is 'renewed covenant' as the same promise in in view (cf. Deut. 30:6; Jer. 31:33). But the author has contradicted this by calling for a second covenant and by faulting the first (cf. Heb. 8:7). So he taking Jer. 31:31-34 out of context. See my commentary on Jeremiah 31:31-34; Jeremiah 31:33; Jeremiah 31:34.
b) 31 Behold, days are coming, says YHWH when I shall have cut with the house of Israel and the house of Judah a renewed covenant binding. See commentary.
67. Hebrews 8:9, "Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord."
a) The Greek here is not faithful to the Hebrew. A better translation: 32 but it will not be like the covenant binding (that I cut with their fathers, at the time I acted to lead them by the hand to cause them to come out from the land of Egypt)– when they had acted to break my covenant, and I loathed against them, says YHWH.
b) The LXX translation of the Hebrew conjunction /'əSHER/ by 'because' is a mistake followed by the author of Hebrews. The word means 'when' in this text. Getting it correct refutes the author's contention and agrees with the other Scriptures. It is a shame the LXX got /'əSHER/ wrong, but it is understandable, because /'əSHER/ is not easy to translate, and the LXX translators often used a wooden equivalence approach.
68. Hebrews 8:10, "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:"
a) Correct translation: 33 For this is the covenant binding which I was making with the house of Israel: After those days, says YHWH, I will have placed my Torah in their midst, and upon their heart I shall write it, and I shall be to them God Almighty, and they will be my people.
b) Again the LXX gets it wrong, and is followed by the author of Hebrews. The LXX translated the Hebrew imperfect with the future tense, "I will make" when it would be 'I was making' (past progressive) to agree with Scripture interpreting Scripture.
c) On this next point, the LXX got it right, "After those days, says the LORD, giving I will give ..." which introduces a new main verb, and allows us to begin a sentence with 'after those days', i.e. after Israel returns from the final exile (cf. Deut. 30:1-6), as with the Hebrew (see point a.) But the author deletes the LXX's verb, "I will give" (the KJV wrongly infers it 'I will put'). Young's Literal reflects the author's deletion correctly, "because this {is} the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, after those days, saith the Lord, giving My laws into their mind;" (Heb. 8:10); The deletion of the verb in Hebrews that was in the LXX forces the accusative phrase 'giving my laws' into the preceding sentence along with the words, 'after those days', and along with the future verb: 'after those days' then is taken as a statement about 'when' a second covenant is made.
d) 'After those days' really only refers to the time of final fulfillment of the covenant which was made with Israel: "He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations. 9 Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac; 10 And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant: 11 Saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance" (Psalm 105:8-11). The Sinai covenant binding includes the renewal of God's covenant with Abraham, and states the terms of obedience. How this obedience is carried out ultimately is explained in Deut. 30:6 and Jer. 31:33. One CANNOT separate the terms of obedience, i.e. the Torah at Mt. Sinai, from the promise of the inheritance. The condition of obeying God's law became eternal because it was attached to the promise that was eternal. The Psalmist views the covenant with Abraham, and the additional covenant at Sinai as part of one package. There are no dichotomies here. When we speak of God's covenant in a general sense, all the other covenant bindings are included in the book of the Covenant, including the amendments in the Prophets.
e) God makes no faulty covenants for a very good reason. A covenant once made is binding, for either blessing or curse, according to its exact terms. There is no evidence that God has done anything except follow the terms of His covenant. Indeed, Yeshua had to die in order to renew the blessings to Israel. If a new covenant had been made and the first declared 'old' then Messiah would not have had to die, but God would have become a covenant breaker. But this is not the case. God promised to 'remember his covenant'!
69. Hebrews 8:11, "And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest."
a) The translation is correct, however, we know that the author views vs. 33 as fulfilled in the perfection of the spirit (cf. 2:10; 5:9; 6:1; 7:11, 19; 9:9; 10:1, 14; 11:40; 12:23). The author errors here, and uses 'after those days' out of context to imply the fulfillment of vs. 33 'after those days' when Israel broke the covenant. However, this is not what, 'after those days' refers to. This phrase refers to Deut. 30:1-6. 'After those days' means in the end of days, or in the latter days after Israel has repented and returned to the Torah, then the prophecy may be fulfilled to the point of perfection.
b) Yet, this verse, duly quoted by the author, contradicts what he is trying to say about the 'substance' of the new covenant being a completed reality. The author's perfection verses are impossible to get around in some sense of progressive perfection, which might fit the context of the times. This is because he asserts it to the point of saying he can enter the most holy place in heaven, something only a Gnostic heretic can revel in.
70. Hebrews 8:12, "For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more."
a) This is a correct translation. The author repeats it in 10:17. The problem is that he believes this part of the prophecy is fulfilled already (cf. 10:18-19) so that he obtains the right to enter the most holy place. Even if the curtain in the temple was torn (it was likely the outer curtain in front of the holy place), this does not mean God has sanctified the believer to enter the holiest! Forgiveness is obtained, but being made holy is not yet complete, and this will happen in the eschatological 'day of atonement' (Lev. 16:30).
71. Hebrews 8:13, "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."
a) Our author can only say this because he does not understand the Hebrew for 'renewed' and is relying on the LXX (or rather his version of it) in which the matter is not quite as clear as it was in Hebrew.
b) The author is probably writing in the days leading up to the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70. He was smart enough to see this coming in A.D. 66, and decides to capitalize on the matter. His spirit in this is not righteous. When the destruction of the first temple was coming. God gave Israel assurances of the perpetuity of his promises beforehand so that they would not conclude from the judgment that God was forsaking his covenant with Israel!
c) Assurance #1: "For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel; 18 Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually. 19 And the word of the LORD came unto Jeremiah, saying, 20 Thus saith the LORD; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; 21 Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers. 22 As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me" (Jer. 33:17-22).
d) Assurance #2: "Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name: 36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. 37 Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD" (Jer. 31:35-37).
e) The author's argument is a straw man. He assumes that Jer. 31:31 refers to a 'new' covenant (instead of renewed) so that he can knock down the 'old'; His argument is also circular because he has assumed his conclusion.
72. Hebrews 9:1, "Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary."
a) We have seen how the author tries to justify the dichotomizing of the covenants by numbering them. Here he adds to his criticism, and calls the temple, 'worldly'; this fits in with his anti-material philosophy
b) Lev. 19:30, "Ye shall keep my sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary: I am the LORD."
73. Hebrews 9:2, "For there was a tabernacle made; the first, (wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread;) which is called the sanctuary" (KJV, parenthesis mine).
a) 'candlestick' = 'menorah'; the author has missed the altar of incense in his list of objects in the holy place (cf. Exodus 30:1-8) upon which the Priest burned incense every day.
