| Home | Our Hope | |
| Bible Study |
|
May 16, 2021 |
| Clearly Hebrews | ||
I began this study after reading someone else's disappointing study on Hebrews. Commentaries on this book suffer from a few problems.
An example of a commentary that blows smoke in your eyes is Barnes' Notes on the Bible for Hebrews 4:10 taken from http://biblehub.com/commentaries/hebrews/4-10.htm . This is the comment for that verse.
"For he that is entered into rest - That is, the man who is so happy as to
reach heaven, will enjoy a rest similar to what God had when he
finished the work of creation. It will be:"
"(1) a cessation from toil; and,"
"(2) it will be a rest similar to that of God - the same kind of enjoyment, the same freedom from care, anxiety, and labor."
"How happy then are they who have entered into heaven! Their toils are over. Their labors are done. Never again will they
know fatigue. Never more will they feel anxious care. Let us learn then:"
"(1) not to mourn improperly for those who have left us and gone to heaven. Happy in the rest of God, why should not we
rejoice? Why wish them back again in a world of toil!"
"(2) let us in our toils look forward to the world of rest. Our labors will all be over. The weary man will lay down his
burden; the exhausted frame will know fatigue no more. Rest is sweet at night after the toils of day; how much more sweet
will it be in heaven after the toils of life! Let us."
"(3) labor while ii is called today. Soon we shall cease from our work. All that we have to do is to be done soon. We shall
soon cease from "our" work as God did from his. What we have to do for the salvation of children, brothers, sisters,
friends, and for the world, is to be done soon. From the abodes of bliss we shall not be sent forth to speak to our kindred
of the blessedness of that world, or to admonish our friends to escape from the place of despair. The pastor will not come
again to warn and invite his people; the parent will not come again to tell his children of the Saviour and of heaven; the
neighbor will not come to admonish his neighbor; compare Luke 16:24-29. We shall all have ceased from our work as God did
from his; and never again shall we speak to a living friend to invite him to heaven."
That is a lot of words, but they are unrelated to what the author of Hebrews is saying in that verse. The verse is plainly not about how happy people will be when they go to heaven. The comment is so far off topic that you have to think the commentator doesn't understand what is being said. He does make it clear that he doesn't understand God's rest after creation. He also doesn't see what the verb tense of "has rested" indicates about what the author of Hebrews is saying, nor does he understand 4:10 in the context of the previous verses.
The author of Hebrews is unknown. There is a lot of speculation about it, which doesn't have much purpose. The book has always been accepted as inspired by God.
The book of Hebrews is written to Jewish converts to Christianity, a people who have a deep understanding of the teachings of Judaism but a shallower understanding of Christianity. The author also has a deep understanding of Judaism, and he writes in terms they understand. This can make the book of Hebrews hard to understand for Christians, who generally have a shallow understanding of Judaism.
The target audience seems to be struggling with the transition to Christianity for themselves, and also with the validity of Christianity. Is it really founded on Judaism? What things from Judaism do and don't continue into Christianity, and why? Even Christians have an interest in these questions, but there are lots of sources of poor answers.
Because the target audience for this book would only accept the Old Testament scriptures as having authority, the book of Hebrews makes heavy use of quotes from the Old Testament. Most of these quotes come from the prophets.
Many other commentaries on Hebrews assume that the book is thematic in structure – that there is a central theme for the entire book, and this theme is broken down into smaller aspects of that theme. The book of Romans is a thematically structured book. The book of Hebrews is not.
Many theologians have struggled with the structure of Hebrews and how the author organizes the material. This is not just a question of how Hebrews should be presented in commentaries, but a question of understanding the content. For this reason, George H. Guthrie asks:
"If a scholar is confused, uncertain, or incorrect in evaluating the structure of an author's discourse, is that scholar not destined to flounder at points when presenting propositions concerning the author's intended meanings in the various sections of that discourse? Stated another way, can accurate exegesis of a given passage be carried out without a proper understanding of the broader literary context in which that passage is found?"1
Like many other epistles, it is obvious that the author of Hebrews is addressing questions from the intended audience. This becomes clear in Hebrews 5:12 where he says, "For you ought to be teachers, because of the time you have had in the doctrine, but now, again, you need to learn those things which are the primer letters of the first words of God." Plainly the author has learned from the audience that they have not progressed as he hoped. He has learned that from the nature of the questions they have asked.
In 6:1, he continues to poke at them for their lack of understanding, "… or are you laying again another foundation for conversion from dead works and for faith in God?"
Plainly the author knows them well enough to know that they will accept his reproach and do better instead of rejecting his words entirely. He uses the word "again" in both these verses, indicating that they have been taught these things before but have not understood. To know this with confidence, it is likely that the author was also their teacher.