74. Hebrews 9:3-4, "And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all; 4 Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;"
a) 'golden censer' is a vague translation in the KJV for the altar of incense (cf. RSV). The Greek word thumiaterion is used by Josephus and Philo for the 'altar of incense'; Now our author has misplaced the altar of incense into the wrong part of the sanctuary, first by its conspicuous absence in vs. 2, and then by its explicit presence in the most holy place.
b) Defenders of the canonicity of Hebrews will go to almost any lengths to explain away this contradiction by the author by making speculative remarks. Speculation, however, does not absolve the author. Only proof would. And when the question of canonicity is on the table, speculation should not be allowed in defense. Nevertheless, I will mention some of the speculations, and point out their additional weaknesses.
c) It is speculated that the word thumiaterion refers only to a small portable incense carrier, and that the author describes the situation as on the day of atonement where the priest had placed the incense carrier on the floor of the most holy place. This speculation fails when we consider vs. 6, "Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle"; the author tells us he is describing the arrangement of the furniture on all days of the year, and not on Yom Kippur.
d) For the same reason, the suggestion that the altar of incense was moved on Yom Kippur must be rejected.
e) It is suggested that the Greek words, "which had" mean only an extension of the incense altar such as when the incense was burning and wafted into the most holy place. This view falls apart because the same word is used to refer to the ark. It is also speculative.
f) More serious is the error concerning the claim that the pot of manna and Aaron's rod were kept in the Ark: "wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded"; "Nothing was in the ark except the two tablets of stone which Moses put there at Horeb, when the LORD made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt" (1Kings 8:9). It is claimed that 1ki. 8:9 refers to the contents at a later date, but 1ki. 8:9 does not state it was just at a later date, so this assumption is speculation also. Moses was only told to put the tablets into the ark, and nothing else (cf. Deut. 10:2). Now the rod was put 'before the testimony' (Num. 17:4), and "again before the testimony" (Num. 17:10) where it is to be a 'sign' (Num. 17:10). The Hebrew means, 'before' and not 'in' the Ark. Any final doubt as to the meaning of the words, "before the testimony" is removed by the following text, "In the tabernacle of the congregation without the vail, which is before the testimony, Aaron and his sons shall order it from evening to morning before the LORD: it shall be a statute for ever unto their generations on the behalf of the children of Israel" (Exodus 27:21).
g) The pot of manna was likewise 'before the testimony' (Exodus 16:33-34).
h) Nor can one fiddle with the words, 'wherein' or literally, 'in which'; to change this will be to change the location of the tablets themselves.
i) The author is using Greek sources or his memory here and he is not completely familiar with the Torah on these points.
75. Hebrews 9:5-6, "And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly. 6 Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God."
a) In vs. 5, 'it' refers to the ark in vs. 4, "wherein" the author has put the rod and the post of manna. In vs. 6, he connects all of this arrangement, including the altar of incense as the norm for daily use, "when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always ..."; the word 'ordained' is a poor translation on the part of the KJV here. The RSV has it better, "These preparations", or YLT, "And these things having been thus prepared";
b) In vs. 5, the author claims to know more, but will not say it. Yet clearly he is only bluffing in order to maintain superiority over his listeners.
76. Hebrews 9:7, "But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:"
a) better, "one time of the year" as the High Priest entered more than once on that day.
b) The blood spoken of here were the /ħat·TAA'Th/ offerings, one for the people and one for the priest and his family. They wiped away everything from the smallest uncleanness to the breaking of a commandment in ignorance. The KJV is not quite correct when it says, 'error'; The Greek specifically means a sin of 'ignorance'; the author is correct about this. The /ħat·TAA'Th/ did not atone for transgressions or iniquities.
77. Hebrews 9:8, "The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:"
a) The translations have corrupted the word order here, evidently because the translator sensed a problem with the author's argument. The Greek text begins, "This indicates ..."; or "This makes clear by the Holy Ghost"; the translators have made vague the connection with vs. 7 by putting the demonstrative pronoun at the fourth place in the sentence.
b) The author claims that the way into the holiest was not made manifest. He is only correct, if he means the historical details of the prophetic fulfillment in Yeshua. As to the principle of the matter, this is entirely manifest. Complete perfection will be required in the eschatological day of atonement (cf. Lev. 16:30), and this promise is included in the original covenant, "for on this day shall atonement be made for you, to cleanse you; from all your sins you shall be clean before the LORD"; the promise does not get better than this, yet here it is in the covenant; this means that the 'new testament' so called, is not better than the 'old testament' so called.
c) The author is now imputing the truths about the earthly sanctuary to God's heavenly dwelling. (In 9:23 he claims that heaven itself had to be purged. However, this is not correct.) The prophetic legislation reveals that the holy of holies on earth will always be restricted, even in Ezekiel's temple (cf. 43:19), so a way is not to be made into the earthly sanctuary. Yet, the author is correct about the way into the heavenly place requiring perfection of the heart; he is just incorrect about when the heart will be perfected! In actuality the problem of the heart was taken care of whenever a saint had to enter the heavenly sanctuary (cf. Isaiah 6:6-7), and this was on a temporary basis.
b) The author correctly seizes on the sin of ignorance to
show that all sin was not yet atoned for, at least in all senses of the
word. However, he has incorrectly applied it, and he has confused
cleansing with forgiveness, and also the covering
cleansing with the expiation cleansing. The Hebrew word
/khip·PE
c) The earthly sanctuary only needed to be cleansed from uncleanness transferred from without. The /ħat·TAA'Th/ was sufficient to do the job, and also sufficient to cleanse the physical impurity of Aaron and the people so that the earthly sanctuary was acceptable. We may assume that the priests and the people could keep themselves from transgression and iniquity. These were willful or serious sins, and indeed, if they had not repented of these, then they were banned from the altar in any case (cf. Num. 15:30). The /ħat·TAA'Th/ therefore was sufficient to cover the any sin of ignorance that remained, seeing the people's consciences were already clean of iniquity and transgression on that day. Since the people were not bidden to approach, the covering was sufficient, and since it was the earthly sanctuary, and not the heavenly, the cover was sufficient for the High Priest.
c) So it is true that they were cleansed on that day (Lev. 16:30) - just from the physical part. The spiritual ignorance was merely covered, and the final cleansing was eschatological. For the transgressions were repented and had been sent away. No offering was made for them because the offering to be made for them was Yeshua. However, when the /ħat·TAA'Th/ was available, the imperfection that remained after repentance was covered.
78. Hebrews 9:9, "Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;"
a) Again we have the straw man, "which was a figure"; it was a figure and more than a figure. They had the reality of ritual cleansing with the /ħat·TAA'Th/ and also of actual forgiveness of the penalty of sins of ignorance. As for the presence of the actual sins of ignorance unknown, it was covered by the /ħat·TAA'Th/. Forgiveness of past transgressions and iniquity had to wait, yet they were put out of the way with the second goat, not being immediately judged. The LORD passed over the penalty of these for the repentant until Yeshua (Rom. 3:25).
b) Again the author says that they were not perfected. While this is true, it is also true that he is not perfected in the conscience, i.e. the spirit (cf. 1John 1:7-9). Clearly the author holds the fact of imperfection against the validity of the covenant.
79. Hebrews 9:10, "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation."
a) The author errors here with the word 'only'; the /ħat·TAA'Th/ actually forgave the sin of ignorance (read Lev. 4-6); it did not just ritually purify the body. No, it did not remove all trace of imperfection, but it did cover that as well.
b) The author conceives of the 'time of reformation' as the cross, and not the age to come. Yeshua's offering allows for forgiveness of the penalty of transgression and iniquity (cf. Isaiah 53:8), sins that were not forgiven by the /ħat·TAA'Th/, however like the /ħat·TAA'Th/ it only presently covers the traces of imperfection that remain after repentance of transgression and iniquity, until such time as His resurrected life is infused in the eschatological day of atonement to cleanse all the traces on the basis of his death.
c) Since the temple is not functioning, Yeshua's offering also does all the things the /ħat·TAA'Th/ did. Only baptism is necessary to complete ritual cleansing to be in an equivalent state as the Israelites were when they stood in the court of the Temple. But this is exceptional and temporary, like Isaiah's cleansing (cf. Is. 6:6-7). The /ħat·TAA'Th/ was meant to take care of the physical end of atonement and forgiveness of sins of ignorance. Yeshua's offering was for transgressions and iniquities. All sins were at least covered (or what remained of them) in sinful man, including transgression and iniquity after repentance. And this was the case, even before the tabernacle was built. For the Patriarchal offerings generally lumped all the functions of sacrifice into one offering which covered the sin. As for the specific effects of forgiveness, physical cleansing, and entire spiritual cleansing, these are separated out between the various Levitical offerings and Yeshua's offering.
d) The author must entirely reject the revelation of Jeremiah 33:17-22 and Ezekiel 40-48 in order to maintain that the Levitical Service was only imposed until the cross; however, the Church is not short of ways to explain away these passages for those who inquire about them. None of the explanations, however, hold up on cross-examination.
80. Hebrews 9:11, "But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;"
a) We covered the 'high' priest argument. We also covered the straw man argument of the 'greater and more perfect tabernacle'' inasmuch as it is a put down of the earthly sanctuary, which will be rebuilt at the 'time of reformation';
b) The argument that "made with hands" is a defect was also refuted, since the temple to come will be made with hands.
c) The author is only half correct when he mentions 'this building' referring to the Second Temple, but we should not mistake God's judgments against the Second Temple as nullifying his promises for the future Temple!
81. Hebrews 9:12, "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us."
a) The author means he entered into the heavenly holy place, 'by his own blood'; yet the Scripture does not say atonement was made upon the throne of God in heaven. Yeshua shed his blood on earth. The point about His atonement is not its application in the heavenly place. The suggestion here represents a serious misunderstanding of the purpose of Yeshua's atonement!
b) So we will have to make this plain. Blood represented life. Yeshua's blood meant he lost his life in place of our life for which he substituted in the judgment. It does not matter where his blood was put. What matters is that he lost his life.
c) Yeshua's death, serves as the basis, or opens the way for our cleansing from all sin, yet it is not physical blood that cleanses the spirit. It is the divine life of Yeshua (that was in the blood) that cleanses the spirit, i.e. the Holy Spirit through the divine power of the resurrection life in Messiah.
d) Physical blood was used for cleansing when it was put on physical objects or persons. In this respect, it was important where the life in the blood was put. However, in respect of cleansing, it is not the life in the blood that is put on any physical object or place that counts, except, the divine life in the blood that is put on our own hearts -- to be completed in the eschatological day of atonement (Lev. 16:30; 1John 1:7-9). Yeshua's life would have no additional effect on the throne of God. His life was already there, and there was nothing to be purified there. Therefore, there was no need for blood to be put there!
e) It was entirely unnecessary for Yeshua to die and shed his blood to enter the heavenly holy place. He already had the right to enter there. Atonement does not flow from sacrifice into heaven. It flows the other way. Atonement comes from heaven down to earth, and what makes it effective comes from heaven. Remember the coal off the altar that purged Isaiah's sin? The author's views can therefore, only be characterized as dualistic, where death and sacrifice is somehow necessary to sustain the other side of the equation in heaven.
82. Hebrews 9:13-14, "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: 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?"
a) Here the author is tyring to limit the sin offering /ħat·TAA'Th/ to just physical purification. In some cases, it was just that, but to strictly limit it to physical purification is a straw man argument. Sins of ignorance were actually forgiven (Lev. 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:10,13,16,18; 6:7; 19:22; Num. 15:25,26,28).
b) When the author says 'conscience' he means the 'heart' or the spirit of a person. What is in the human heart is forgiven or covered by Messiah's atonement, but in the meaning of the word as expiate (purge, purify, wipe away), the actual presence of the sin nature must await the eschatological day of atonement (Lev. 16:30). The process of purging begins with repentance, but does not reach perfection until then.
c) When the Israelite had repented of the sin of ignorance, his heart was purged of that sin through the offering and the Spirit of God; Likewise, when a rebellious person repented of a serious transgression or iniquity, his heart was purged of that sin on the anticipatory basis of Messiah's offering, by the Spirit of God. This was not possible to perfection then, BUT NEITHER IS IT NOW, seeing that imperfection remains. This easily observable truth nullifies the author's argument.
83. Hebrews 9:15, "And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance."
a) Yeshua is the Priest King 'mediator' in the order of Melchizedek. This means he mediates justice and righteousness. In respect of his atonement, it is the Father who does the priestly function of applying the atonement to our account; cf. Isaiah 53:10. Yeshua's connection to this is by instruction (justice and righteousness) (cf. Isaiah 53:11), which is the legitimate office of the Davidic Priest-King. Yet, the author has errantly transferred the 'high' priesthood mediation to Yeshua.
b) It should be 'renewed'; See my commentary on Jeremiah 31:31-34; Jeremiah 31:33; Jeremiah 31:34.
c) 'Testament' should be 'covenant'; the author is not explaining covenant right here, but is confusing it with a 'will', as in last will and testament. The Greek word also means will, yet this is a meaning foreign to the biblical idea of covenant.
d) 'first'; only Hebrews numbers "first ... second" in order to put down the Covenant by separating it from its renewal.
e) We still have not received the promise. We only have the hope of the promise; cf. Gal. 5:5. Once this is realized, the author's exaltation of the 'new testament' over the covenant falls to pieces.
84. Hebrews 9:16-17, "For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth."
a) This idea of the covenant being the same as a
'testament' in the sense of a 'will' i.e. 'last will and testament' is
unique to Hebrews. The Greek word may mean a 'will' or
'testament', but the Hebrew word
/bə
b) However, Hebrews has merely introduced this idea from the Greek meaning of the word, which is not the Hebrew meaning, in order to invalidate the covenant that the LORD made with Israel (cf. 10:9). That the covenant is fully binding and valid without the death of anyone is made clear in Jeremiah:
c) Jer. 34:18-19, "And I will give the men that have transgressed my covenant, which have not performed the words of the covenant which they had made before me, when they cut the calf in twain, and passed between the parts thereof, 19 The princes of Judah, and the princes of Jerusalem, the eunuchs, and the priests, and all the people of the land, which passed between the parts of the calf; 20 I will even give them into the hand of their enemies, and into the hand of them that seek their life: and their dead bodies shall be for meat unto the fowls of the heaven, and to the beasts of the earth."
d) The reason that the men of Judah had to die was that the covenant was binding before their death as soon as it was made. There was no inheritance to be gotten in the process of their death. It wasn't a last will and testament. The covenant is bound by the parties walking through the pieces of the sacrifice. They are saying, if we break our word that is being bound, then may we become as these sacrifices. They made the covenant, but they did not have to die to make it. Death only enters the picture if the covenant is broken.
e) Likewise, the God of Israel passed between the pieces when he made the covenant with Abraham, to give him the land of Israel. This also was binding as soon as it was made (Gen. 15:17); Likewise the marriage covenant (cf. Mal. 2:14) is valid as soon as it is entered into. No death of the covenant makers is required for it to be in force, and indeed, if either party dies, then the covenant is no longer in force (Romans 7:1-2). So here is an example of a 'covenant' that is invalid after death. Therefore, the author of Hebrews is in error in equating, 'covenant' to 'testament' or 'will' when he tries to evolve the principle, "otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth"; Israel did receive the blessings of the land according to the covenant, even though Yeshua had not died.
f) Jeremiah 31:31-34 does not
speak of a 'will' or 'testament'; it speaks of the 'renewed
covenant'; now the covenant provided that Israel which broke the
covenant should die as the pieces were divided, and Israel did die when
the LORD divided the kingdom, and they became 'not my people' and
perished among the nations. The reason this happened was that the
covenant curses were already valid. That's the only way the
covenant could be enforced. g) Yet the original covenant provided the principle of the substitute for the atonement of sin. So YHWH substituted himself for the sin of Israel in Yeshua. This is how the covenant is renewed. Yet again, it is clear that a brand new covenant is not being made, because it is the original covenant that requires this substitutionary death in order to renew the blessings of the covenant. This is only after the covenant is broken that this solution was necessary. It is not this solution that makes the covenant. The covenant was already made.
h) Yeshua says at the last supper, "For this is my blood of the covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24). The same phrase is omitted in many ancient MSS of Luke, and it not repeated in any MSS of John. In 1Cor. 11:25, the text is either interpreting 'covenant' as 'renewed covenant' or their is a scribal error we don't know of. But is is clear enough that Yeshua did not have to say 'new' in Matthew and Mark. He clearly said 'covenant' without 'new' being recorded. This is only so because it is the same covenant that YHWH made with Israel that is being 'renewed,' and therefore it may be called either the 'covenant' or the 'renewed covenant'.
i) The reason that the author wants the covenant with Israel to be a last will and 'testament' is that he wants to reach the cross before the testament becomes valid. We will see in Hebrews 11:40 that he denies the benefits of the covenant until the cross, when the will maker dies. That's because for him the testament is not valid till then. But then he is totally wrong, since the covenant was valid, and then is renewed in Messiah. It was effective, just the same, before, during, and after the cross, just as binding as before, and it was the same covenant.