Other support for the idea that the author is answering questions comes from the obvious jumps in topic. The first three chapters talk about who Jesus is in relation to God, the angels, and the prophets. This lurches into the following discussion of God's rest and the Sabbath. Instead of a continuity of a theme through the book, we see segues where the author has tried to smooth the transition between answers.
Sometimes a student asks a question that is nonsensical because the student has a fundamental misunderstanding. From the author's words of rebuke for them, it is likely that this has happened in some of their questions. Therefore it isn't possible to work back from the answer to the question that was actually asked. If the question was nonsensical, it cannot be answered. Therefore the response to the question tends to answer a different question.
Other commentaries do themselves and their audience a disservice by trying to fit Hebrews into a thematic structure. Doing so tends to put their focus on the central theme, with the result that they miss other points.
Many of the Jews after Jesus' time were trying to understand who Jesus was and how he fit into what they had understood from the Old Testament. Their understanding of the order of things was that there was:
Note that in their understanding, there was no such thing as a son of God. They understood God to be "one", a single indivisible entity. There were plenty of hints in the Old Testament that God had a son and that his son would be sent to earth in the form of a man, but the Jews had missed that.
They would sometimes call themselves Sons of God because they used the word "son" in ways that we don't use it in English. A son could be a follower and not a biological son. So they would also call themselves Sons of Moses. But they had no understanding of a Son of God who was also god.
For this reason, when the angel told Mary that her son would be called the Son of God, she would not have understood it the way that we do now. We see the proof of that in Luke 2:49-50, "He said to them, 'Why were you looking for me? Do you not know that it was fitting for me to be in my Father's house?' 50 But they did not understand the statement that he spoke to them."
Neither did the Jews understand that God's spirit was a separate being from him. They considered God's spirit to be a part of God in the same way that our head is a part of us.
So the first question that we see answered in the book of Hebrews would be something like, "Who is Jesus in relation to God, angels, the prophets, and ordinary men?"
The book of Hebrews begins with a powerful statement about who the Son of God is in the first 4 verses. It is said that a great book must have a great beginning that will grab the reader. This book has just such a beginning, and we'll spend some time in it. After this beginning, the author begins to present the evidence for the opening statements he has made.
1 From the first, in all parts and in all forms, God spoke with our fathers by the prophets, 2 and in these last days he has spoken with us by his son, whom he ordained the heir of all things, and by him he made the universe.
These two verses make many important points:
Now the text of Hebrews continues to describe other aspects of the Son of God
3 For he is the brilliance of his glory, the image of his being, and upholds all things by the power of his word; and he in his essential being has accomplished the purification of our sins, and he sat down at the right hand of the majesty on high.
Again there are so many important points woven together in that verse that we need to break them all apart to study them
Hebrews continues on with a last point about the Son of God, and with that, it begins the reasoning to support these claims that have been made. Along with this point, the text begins to discuss the relationship between the Son of God and angels, and which is greater.
4 And this one is altogether greater than the Angels, according to how much more excellent than theirs is the name which he possesses.
The word "name" is used here as it is in many other places in the Bible, not as a personal name, but more in the sense of a reputation or character. But whereas a reputation among men can be weakened by a false accusation, the reputation referred to here is only based on truth. So a person has both a "name" and a "name". The name might be "John Smith," but the name might be loving, caring, having integrity, being truthful, honest, hard-working, etc.
So the Son of God's name comes from the things that he did as Jesus. It is a name of self-sacrifice, righteousness, love, obedience, etc., and perfection in all of these. Hebrews is saying no angel has a name that is anything like that, and therefore the Son of God is completely greater than the angels.
A name in this sense is very important in God's world. Name determines position; the greater the name, the greater the position. This is why the 3rd commandment is so important to God. Essentially he says, "don't use my name for your silly purposes".
Hebrews now begins the presentation of Biblical evidence as support for the idea that the Son of God is much greater than the angels.
5 For to which one of the Angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have begotten you", and again, "I shall be to him the Father and he shall be to me the Son."?
This verse quotes from David and Samuel, both of whom were accepted as prophets.
Then it asks if God ever said that of any angel. Did God ever refer to an angel as his son? His readers know the answer is no.
6Again, when he brings the firstborn into the universe, he says, "All the Angels of God shall worship him."
The author is quoting something, or at least paraphrasing from something, but no one is certain about what. It could be a paraphrase of the announcement of the birth to the shepherds.
And suddenly, the great armies of Heaven appeared with the Angel, while shouting praises to God, and they were saying: 14 "Glory to God in Heaven, and upon earth peace, Good News to the children of men." (Luke 2:13-14)
7But he spoke in this way about the Angels: "He makes his Angels the wind and his Ministers the burning fire."
The author quotes another verse.