85. Hebrews 9:18-22, "Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. 19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, 20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. 21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. 22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission."
a) 'first testament' see above;
b) See Exodus 24:3-8. The blood was that of "oxen"; goats were not involved in the ratification of the covenant at Mt. Sinai. This took place on the day part of the Sabbath after the ten commandments were given the previous evening (Sivan 6, 1632 B.C.). The day was Shavuot.
c) The author compounds his error by including details from Lev. 14:4 or Num. 19:6. Lev. 14:4 gives details for the cleansing of a leper. Num. 19:6 gives details for the preparation of the ashes of the red heifer, which was used for extraordinary purification needs.
d) The author states the occasion as "when Moses had spoken every precept" (Ex. 24:3), and then gives the ritual details for Shavuot. But his knowledge of what happened is faulty. The blood was not from 'goats'; The text says nothing of 'water, scarlet wool, or hyssop"; Nor did Moses sprinkle the book. As for the ritual of Lev. 14:4 and Num. 19:6, this was not Moses duty, but that of the High Priest.
e) Moses did not sprinkle, "the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry" "with blood", but only the altar when it was set up: see Lev. 8:15, 19; The author is confusing "blood" with the "oil" that was actually used for this purpose; cf. Exodus 40:9. Never at any time was the lamp stand, the incense altar, the table of showbread, the tent, or the curtains, or other objects of ministry sprinkled with blood, but they were anointed with oil. The text says, "And thou shalt take the anointing oil, and anoint the tabernacle, and all that is therein, and shalt hallow it, and all the vessels thereof: and it shall be holy" (Exodus 40:9). Do you see that the 'oil ... shalt hallow it'? The objects were 'hallowed' i.e. 'sanctified' by the oil (Exodus 30:36). So almost all things are not 'purged' by blood. Atonement is made for the holy place once a year on the mercy seat (Lev. 16:16-20), and this is good for the whole tent of meeting and everything in it, and then he goes out to do the same for the altar. The blood does not have to be put on all the objects, just the ark cover and the altar. There is simply no way to acquit the author of this error.
f) The last phrase has been questioned, "without shedding of blood is no remission", however, I believe that the author is not incorrect here, because the flour offering allowed for this purpose was united with the sacrifices on the altar.
g) Did the author receive a vision revealing additional details at the ratification of the covenant? See he does not give the signs of a prophet, we do not have to accept what he says as the word of YHWH (cf. Deut. 18:18-22).
86. Hebrews 9:23, "It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these."
a) Here we have to assumption that things in heaven need purification. However, this is not so. For things in heaven do not need purification since they can never be defiled. It is the nature of God that whenever something unclean approaches unto his glory that his holy fire consumes the uncleanness, and depending on the heart of the one approaching, it also consumes the unrepentant person entirely. This is seen in Isaiah 6:5-7, where Isaiah himself is preserved, because his heart was right, and in the case of Korah (Numbers 16:35) where the 250 who approached to offer incense before YHWH were consumed by fire.
b) The presence of the LORD purifies sin away without sacrifice, because he is life and nothing defiling or having to do with death can touch his glorified presence. If an unbeliever were to come into contact with the divine for a moment his sin would be purged away in an instant. For this reason, the Almighty does not normally permit one to approach him without due repentance and a substitutionary offering. Otherwise, he is bound to consume the worshipper. The LORD could sanctify and purify the sin of the whole world against its disposition if he so desired, merely by exposing it to his presence, but the LORD is just, and will not so allow it to happen this way without repentance of the one's approaching and the acknowledgment that death is deserved of them through atonement.
c) The very idea that heaven, where the Almighty dwells in glory, can be contaminated is blasphemy against the nature of God. For this reason, it is written concerning the New Jerusalem, where God will put his throne, "And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life" (Rev. 21:27). And also, "And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it" (Rev. 21:22). The New Jerusalem is the heavenly reality after the pattern of the holy of holies on earth. The relative dimensions are the same. But there is no Temple in the city because the LORD in his purity is the Temple. Since no defilement is allowed in, no sacrifice is necessary there. Any defilement must be first removed before coming to the city, otherwise fire will come out from the presence and consume the one who attempts to enter the gate without purity (Rev. 20:9)! In like manner Aaron's two sons were consumed (Lev. 10:1-3). For YHWH said, "I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me"!
d) It might be argued that the sons of god presented themselves in heaven, and that they were unclean spirits (Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7), however, this was permitted in the same manner that Isaiah was permitted. They may have still been at some distance from God in his glory as the seventy on the mount (Exodus 24:10-11), or may have been granted a temporary purification from the altar as Isaiah. It might be argued that Satan's iniquity defiled heaven, yet it was not the presence of God that was defiled but only those in heaven that were not near the throne, which is the heavenly temple, and when Satan tried to approach the Almighty after his sin, it was revealed by the presence, and instead of destroying him by fire, he fell light lighting out of heaven, i.e. he was not allowed to approach.
e) Why does Hebrews say 'better sacrifices' using the plural 'sacrifices'? Surely Yeshua's sacrifice is better than the Levitical Offerings. But were doth the author come up with the idea that Yeshua's offering is more than one sacrifice? The purpose of Yeshua's offering was not to purify heaven, but to forgive our sins and to make it possible to purify us, so that one day when He is finished purifying us we may dwell there. Yes, the author of Hebrews mistakenly presents the purification as already complete, and because he has separated the physical and the spiritual into two planes according to Hellenistic and Gnostic dichotomy.
f) It is possible that the author's real theology lies in the line of the seven heavens, which in the Gnostic view had various levels of physicality, and because of contact with the physical were defiled. "Suffering" is conceived of as the 'sacrifice' which purify the seven heavens, with their defiled 'things', at least on a temporary basis to allow the passages of the Gnostic 'Saint' into the eighth sphere. The author may consider the saints the brothers of Christ in that they too are 'living' sacrifices that purify the heavenlies. If this is the case, then it may be explained how the author can utter such a statement as in 9:23 within his own thinking.
87. Hebrews 9:24, "For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:"
a) The author is speculating to suppose that no hands of either glorified saints, angles, or God himself were not used in the holy places in heaven.
b) 'figures'; again the straw man against the Levitical Covenant.
c) The author's philosophy is to demote the material and the earthly to the evil side of his Gnostic dualism. By calling heaven 'true' he implies that earth is evil, and by calling the Temple 'figures' he is relegating it to a phantom shadow of the other side of the dualism.
88. Hebrews 9:25-26, "Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."
a) Evidently, it was not the 'end of the world' since 2000 years have passed since then. The same word for 'end' is applied by Yeshua to his second coming; cf. Matthew 13:39-40, 49. The apostles, though they may have believed the return to happen soon, left wiggle room in the phrases they used, since they knew they were speculating, i.e. 1Peter 4:7, "the end of all has drawn near" or "approaches"; 2000 years of exile for Israel, and further sanctification and cleansing of Israel is not in the plan of the author's theology.
b) The words 'put away sin' literally mean to 'nullify' sin in the Greek. The author errors here since, the offering has not resulted in the final expiation yet. This is referred to in Zech. 3:9, "I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day" and Lev. 16:30, "for on this day shall atonement be made for you, to cleanse you; from all your sins you shall be clean before the LORD"; obviously the eschatological day of atonement has not arrived, and clearly Israel has not been cleaned up of its iniquity.
c) It has been held that the Catholic mass is incompatible with this text. Strictly speaking it is, but the author's theology and Rome's theology are the same. Both believe in the idea of total expiation in the present because both have swallowed the Gnostic idea of spiritual perfection with the hidden goal of being raised to godhood. That is why it is a mystery. The author's audience would have no problem with the future mass, because the mass was 'revealed' with the same proof of validity that supports Hebrews, which is none truly prophetic, but merely human speculation and Hellenistic philosophy of the body and spirit.