He makes the winds His messengers, flaming fire His ministers. (Psalm 104:4)
The author is drawing on a fact of Jewish existence. In large families, there were family members, and there were slaves. The father of the house would put his sons and daughters in charge of things, and they would direct the slaves in what they should do.
Here he has just said, "all the angels will worship the Son." But to the angels (slaves) he has said, deliver this message, or minister to the needs of some person.
8 But concerning the son, he said, "Your throne, oh God, is to the eternity of eternities. A straight scepter is the scepter of your Kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and you have hated evil; because of this, God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of a joy beyond your companions."
He quotes from David.
Your throne, God, is forever and ever; the scepter of Your kingdom is a scepter of justice. (Psalm 45:6-7)
10 And again, "You have laid the foundation of the Earth from the beginning, and the Heavens are the work of your hands. 11 Those shall pass away and you remain, and they all shall wear out like a robe, 12 "and you shall fold them up like a cloak; they shall be changed, and you are as you are; your years shall not end."
He quotes from David again.
Of old You founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. 26 Even they will perish, but You endure; all of them will wear out like a garment; like clothing. You will change them and they will pass away. 27 But You are the same, and Your years will not come to an end. (Psalm 102:25-27)
We see that difference again between master and slave. When God speaks of his son, he talks about the glorious things that he is and will be. Here he speaks of the destiny of the Heavens and the Earth, and the unchanging nature of the Son. To the slaves (angels), he says do this or do that.
13 But to which of the Angels did he ever say, "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies as a footstool under your feet"?
He quotes from David again.
The Lord says to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet." (Psalm 110:1)
As a sideline, this verse is interesting because Jesus uses it to challenge the Pharisees and their thinking. What Jesus does then is to quote himself talking about himself. As the Word, he told David this prophecy. As Yeshua, he quotes the prophecy.
The purpose of angels is to serve Jesus by being a benefit to those of us who believe.
14 Behold, are they not all spirits of service, who are sent into service for the sake of those who are going to inherit life?
The author of Hebrews has been bringing all of these quotes with the purpose of showing that Jesus is greater than the angels. He does this by showing that God the Father speaks of the Son as a father would speak of a son. But he speaks to the angels as slaves. It summarizes by asking the question: aren't angels there to benefit us?
The second chapter begins with a call to pay attention to and obey the teachings of Jesus that have been heard. This leads into the next point that Paul will make - The new law is greater than the old law.
1 Because of this, we are indebted that we should be all the more attentive to whatever we have heard, lest we fall.
He says that because all of the angels are working to help believers, we have a debt to repay, which we repay by focusing on the gospel message, not the Old Covenant.
2 For if a word spoken by Angels was established and everyone who heard it and violated it received a reward by justice, 3 how shall we escape if we despise those things which are our life, those which began to be spoken by our Lord and by those who heard from him among us, and were confirmed, 4 While God testified concerning them with signs, wonders and various miracles, and by gifts of the spirit of holiness, which were given according to his will?Verse 3 also contains a little sideline about the authorship of Hebrews. By saying "those who heard from him among us," it seems that Hebrews was not written by an original disciple, but by someone who worked with them.
This is one long sentence with a lot of content.
When it says "a word spoken by Angels," it is referring to the Law of Moses, the Torah (first 5 books of the Old Testament), which was given to Moses by angels. This will be a new idea to most Christians. Nowhere in the Old Testament does it explicitly say that the Torah was given to Moses by Angels. There are hints in Deuteronomy 33:2 and Psalm 68:17, but there are 3 books in the New Testament that indicate that.
We see the one here in Hebrews 2:2, which is not clear, a pair in Acts that are clear (Acts 7:38,53), and a fairly clear one in Galatians (Gal 3:19). Also, it shouldn't be a strange idea to Christians because John receives the Book of Revelation in the same way (Revelation 1:1 22:6,8,16). It was a well-established idea in Judaism, and the New Testament was authored by the Holy Spirit, so we accept it as truth.
So the point here is this. If the law that was given by angels (lesser beings) had authority such that those who disobeyed it received their deserved punishment, then how much more serious is it if we disobey the Son of God? And what excuse will there be when those among us (Apostles) heard his words and testify about him, and when God himself testifies about him through the works that were done by the Son of God and by the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
5For it was not to Angels that he subjected the future world, about which we are speaking; 6 But as the Scripture testifies and says, "What is a man, that you remember him, and the son of man that you care for him? 7 You have brought him a little lower than the Angels. You have placed glory and honor on his head and you have authorized him over the works of your hands.
The author quotes Psalm 8:4-6 as a prophecy about Jesus being given authority over God's creation. He is saying that this was not promised to angels but to a "son of man" who was made a little lower than the angels (though he was greater) and who was given glory, honor, and authority.