89. Hebrews 9:27, "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:"
a) The author probably means this only in a general sense. It is not a direct quotation from Scripture.
90. Hebrews 9:28, "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation."
a) In light of the author's theology of divine evolution, I will explain this in the words of the Anchor Bible Commentary, 1972, Buchanan, who expresses it well, "Jesus will appear 'without sin' because he was made a cleansing for sin (1:3) when he offered himself as a sacrifice for his own and the people's sins (7:27). He learned obedience and was made perfect through his suffering (5:7-8), so he has passed through the heavens and has been exalted to the right hand of God 'without sin' (4:14-15" (pg. 155).
b) Shoving the author into the orthodox thinking mold can be done, but that is not what the author's thinking and other contexts lead us to believe he means. It leads us to believe that he only held that Christ became 'without sin' at the end of his suffering and not at the beginning.
91. Hebrews 10:1, "For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect."
a) Again the author makes the Levitical Service into a straw man argument by calling it a, 'shadow'; by this he means only a shadow. Again he reflects a Gnostic physical/spiritual dualism with the words "and not the very image";
b) In the last phrase, 'can never ... make the comers ... perfect' the author is simply wrong. In the age to come, when Yeshua's offering shall have atoned for and cleansed all transgression and iniquity, and all imperfections of the spirit, all that will remain is the need for physical cleansing of the body with the /ħat·TAA'Th/, then the /ħat·TAA'Th/ offering will cleanse that physical imperfection that remains (cf. Ezek. 45:17; Jer. 33:17-22). When that ritual imperfection is removed, then those who approach the holy place will finally be made perfect in all ways, with the /ħat·TAA'Th/ offering finishing the final detail. By holy place, I mean not Ezekiel's Temple, but the New Jerusalem. None but the priests will be allowed to approach the holy place in Ezekiel's Temple.
92. Hebrews 10:2, "For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins."
a) The author argues against the Levitical Service by misunderstanding the purpose of the offerings and the teaching of Torah. He excludes actual forgiveness of the sins of ignorance by relegating it to shadow and symbolism or subjective relief, which is the interpretation put on the author's theology by just about every one who reads the book.
b) Again, the straw man is that the Levitical Service was designed to perfect the worshipper at all points, or designed to remove all awareness of a sinful nature.
93. Hebrews 10:3-4, "But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins"
a) The author could have saved himself from a contradiction here by including the word 'all' before sins. However, that would defeat his purpose of inveighing against the holy covenant (cf. Daniel 11:28-30). Cramming the author into the orthodox mold here will not save him from contradiction. It might be said that he only means to say that the Levitical offerings do not remove the presence of the sin nature in the spirit of man. I admit this is one of the failed explanations I fell into years and years ago in a vain attempt to bail the author out. However, this is not what the author means. For according to vs. 3 he reduces the effect of the Levitical offerings to mere 'remembrance', and so has no place at all for actual forgiveness of sins of ignorance. In doing so he contradicts. (See Lev. 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:10,13,16,18; 6:7; 19:22; Num. 15:25,26,28).
94. Hebrews 10:5-7, "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: 6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. 7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God."
a) This is quoted from Psalm 40:6-8a. The author has misquoted. For the Hebrew text does not say, "body," but "ears" referring to the idea of obedience, and the Scripture, "to obey is better than sacrifice" (1Sam. 15:22). 'Ears' is a Hebrew idiom, i.e. "to hear" is to "obey"; the idea of 'body' in the text reintroduces the idea of sacrifice where obedience is sought and contradicts the whole idea alluded to in 1Sam. 15:22! The LXX does not confirm Hebrew's rendering also. It also has the word 'ears'.
b) We cannot explain 'ears' as a synecdoche for 'body' (a part for a whole) because the author does not mean whole obedience of the body, but a body for sacrifice contradicting the first clause, "sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not". He means the sacrifice of Christ. See 10:10. Even with Messiah's offering, the LORD would rather have us obey Him than need to be forgiven and re-sanctified. The author is merely wrenching this text out of its context to put down the Levitical Service in a direct comparison with Messiah's offering. Yet to do this he has pasted the word 'body' into the text!
c) It is interesting how the author turns obeying into sacrifice in this text, which it totally against the context. To do this he much change the meaning of 'to do thy will, O God' at the end of the text, by which he means a transfer from one type of sacrifice (Levitical) to another sacrifice (Messiah). In order to secure the deception he leaves off the end of vs. 8 in the Psalm, "yea, thy law is within my heart."
95. Hebrews 10:8-9, "Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; 9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second."
a) For the missing part of Psalm 40:8b, "yea, thy law is within my heart" the author has slyly inserted his conclusion, reinterpreting God's 'will' as abolishment of the Torah rather than the doing of it, after having walked all over the original idea of, 'to obey is better than sacrifice' (1Sam. 15:22).
b) I have already shown that there is but one covenant that is renewed.
c) Just like the author, the early 'Church' fathers fell into the trap of denigrating the Levitical Service entirely rather than seeing in context of comparison with obedience. The Prophets were not putting down the Levitical Service, except when the worshippers were using it as a substitute for obedience. In that case, there was not repentance, and the offerings were invalid (cf. Numbers 15:30-31).
96. Hebrews 10:10, "By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."
a) The author uses the perfect tense, "we have been sanctified" and reinforces this with 'once for all'; This goes with his theology of perfection. The author is not so concerned with Christ being sacrificed one time as he is with the idea that he is totally perfected in spirit 'once and for all';
b) He repeats the word 'body' here in reference to his insertion in Psalm 40.
c) The author has incorrectly put sanctification and obedience into the same category. Sanctification refers to the removal of imperfections. But obedience is the entire avoidance of wrong in the first place by doing what is right, and for this there is no need for sanctification, seeing obedience is sanctified by its very nature already.
d) The author's view of sanctification being equivalent to original obedience stems from a dualistic world view, where imperfection is needed to get the best perfection. This dualistic idea was also taught by Augustine and was part of Gnosticism and many eastern cultic forms of Christianity. The late first century was a potent brew of all these sorts of philosophy.
97. Hebrews 10:11, "And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:"
a) The sin offering was offered monthly on the regular schedule, and not daily. We have seen this error before.
b) The last clause is just a reminder of the author's point in 10:3-4.
98. Hebrews 10:12, "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;"
a) The author means this to the exclusion and termination of the Levitical system. For this reason, it is not right to vindicate him by merely referring to the fact that Yeshua died once, or by limiting what the author means by 'sins'; the author means all sins, even the ritual impurities and sins of ignorance that were already forgiven by the Levitical Service. Although, Yeshua's offering covers all sins, this is temporary and extraordinary as the Levitical Service will be used in the future to atone for things less than transgressions and iniquities, just as the purging of Isaiah's sin was temporary.
b) This does not reduce the Scriptural value of Messiah's sacrifice. It was never meant to replace obedience, but to correct the problem of disobedience. Nor was it meant to substitute divine obedience for the obedience of the faithful, i.e. the Lutheran version of 'imputed righteousness'; such doctrine merely upsets the divine economy of redemption. Those who disobey in the worst and most blasphemous way are those who try to rely on sacrifice when they ought to render obedience. It is this doctrine of imputing perfection without obedience to the faithful that reduces the Levitical Service to irrelevancy.
99. Hebrews 10:13-14, "From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified."
a) Again the author uses the perfect tense, "hath perfected", here correctly rendered in the KJV. We should not be confused by the present tense of sanctified. The author says, 'them' and he refers to the continuous coming of new converts to this doctrine of perfection.