8 You have subjected all things under his feet." But by this, that "He subjected everything to him", it does not leave anything which is not subjected; but now, we do not yet see that everything is subjected to him.
Now the author continues his quote from Psalms to show that this is a promise that has not been fulfilled, even in our time, and therefore, the promise refers to a future world, as he said in verse 5. He says, look around you. Does this world look like it is subject to Jesus? Therefore that prophecy has not been fulfilled yet. It will be fulfilled after the Second Coming.
9But we see that he is Yeshua, who became a little lower than the Angels for the suffering of his death, and glory and honor are placed upon his head, for God himself, by his grace, tasted death in the place of every person.
Now the author clarifies who the "son of man" is in that prophecy. It can be no one else but Yeshua, who became like a man. The most interesting thing about what he says here is that God, not only Yeshua, experienced death through Yeshua's death, as though it was every person's death. It would be wrong to say that God died. God has no body of flesh that can die. But God experienced it through Yeshua.
Also in verse 9, we see an important statement. Earlier in this lesson, we saw that the Son of God stripped himself down to the essentials so that he might die to take away our sins. Here we see that it was necessary for him to do that, so it would be possible for him to die.
From here Hebrews continues on quoting verses from the Old Testament supporting the idea that the Son of God would come in the form of man and be among men and like men. This wouldn't have been a problem for the Jews because they had been expecting the Messiah to be a man. What they weren't expecting was that he would be the Son of God.
10For it was fitting for him by whom are all things and for whom are all things, and bringing many children into the glory, that the Prince of their life would perfect himself by his suffering.
Paraphrase: "It seemed proper (appropriate) to Yeshua,
- who was the creator of all things,
- who will rule over all things, and
- who is bringing many people to God,
- that their lord would perfect himself by his suffering
The point: God’s people are tempted and suffer in this world as they strive toward perfection, so it only seemed right that Yeshua would be perfected through suffering (We have something in common).
11For he who makes holy and they who are made holy are all of one, therefore, he is not ashamed to call them his brothers.
The author is referring to this verse and others like it.
"I am the LORD, who makes you holy" (Leviticus 20:8)
Paraphrase: "He who is holy makes others holy. So, they have a unity like a family, and he can call them brothers without being ashamed of them."
We have other things in common with him as well, like suffering and holiness.
12 When he said, "I shall announce your name to my brethren and within the church I shall glorify you." 13 And again, "I will trust in him", and again, "Behold, I and the children whom God has given me."
The author backs up his statements with these verses.
I will surely recount Your name to my brothers; In the midst of the assembly I will praise You. (Psalm 22:22)
And I will wait for Yahweh who is hiding His face from the house of Jacob; and I will hope for Him. (Isaiah 8:17)
Behold, I and the children whom Yahweh has given me are for signs and wonders in Israel from Yahweh of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion. (Isaiah 8:18)
The author uses the word "church," but he isn't referring to a building, but instead to the community of believers, which the Bible often refers to as an assembly or congregation.
Hebrews 2 closes with this summary
14 For because the children shared together in flesh and blood, he also shared in these things in the same form, so that by his death he would destroy the one who had held the authority of death, who is Satan, 15 and he would free those who, by the fear of death, all their lives were subjected to bondage.
The Son of God became flesh and blood just like his children. His sacrificial death will eventually destroy Satan and free those he holds, but until then, we now live free of the fear of death and are no longer slaves to it, as mankind previously was.
16 For death was not authorized over the Angels, but death was authorized over the seed of Abraham.
The "seed of Abraham" is an abstract way of saying "Yeshua." Yeshua was the seed that God had promised to Abraham.
Angels cannot die, even if they wanted to, but all flesh and blood do die, including the seed of Abraham, including the Messiah.
So the point is that the Word was not subject to death, just as the angels are not, but in reducing himself to be born as Yeshua, he became subject to death. Even as Yeshua, he was able to prevent his death, but he chose not to.
17 Because of this, it was right that he would become like his brethren in all things, that he would be a compassionate and trustworthy High Priest in what is God's, and would make atonement for the sins of the people.
If Yeshua were different from us in any way, he would not be a brother to us. So he came as a man to experience temptation, suffering, and death, as we, his brothers, do.
The author also says that Yeshua would become a High Priest, by which he means a heavenly High Priest. The earthly High Priest and the other priests who served him were the ones who oversaw the sacrifices. So Yeshua is both the heavenly High Priest who offers the sacrifice that atones, and that sacrifice.
18 For in this, because he has suffered and was tempted, he can help those who are tempted.
Because Yeshua is a brother in all ways and knows suffering and temptation, he understands and can help us when we are tempted.
Jesus is:
Through his resurrection he:
Now comes a delicate subject for the Jewish reader of Hebrews. At the time of Jesus, the Jews' love of Moses approached being idolatry. They claimed to follow Moses, and they claimed to follow the Law of Moses. They felt that his close relationship with God made him something special.