100. Hebrews 10:15-16, "Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;"
a) See 8:10. See my commentary on Jeremiah 31:31-34; Jeremiah 31:33; Jeremiah 31:34. The author misapplies, "after those days" to a totally 'new' covenant different than the covenant God made with Israel.
b) The author conceives of obedience as spiritual and in his spirit, being perfected. This is a Gnostic viewpoint, and it neglects the need for actual obedience.
c) True obedience is in spirit and truth. If the truth is not seen, but is only claimed, then that man does not walk in the truth (1John 1:7-9; 2:3-4), but is a liar and a false teacher.
101. Hebrews 10:17-18, "And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. 18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin."
a) The author squarely contradicts Jer. 33:17-22 here, though his readers did not have access to this text, because it was left out of the LXX (cf. BHS, Jer. 33:14-22), probably for purely political reasons. The LXX translators did not want the Gentile rulers seeing this text as it proclaimed the Davidic King. It was too much of a hot potato. We should not blame the translators. Nowhere is the claim made that the LXX was a complete or perfect translation except in circles of ignorance where it was given a kind of King James Onlyism treatment. The tall tale of the "letter of Aristeas" was invented to for this purpose. Nor should the omission in the LXX be considered evidence of a different Hebrew text. This is impossible as the omission in the LXX is impossibly long so as to have gone unnoticed or un-remarked in Jewish circles. Furthermore, Paul says that, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God" (Rom. 3:2; cf. 1Kings 15:4); therefore we are bound to receive them as delivered in the Hebrew language. Even so small a change as that of the Sopherim of the divine name to Adonai in 134 cases did not go un-remarked in the tradition. Nor can the Jews be accused of adding the text, because it is not needed. For other texts less thorough make the same point.
b) Additionally author contradicts Mal. 3:3-4; Zech. 14:20-21; Ezek. 40-48, and this is all in the age when Jer. 31:34 is fulfilled.
c) The author is premature on the first half of the text. This has not been fulfilled yet. For YHWH will yet remember the sin of Israel, and they will be ashamed of their sin (cf. Ezek. 20:34-38; 36:31-33)
102. Hebrews 10:19-20, "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;"
a) See comment on 4:16; this does not really agree with Ephesians 3:12 because there is an eschatological element to the entering in in that text, since it is 'through his faithfulness' and this is still continuing. It is not 'once for all' in the past like the author's theology which is based on immediate perfection of the spirit.
b) We will have the right to enter the New Jerusalem (the holy of holies) by the life of Messiah in us. For this he will sanctify us. But the idea that the passage is a 'way, which he hath consecrated for us" is in error. Heaven does not need consecration (cf. 9:23).
c) This flows from the Gnostic idea of the passage through the seven heavens, where the seven heavens need to be redeemed from the demiurge's side of their dualistic universe.
103. Hebrews 10:21-39, "And having an high priest over the house of God; 22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;) 24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: 25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. 26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses' law dies without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. 32 But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions; 33 Partly, whilst ye were made a gazingstock both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly, whilst ye became companions of them that were so used. 34 For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance. 35 Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward. 36 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. 37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry. 38 Now the my just one shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. 39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul."
a) The author is no longer arguing here; he is exhorting his audience. vs. 21, 'high' is an error; vs. 22 'true heart' = perfected heart. vs. 22 'assurance of faith' = i.e. in the perfection of the heart, 'hearts ... conscience' (same idea); 'bodies ... water' refers to a purely symbolic idea for the author; it has nothing to do with actual purification of the body, but re-taught as purification of the spirit (like the Catholic view).
b) vs. 23. 'faith'; the object of the faith is their own perfection.
c) vs. 26 rules out repentance after transgression. This idea is not biblical. While the author may admit it before the cross, he will not admit it in his present, because he believes in the perfection of the spirit, and of course transgression after this, would nullify the faith of the transgressor.
d) vs. 28, 'without mercy'; the author rules out the possibility of repentance for the one being judged, so that even though he is judged, he has mercy. Consider the thief on the cross! This is because he considers transgressors as fallen from perfection of the spirit! Indeed, he would be correct if the spirit were perfected. For the sin would be classed as that of the devil and the fallen angels.
e) vs. 29. This threat flows totally out of the author's errant theology of perfection. In fact, it is the author that is counting the blood of the covenant as unholy because he has rejected the Levitical Covenant. He is accusing others of his own guilt.
f) vs. 34. Some might consider this Paul referring to himself, but 2:3-4 is at variance with this. Likely the author was put in prison at some point during the revolt (A.D. 66-70) but was released because he was a Gentile, and probably denied he believed in Jewish Nationalism. This would have happened to many Gentile Christians at this time until they could manage to disassociate themselves from Jewish nationalism by spiritualizing their faith. Paul, of course, was not released from his second imprisonment which was in the same time period toward the end of Nero's reign, which was while the first Jewish revolt was in progress.
g) vs. 38, MSS read 'my just one'; this was already mentioned as evidence of non-Pauline style.
h) vs. 39, 'perdition' the author repeats his idea of no repentance after transgression; we must understand that the reason he comes up with this view has to do with his belief that Christ's atonement perfects the spirit as soon as the person has 'faith'; like the fall of the devil from perfection, it is reasonable to suppose that those falling from perfection cannot have a second chance.
104. Hebrews 11:1, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."
a) Hebrews uses the same word 'substance' as in 1:3 used in the Trinitarian debates with the Arians.
b) I think the KJV is a bit off the mark with 'evidence', so I give the RSV 'conviction';
c) By 'substance' and 'conviction' the author merely means what he has been saying all along, that the spirit of the believer is perfected when united to Christ in 'faith';
d) The author's Greek is ambiguous on the immediacy of the point of perfection in this text, however, he has worded it with his ultimate application to the present in mind.
105. Hebrews 11:2-13, "For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. 4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh. 5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. 7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. 8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. 9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: 10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. 11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised. 12 Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable. 13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth."
a) vs. 6 is my favorite text in this book, so long as it is divorced from the author's Gnostic concept of faith.
b) The author betrays his view in vs. 7 with Noah. Noah was already righteous, "Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God." (Gen. 6:9), yet the author demotes Noah to being an, 'heir'; this is probably because the LXX uses the same Greek root for 'perfect' that he ascribes to Christians, which he wants to keep clear of those before the cross.
c) In vs. 13, the author hints where he is going. He is going to deny the same 'perfection' to the OT saints that he ascribes to himself and his audience.
106. Hebrews 11:14-40, "For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. 15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. 16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city. 17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: 19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure. 20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come. 21 By faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff. 22 By faith Joseph, when he died, made mention of the departing of the children of Israel; and gave commandment concerning his bones. 23 By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because they saw he was a proper child; and they were not afraid of the king's commandment. 24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; 25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; 26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward. 27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible. 28 Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them. 29 By faith they passed through the Red sea as by dry land: which the Egyptians assaying to do were drowned. 30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days. 31 By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace. 32 And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets: 33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 34 Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. 35 Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection: 36 And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: 37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; 38 (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. 39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: 40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect."
a) vs. 16. Again, the earthly kingdom is denied. Remember, that the author did not have the detail in Revelation that the New Jerusalem comes down to earth. Many anti-Torah Christians rejected Revelation in the first four centuries because it was too Jewish. Likewise, an earthly restoration of Jerusalem is denied.
b) vs. 35. An apparent reference to 2Mac. 6:18-7:42, showing that this book was part of the LXX canon he used.
c) In vs. 40, the author makes his point. "They" were not made perfect "without us"; what is denied to them in the promise has become perfected spiritual reality for the author.
107. Hebrews 12:1, "Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,"
a) The author's theology is the same as the Church today. When a believer dies, they go ascend to a state of conscious fellowship with God. This belief is a denial of the reality of death and also of the resurrection, and the numerous passages which describe death like sleep, and resurrection as waking up.
b) Even though the author admits to sin, his view is doubtless that sin is the appearance of evil in the flesh, but he would claim his spirit was free of it.