The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend. (Exodus 33:11)
But Moses himself warned the Jews that there would be another person coming who would be a prophet like him.
The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him. (Deuteronomy 18:15)
Even in our time, we need to be careful of thinking this way. The great men and women of God were only instruments God used to do great things, and those people were no more than the right tool to do the job. They were not the cause of God's success, but they were there to say 'Yes' when God offered them a chance to play a part.
This chapter begins by saying that Jesus was faithful to God as Moses was faithful to God. Moses was faithful as a father over his family, and as a man over men.
1 Therefore my holy brethren, who are called with a calling from Heaven, consider this Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Yeshua the Messiah
The author summarizes what he argued before, Jesus was an apostle (one who is sent out) and High Priest. Having shown that, he says, "now consider this Jesus," as he is about to tell us more about who he is.
2 [Consider this Yeshua] who is faithful to the one who appointed him, as Moses in his entire household.
The author refers to this verse:
But this is not true of my servant Moses; he is faithful in all my house. (Numbers 12:7)
Once again this refers to Jewish life and their households. His readers know that Moses was faithful over the household of God, because God said so. The author says that Yeshua was also faithful to God. The readers know this to be true because Jesus accepted his death.
3 [Yet] the glory of this one is much greater than that of Moses, as much as the honor of the builder of the house is greater than his building. 4 For every house is built by some man, but he who built all things is God.
Despite both being faithful, they are not equal. The glory of Jesus is much greater than that of Moses. The verse goes on to say that the difference between the two is as great as the difference between a creator and his creation. Moses was a creation put in charge of other creations, but Jesus was the creator of all.
5 And Moses as a servant was entrusted with the entire household for the testimony of those things that were going to be spoken by him, 6 but the Messiah as the son over his house; and we are his house, if we will hold the confidence and the pride of his Gospel until the end
I've already mentioned the large Jewish family. In a family business, the sons (heirs) had authority over everything. They would often appoint a slave to be over the other slaves. The verse says Moses was that slave who would instruct the other slaves.
We are that house where Moses served, and Jesus is the son, IF we "hold the confidence" in the gospel "until the end."
Verse 5 quotes again from Numbers 12:7, which we saw before.
Moses was trusted to be a prophet and deliver God's message to his people. Jesus was trusted to be a prophet and to deliver a greater message, and he was that message. Moses was trusted to save the Israelites from Egypt and bring them to the Promised Land. Jesus was trusted to bring salvation to the world.
| The messenger and message of God | Reduced himself to his most basic form to become a man that he might die as a perfect sacrifice |
| Creator of the universe according to the Father's will | |
| The brightness of the glory of God | Much greater than the angels |
| Image of God | Son of God |
| All powerful | Much greater than Moses |
| Ruler with power and authority |
This is a commonly misunderstood section of Hebrews. If we determine the topic by the count of the words used, the topic would appear to be either faith, not hardening the heart, or perhaps everlasting life, the final rest. When it is understood that the author is answering questions though, we look at the end of the argumentation for each point the author is working toward. Then we see the author spends considerable time laying the background for his point. He does this by quoting verses, which is exactly what he has been doing so far, so that's no surprise.
The author was talking about who Moses is compared to Jesus and about holding the confidence of the gospel. He takes a small break from that to go into this topic. He does this by pivoting on Moses to talk about Moses and the faithless Israelites in the wilderness. Then he works toward his point from there.
The question he appears to be answering would be something like "Why do we continue to observe the Sabbath?" Because the author goes back to first principles to begin his argument, I think the question was more like "Why do we continue to observe the Sabbath when circumcision is no longer required? Shouldn't it be both or neither?"
The key to understanding this section, then, is understanding the final point. Unfortunately that point has been masked in most translations by the use of the Greek word Sabbatismos in Hebrews 4:9. I will not deal with that in detail here, but instead will refer you to another document I've done called "Sabbatismos 5 Ways."
Most translations translate Sabbatismos as "a Sabbath rest," a phrase that does not appear elsewhere in the Bible and is therefore without meaning and is open to interpretation. Why is this phrase used? It's because a correct translation results in a verse that Christendom doesn't want to hear – a verse that cuts in a way that they have rejected.
So there remains a keeping of the Sabbath for the people of God. (Hebrews 4:9)
There are only a few translations that translate it this way.
The previous verse (3:6) ended, "we are his house, if we will hold the confidence and the pride of his Gospel until the end." The author starts with "confidence" here and will roll that into "faith" in a series of steps. He seems to be pointing out the faithlessness the Hebrews have been showing through the questions he is answering.
Because the author spends a lot of time getting to his point, it's easy to lose the flow of his argument in the pile of words. Here is that flow.
The Sabbath is not just an observance, done mechanically once a week. It is an act of faith. A man who truly trusts in God can cease the work that keeps him and his family clothed and fed.
The idea that Sabbath observance is an act of faith is largely lost on us in our time. Living in a wealthy country where the possibility of going without food or clothing is practically 0, it's hard to imagine. Also, legislated days off have made resting for at least one day a week a normal thing and not an expression of faith.
Throughout Bible times though, destitution was a real possibility and was usually resolved by selling oneself into slavery. There were no government social programs then. For a farmer of that time, faith might mean giving up a perfectly good harvest day with the chance that it will rain on the next day and destroy the crop.
Having seen the main point of this section, we'll go back to the start of the section and work through it.
7 Because the Spirit of Holiness said, "Today, if you will hear his voice, 8 do not harden your hearts to anger him, like the rebellious, and as the day of temptation in the wilderness 9 when your fathers tempted me and they proved and saw my works 40 years."
The author is quoting from a psalm by David - no surprise.
For he is our God and we are the people of his pasture, the flock under his care. Today, if only you would hear his voice, 8 "Do not harden your hearts as you did at Meribah, as you did that day at Massah in the wilderness" (Psalm 95:7-8)
Translations aren't great here. When directly translated from Hebrew, it says, "In Meribah in the day of Massah." That isn't useful in English, so Meribah, the name of the place, which means "provocation", is sometimes translated as provocation. Massah means temptation.
Meribah was the place where Moses struck the rock and brought water out for Israel. He named the place "Massah" (Temptation) & "Meribah" (Provocation).
Also, the author uses a figure of speech here that will be used again later - "today". In it he expresses a concept that is important to understand. He uses "today" in an eternal sense, which is also the intent of the Holy Spirit through David in that psalm.
We don't use "today" that way in English, but we use "tomorrow" in a similar way, as a day that never comes. Here, "today" is used as the day that is always here. Therefore "today" means "everyday" or "any day". So the verse might say "On any day, if you will hear his voice …". Thus it presents an open-ended invitation.
The point the author is making by quoting these verses is the consequence of a lack of faith. Because the Israelites had no faith that God would provide for them, they were continually setting up tests for God, to prove himself to them. Over and over, he proved himself. The incident at Meribah / Massah was one of these, yet they continued in a complete lack of faith. Exodus 17:7 quotes the people as saying, "Is the Lord among us, or not?"
10 "Because of this, I was weary with that generation, and I said, 'That is a people which deceives their heart, and they have not known my ways.' 11 and I swore in my anger, 'They shall not enter my rest.'"
God gave them water from a rock - miraculous; the people still wouldn’t trust him. They kept wanting him to do things to prove they could trust him. God got tired of that.
The consequence of their lack of faith was that they did not enter into God's rest. They also did not enter into the Promised Land, but that is something else. Here God speaks of his rest, that eternal rest. From these verses, we see clearly that the offer of God's rest was available to the Israelites. We also see that it was accessible only by faith.
There are some today who say that the first covenant was a covenant of salvation by works, not salvation by faith, which is the covenant of today. This quote from Hebrews, quoting Psalms, referring to Exodus, shows that understanding to be false.
The word "enter" is used repeatedly in this section to describe the transition to God's rest. The author could have described it as ascending to God's rest or as a gift that is given to those with faith. The choice of "enter" is very intentional.
This section deals with the Sabbath, which is a shadow and observance of God's rest. The Sabbath commandment is the fourth commandment. At that time, the letters of the Hebrew alphabet were used as numbers, and the fourth letter is called Dalet and assigned the value 4. Each letter has a meaning; the meaning of Dalet is doorway. The Jews had long seen the Sabbath as a doorway for entry into God's rest. Later in this section, this idea will be seen again as was discussed in the Unmasking section above.
12 Beware therefore, my brethren, lest there be an evil, unfaithful heart in any of you, and you depart from the living God; 13 but inquire of yourselves every day, until the day that is called today, lest anyone of you should be hardened by the deception of sin.
The author now brings the example of the Israelites into his time and into ours by saying "Beware". The lack of faith that kept the Israelites from that promised rest may be in anyone. "Don’t be like those guys," he says as he instructs us to check ourselves on each day that is called today – again that reference to an eternal today.
Sin is deceptive. We don't fall away in one big step. Instead we wander off in little steps that could go unnoticed. The author repeats the need to hold fast until the end that we saw in Hebrews 3:6.
There are some sideline points here worth mentioning. In saying "depart from the living God," we see that it is possible to have faith and be deserving of God's rest and then to lose faith and be lost to God. This verse, along with many we will see later in Hebrews, cause serious problems for the "Once Saved, Always Saved", "Eternal Security", and "Lordship Salvation" crowds.
How do we inquire of ourselves?