108. Hebrews 12:2, "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God."
a) The word 'faith' can be used in the sense of 'the faith' i.e. 'the religion'; if this is the sense meant, then it is orthodox. However, it is likely that the author has some predestinarian or deterministic belief here. This is also perfectionistic.
109. Hebrews 12:3-17, "For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. 4 Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. 5 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: 6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. 7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? 8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. 9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? 10 For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. 11 Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby. 12 Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees; 13 And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed. 14 Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord: 15 Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled; 16 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. 17 For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears."
a) vs. 9 "Father of spirits"; the phrase has a Gnostic ring to it. The Biblical phrase is, "God of spirits" (Num. 16:22; 27:16; Rev. 22:6).
110. Hebrews 12:18-21, "For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, 19 And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more: 20 (For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart: 21 And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake:)"
a) Again the author puts down the covenant.
b) 'might be touched'; the author alludes to the death penalty for approaching the Mount at the wrong time (Ex. 19:12). He is meaning to compare this restriction with his belief that he has unrestricted access at any time, which is based on his belief in perfection of the conscience. But even Yeshua would not let Mary touch him when he had to appear before the Father, saying, "touch me not" (John 20:17).
c) Ex. 19:12. However, it was not the commandment that the people objected to. It was the forceful display of power.
d) In Deut. 9:19, Moses says, "For I was afraid of the anger and hot displeasure, wherewith the LORD was wroth against you to destroy you. But the LORD hearkened unto me at that time also." In the author's quotation, it makes it sound as if Moses was afraid for himself. But this was not the case.
e) 'not come'; The author neglects Ezek. 20:33-38, "with fury poured out"; again, Israel will be brought into the bond of the covenant. God will make an impression then too.
f) 'sound of a trumpet'; See Rev. 1:10 where Yeshua still speaks with 'a voice like a trumpet';
111. Hebrews 12:22-24, "But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel."
a) The Greek is in the perfect tense, 'ye have come' (cf. RSV); this is because the author believed that they were 'spiritually' there. And no, Eph. 2:6 should not be translated past tense, but gnomic, "He makes us sit together in heavenly places"; the Scripture does not contradict reality; however, Gnostic type philosophies and mystery religion did.
b) What this represents is a spiritualizing Hellenistic exegesis of Isaiah 54 typical of the Gentile Church after it rejected the Torah. The Revelation had not been given, but in it the heavenly city is described as coming down from heaven to earth (Rev. 21:2).
c) 'spirits of just men made perfect'; again the Gnostic doctrine crops up.
d) 'blood of sprinkling'; nowhere in this book is the concept of substitutionary atonement. Atonement for the author is always 'sprinkling' or cleansing. It is never payment of the penalty, nor is it forgiveness of the penalty. Not once in the KJV does the author use the word forgive, and he only means 'remission' in the sense of taking away the sin itself, and not taking away the penalty. There was no judgment by the Father in the Gnostic theology, just the God of Israel, who was kept separate from the Father.
e) 'Abel' stands here for Abel's offering and all like it, i.e. Levitical Offerings.
112. Hebrews 12:25, "See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven:"
a) The author's two story dichotomy here, i.e. the earthly and the heavenly is due to the Gnostic idea that the material is evil and the heavenly good.
b) In reality, the LORD spoke out of heaven, "And the LORD said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven" (Exodus 20:22). And this was in reference to the ten commandments.
c) And Yeshua spoke on earth, because he was the fulfillment of the Prophet like Moses, whom the LORD sent according to their request (Deut. 18:15-19). He came down from heaven, but he spoke on earth. So the author of Hebrews has got it exactly backwards.
d) Then again, if the author only means Moses by the earthly speaker, then he has set up a straw man comparison to remind his readers of his earlier points.
113. Hebrews 12:26, "Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven."
a) This shows that the author means YHWH by the earthly speaker, and that point d. above cannot be maintained to acquit him.
b) The last verse is quoted from Haggai 2:6; cf. Hag. 2:21; Mat. 24:29ff. But the words are, "Once again, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land;" The author's sentence leaves us to think that the first time only earth was shaken, but not heaven, and that the second time heaven and earth are shaken. And this is what he means since he is contrasting heaven and earth, and says the earth shook the first time. But the Hebrew text implies that both heaven and earth were shaken the first time!
c) "The LORD also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem; and the heavens and the earth shall shake: but the LORD will be the hope of his people, and the strength of the children of Israel. 17 So shall ye know that I am the LORD your God dwelling in Zion, my holy mountain: then shall Jerusalem be holy, and there shall no strangers pass through her any more. 18 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the mountains shall drop down new wine, and the hills shall flow with milk, and all the rivers of Judah shall flow with waters, and a fountain shall come forth of the house of the LORD, and shall water the valley of Shittim" (Joel 3:16-18). This is to show that the shaking of heaven and earth will be the LORD showing his zeal for the Temple, i.e. the earthly Temple.
e) "The earth shook, the heavens also dropped at the presence of God: even Sinai itself was moved at the presence of God, the God of Israel." (Psalm 68:8). The heavens 'dropped' meaning that the Almighty brought heaven down on top of Mt. Sinai.
f) The heaven and the earth also shook at the flood, and possibly at the fall.
114. Hebrews 12:27, "And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain."
a) Again the two story dichotomy continues. Let us return the Hebrew text of Hag. 2:6, "Still only a little it is"; this means 'still only a little while', or 'again, only a little while' (cf. RSV, KJV), but our author only has the LXX and concludes there will only be one more shaking. That is not what the Hebrew says. The author construes it to mean the ultimate end of the physical universe, "as of things that are made" in favor of 'things which cannot be shaken"; his philosophy is decidedly against the created material world. But the point in 113c above shows that though heaven and earth shake, the earth will remain. Though the earth may be shaken, it will remain, so that it is not removed.
115. Hebrews 12:28, "Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: 29 For our God is a consuming fire"
a) But the author excludes the physical land of Israel from the kingdom, since it can be moved. This is not just a symbolic exercise. For the author has used the literal moving of heaven and earth to make his point above, and has concluded that things which move will vanish. Nor does he mean the removing of things from one place to another. That much is made clear in vs. 29.
b) The Biblical fire will burn the elements, but this will be a renewal of the earth's surface by fire. It seems the author rejects the idea of mere renewal and embraces the philosophy of radical cosmic dualism that the created world was evil and separate from the spirit world (Wegner).
116. Hebrews 13:1-7, "Let brotherly love continue. 2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. 3 Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them; and them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also in the body. 4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. 5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. 6 So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me. 7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation."
a) vs. 2, 'some have entertained angles unawares'; perhaps this refers to Lot. Gen. 19:1-3, but could he leave out the more important passages of entertaining the 'angel of the LORD' (Gen. 18:2; Jud. 6:11; 13:3), and that Samson's parents were unaware at the first that it was the angel of the LORD. If the author meant the 'angel of the LORD' passages too, then he failed to recognize who the angel of the LORD was. Doubtless, he did mean all these passages. He has to since his whole argument in the first two chapters was predicated on Yeshua not appearing as an angel.
b) vs. 3. 'in the body'; i.e. in the context of the author's dualistic view of reality.
c) vs. 4, etc. Like Mormons, the author can still give good moral advice.
117. Hebrews 13:8-9, "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. 9 Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein."
a) vs. 8; the nearest biblical text to this is Ps. 102:27, "and thou art HE, and your years do not end"; the LXX deviates from the author's quotation, "and thou art the one, and your years do not fail"; the idea of 'sameness' is not in the Hebrew text, or the Septuagint. Yet, it is certainly true that God does not change in his moral nature, it is true that he changes in the experiences he allows himself, since the creation itself is changing. This idea was anathema to Greek philosophy, which argued that if a thing could change, then it could only change for better or worse, and then any change entailed a change from imperfection to perfection or the reverse. This idea of 'perfection' was extreme, to say the least, and it was not biblical, but it explains a statement like the above, which is used for the doctrine of immutability by Thomistic theology.
b) vs. 9. The author takes a stab at the Torah's teaching on clean and unclean. Grace in the author's theology means embracing the doctrine of the perfection of the spirit. This is followed by a further put down of the Levites, who needed to be concerned about the purity laws. Yet, he is the one who is teaching a strange doctrine. Hebrews has more unique and strange doctrines than any book of the NT, most of them contradicting Torah.
118. Hebrews 13:10-11, "We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle. 11 For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. 12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate."
a) vs 11. The author denies a 'saved' status not only the current Levitical Priests here, but also those past that served at the Tabernacle (He also means the Temple by extension of the idea). Why so? The 'altar' in the author's meaning is the heavenly altar, and eating from this altar is one and the same with a saved status in his opinion. He denies that the Levites had or have a right to the heavenly altar.
b) It should be clear that even serving Priests who profess faith in Yeshua are excluded from salvation in his view, and also Priests before the cross. He denies salvation to those before, because they were not perfected. For the Levitical Service stands on the wrong side of the dualism for him. It is earthly, and he is spiritual. It is fleshly and he is perfected. The Levitical Service had nothing to do with the heavenly in the author's view for the salvation of Israel. That's why he argues that the Levitical offerings did not 'atone' for sin (cf. 10:3-4). His belief is that those who were would be saved somehow saw through all the symbolism of the tabernacle to the spiritual on the other side 'by faith', and that they were not 'saved' until they were perfected at the time of the cross (cf. 11:40).
c) Even though the author gives a long list of saints starting with Abel, there were not saved until perfected at the cross. This may sound like splitting hairs. For what does it matter between a promise of salvation and the fulfillment as to the status? Everything according to the author! For perfection had come to him. Therefore, he not only denies the right to the heavenly altar for the past, before the cross, but he denies it to those who would not embrace the new perfection. That is why he mixes the present tense with the word 'tabernacle'; he is saying that they still do not have the right. But since they missed the perfection, he is also anathematizing them in addition to denying them the right to heaven.
d) Now the author is very cleaver in transferring the symbolism to the altar outside the camp. No the Levites did not eat the offerings put thereon, but then again no one had the right to eat from this altar. So the denial of right here is merely a straw man argument.
e) vs. 12. Remember that for the author, Yeshua's blood only serves to 'sanctify' or purify the soul. It has nothing to do with substitutionary death in our place for him. The author does know something in putting the crucifixion outside the camp. For the proper place was on the Mt. of Olives next to the altar without the camp. And this altar was only used for the preparation of the ashes of the red heifer, which was used purely for purification purposes. It is true that Yeshua will purify us. The author is just premature with perfection, failing to see forgiveness of the penalty of sin and purification as eschatologically separated.
d) This is what Paul warned the Roman Church about in Romans 11:1-2, 17-18. The book of Acts says that many priests were 'obedient to the faith' (Acts 6:7), and Paul consulted with them twice for a Nazarite vow (Acts 18:18, 21:23; cf. Numbers 6:1-21; Acts 21:24-27; 24:18). All the Levites and Priests who had believed had secured a promised right to the heavenly altar, and all the priests from Abel to Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest were promised a right to heaven, a right that was still a promise (cf. Gal. 5:5), even though the author felt he has secured it by Gnosticism, yet now he will boast against the branches and exalt himself over the righteous ones.
e) In the age to come, there will be Levitical Priests. See Isaiah 66:21-24; Jer. 33:17-22; Mal. 3:3; Zech. 6:12-13; 14:20-21; Ezek. 40-48. Heaven and earth will be one. There will be no cosmic dualism.
119. Hebrews 13:13-14, "Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach. 14 For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come."
a) No doubt this is the disloyalty to the temple and Jerusalem that the Romans wanted to hear from the Christians among them. The author is writing from a dispersion location in the west during the time of the first Jewish revolt (A.D. 66-70).
b) The author is anticipating the total destruction of Jerusalem. To this judgment ordained by God he adds his anathema against the covenant of Levi. Yet here is what the LORD has said, "So the angel that communed with me said unto me, Cry thou, saying, Thus saith the LORD of hosts; I am jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great jealousy. 15 And I am very sore displeased with the heathen that are at ease: for I was but a little displeased, and they helped forward the affliction. 16 Therefore thus saith the LORD; I am returned to Jerusalem with mercies: my house shall be built in it, saith the LORD of hosts, and a line shall be stretched forth upon Jerusalem" (Zechariah 1:14-16). The author of this book spoke a word YHWH had not commanded, and so furthered the disaster which befell Judea in A.D. 66-73 and further in A.D. 135. At his door we may lay joint responsibility for the 600,000 Jewish dead in A.D. 70 and the further 580,000 dead between A.D. 132-135. And he may also lay at his door the death of millions of Christians who died because they had no homeland and community to call their own, and the spiritual death of the millions of apostates whom he taught to misunderstand atonement as perfect purification of the spirit in the present.
c) Although the Nazarene Jews left the city as Yeshua commanded to Pella, they did not speak against the covenant nor did they curse the holy city, but realized that God had ordained a seven times exile for the tribe of Judah before the holy city and temple would be returned to them in the end of days.
d) The author speaks a half truth, "we have no continuing city ... we seek one to come" because this 'city' of his is totally otherworldly and has no connection to earth (cf. Heb. 11:16), but it is in the eighth "heavenly" for him and has nothing to do with YHWH's eternal covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob!
120. Hebrews 13:15-25, "By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name. 16 But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased. 17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you. 18 Pray for us: for we trust we have a good conscience, in all things willing to live honestly. 19 But I beseech you the rather to do this, that I may be restored to you the sooner. 20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, 21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. 22 And I beseech you, brethren, suffer the word of exhortation: for I have written a letter unto you in few words. 23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty; with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you. 24 Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints. They of Italy salute you. 25 Grace be with you all. Amen. {Written to the Hebrews from Italy, by Timothy.}"
a) vs. 15-16. The Rabbis taught these were a substitute for Levitical Offerings. Our author seems to hold this view also. It is not biblical. "But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap: 3 And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness. 4 Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in former years" (Mal. 3:2-4). See what the LORD says? He says that the offerings will be 'pleasant' unto himself. For they will be offering in obedience (1Sam. 15:22).
b) vs. 19. Many Christians were imprisoned during Nero's persecution. This is no proof of Pauline authorship.
c) vs. 20. The author says 'everlasting covenant'; where do the Scriptures use this phrase? Gen. 17:7; 17:13; 17:19; Lev. 24:8; Num. 25:13; 2Sam. 23:5; 1Chron. 16:17; Psalm 105:10; Isa. 24:5; Isa. 55:3; 61:8; Jer. 32:40; Ezek. 16:60, "Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore. 27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 28 And the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore" (Ezek. 37:26-28).
d) vs. 21. For the author imperfection in the body counts for nothing. Only perfection of the spirit counts. Yet he urges them to strive from perfection in the body via works. Not all Gnostics were sympathetic to his concessions to the material world. Many were licentious, but the devil to better deceive religious people let them have some morality.
e) vs. 23. It is possible that the author knows Timothy, but that his philosophy and theology disagree with him. If so, then this statement is purely ecumenical, designed to keep his heresy from being suspected to quickly.
f) vs. 25. The Subscriptio was deleted in later editions of the KJV for lack of textual support. No, Timothy did not write the letter, unless he apostatized like Judas.
121.0 These remarks are primarily aimed at Dispensational, Gnostic, Arian, and Dualistic interpretations of the Hebrews, showing why such interpretations disagree with Scripture, and why if such interpretations be considered the original intent of the author of Hebrews that the book must be considered Apocrypha.
a) Please note, I affirm the following statement:
|