14 For we have been joined with the Messiah, if we shall hold fast to this true Covenant from the beginning to the end, 15 just as it was said, "Today, if you will hear his voice, do not harden your hearts to anger him."
Again the author makes the point, today (eternal today), do not harden your hearts and thus turn away from him.
This is another problem verse for "Eternal Security" because in saying "if" it applies a condition on entering God's rest. That condition is to hold fast (hold tight, cling) to the covenant and not only to hold fast at the start but to hold tight from beginning to end.
16 For who were those who heard and angered him? Was it not all of these who went out from Egypt by Moses? 17 And with whom was he wearied 40 years, but with them who sinned and whose bones fell in the wilderness? 18 And concerning whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but those who were unconvinced? 19 And we see that they could not enter, because they did not believe.
Who wearied him? Those who sinned because they were unconvinced, because they did not believe. That generation’s lack of faith became bones in the desert. We see the first two steps to faith here. The word "confidence", which is convinced, has become "believe."
Again the author brings back the example of the Israelites to say, if it happened to them, it can happen to you. In this review, he reminds the audience how the might of God brought them out of Egypt, how the plagues were brought upon Egypt to secure their freedom, how the waters were parted to provide an escape, and how the cloud and the fire led them. Despite all these works, the Israelites could not keep their faith in God. Therefore they could not – enter – into God's rest.
It's a mystery to me why the person who broke the book of Hebrews into chapters chose this point for a new chapter, but here we are. The author of Hebrews continues with his argument for staying true to the covenant as a requirement for entering into God's rest
1 Let us fear, therefore, lest, while the promise of entering into his rest stands, any of you should be found to come short of entering. 2 For we also were evangelized as they were, but the word did not benefit those who heard, because it was not joined with faith by those who heard it.
The author directs us to inspect ourselves for as long as the promise of a future rest exists. That promise exists at least until the Second Coming. Salvation by faith comes to an end at that point, but it seems like another path becomes available then. If so, the promise remains until judgment day.
The author is very focused on applying this teaching to his readers, including us. He says, they heard the word, as we have, but it did not benefit them. There are many people in our time who are like them.
We've completed the literary transition to faith. The word "confidence", which is convinced, had become "believe," which has now become "faith".
But what was the rest they could not enter? Was it the land?
3 But we who believe enter into rest, but just as he said, "As I swore in my anger, they shall not enter my rest." For behold, the works of God have existed from the foundation of the world, 4 according to what he said about the Sabbath: "God rested on the seventh day from all his works."
This is the hard way to say, "my rest" refers to the rest God took after creation. God rested on the 7th day.
Having finished stating and restating the necessity of faith to entering into God's rest, the author moves on to talk about that rest. Here he states that God finished his works at the beginning of creation and rested on the seventh / Sabbath day (Genesis 2:2). Unlike the 6 days of creation prior to that day, this one is not given the ending, "and there was evening, and there was morning." It did not end, and that rest has existed since then. It is the rest that we who believe will enter into.
5 And here again he said: "They shall not enter my rest."
The author brings his earlier point forward again to combine it with the point he just made about God's rest existing from the beginning.
6 Because, therefore, there has been an opportunity for each person to enter and those who were first evangelized did not enter, in that they were not persuaded, 7 again he appointed another day, after much time, just as it is written above that David said, "Today, if you listen to his voice, do not harden your hearts."
The author presents this "entering" as both a present opportunity and a future finality. I believe he is hinting at what he will say later about Sabbath observance. Keeping the Sabbath is our present opportunity to enter into God's rest. By doing so, we bring the experience of that rest into our lives.
We see the word "persuaded" here. This is part of the chain of words that leads to faith that we mentioned, but this one goes on the front. By being persuaded, you become convinced.
The author says that there has been an opportunity (and will be an opportunity) for everyone to enter.
8 For if Yeshua, son of Nun, had given them rest, he would not afterward have spoken of another day.
Although spelled the same, this Yeshua is not Jesus, but Joshua, who led the Israelites into the Promised Land. The author names Joshua's father to make it clear which Yeshua he is speaking about.
The point here is that the Israelites did not enter into God's rest when they entered into the Promised Land. By that time, the faithless generation that left Egypt had died off, and it was a new generation that entered. So some people could have thought the Promised Land was that rest.
He says we can know this because, much later on, in David's time, God again mentioned that there was still a day of rest available to those who would listen to him today (eternal today). Therefore God's rest is still available, even in our time.
9 So then, it remains for the people of God to keep the Sabbath.
By saying "so then," we see the author has now come to the point of this section. He could have said the same thing by "In summary", "after all that", or "finally". This verse and the point of this section are covered in the document referenced above, so only a short description will be given here.
The author's point is that, because God's rest is still available to all people, it is still necessary for God's people to observe the Sabbath, which is the shadow and remembrance of God's rest.
10 For whoever enters his rest has rested from his works as God has from his own.
Because of their understanding of the Old Covenant, the author's audience would have recognized "whoever … has rested from his works" as a reference to Sabbath observance. Most Christians of our time do not recognize it and thus make horrible interpretation errors.
The big picture of this section is that, just as God rested from his works, God's people are to observe the Sabbath, and by that rest they demonstrate their faith in God, by which they will enter into God's rest. The author uses the word "rest" to show the parallel between God's rest and Sabbath observance which is, we rested from our works - God rested from his works.
Sabbath observance is not God's rest however; it is a commemoration of God's rest and therefore repeated, as commemorations are, though God rested only once. Therefore the author frames it differently in this verse. He speaks from the time perspective of those who are entering God's rest and says of them that they have rested in the past from their works (Sabbath observance) as God rested in the past from his works.
Most Christians will fight against this interpretation, but the intended audience, with its deep roots in the Old Covenant, would not have understood it in any other way.
Christian interpretations fight against it by twisting this verse in many ways. For example, some ignore the past tense (aorist indicative active) of "has rested" and treat it like future tense. That way it can become a rest that will be received when we enter God's rest.
Below is the interlinear for that verse. The verb "rested" is plainly AIA, which in English is Past Tense.
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/hebrews/4-10.htm
For another example, some interpreters recognize the past tense and say that the works referred to are sinful works we had done, so we rest from those. That makes no sense gramatically or theologically. No one "rests" from doing evil; they stop doing evil … or they don't. We are not to take a break from doing evil; we are to cease from doing evil. Theologically, this interpretation runs into the parallel the author has setup.
[We] rested from our works, as God rested from his works
If we rested from our evil works, did God also rest from his evil works? No, of course not.
I have catalogued 14 different interpretations of this passage that I have found on the internet. No one seems happy with the other guy's interpretation and feels the need to make up his own. That says a lot about what is going on.
11 Let us take pains, therefore, to enter that rest, lest we fall in the manner of those who were not persuaded.
The author echoes his earlier statements of "enquire of yourselves," and "hold fast" by saying "take pains". He would not mean that we can work to have faith. Instead he means that we need to watch to make sure our faith does not wander off.
There is a subtlety here to what the author is saying. He was just talking about the parallel between God resting from his works and us resting from our works. Now here he says, "take pains to enter that rest." Which rest is he referring to? The answer is both. Again he shows the link between them.
There may be even more to what the author, and of course the Holy Spirit, is saying in this verse. It may be a warning to the Hebrews. It may be that the author has seen in their questions generally a faith problem. Specifically their questioning of Sabbath observance may have concerned the author. Perhaps he expected to find them at a higher level, but their questions are now really expressions of doubt.
This brings to mind Paul's response to faithless questioning.
The righteousness which is in faith says thus: "You shall not say in your heart, 'Who ascended to Heaven and sent down the Messiah? 7 And who went down to the Abyss of Sheol and brought up the Messiah from among the dead?'" 8 But what does it say? "The answer is near your mouth and your heart." This is the word of the faith that we preach. (Romans 10:6-8)
Faithless questioning is not stopped by answers to the questions. The questions only change. The problem is not the questions, but the heart behind the questions.
12 For the word of God is living and all-efficient, and much sharper than a double edged sword, and it pierces to the separation of soul and spirit and of joints, marrow and of bones, and judges the reasoning and conscience of the heart. 13 And there is no created thing hidden from before him, but everything is naked and open before the eyes of him to whom we give an account.
This verse is generally treated as though it is disconnected from the earlier verses, as though it stood alone as a general statement about the faith. It is actually an important point in his argument.
In verse 9, he said it is necessary for God's people to keep the Sabbath. But we know from the Israelites that the Sabbath can be kept as an act of faith done from the heart, which is what God wants, or it can be kept as a matter of ritual, an obligation, or from other motivations. The author's point in this verse, which goes back to "take pains" is that God knows why we do the things we do, including observing the Sabbath.
He also speaks of the "word of God" in verse 12, but in verse 13, we see the author refer back to the word of God as "him". So we know that verse 12 is not referring to the words of God, but the Word of God as we see it in John 1:1.
The author has presented a lengthy argument here. The argument flow that I presented earlier is also the summary for this section.
The author of Hebrews now returns to his earlier discussion, where he had previously finished by describing Jesus as our High Priest. His audience would have been very familiar with the Aaronic Priesthood and would have known that Jesus was not from Aaron and did not and could not have served as a priest in the temple.
Here the author will extend the idea of Jesus being a High Priest by showing through the prophecies of David that the Messiah would be a priest from a different line.
The question he appears to be answering here is, "How could Jesus be a High Priest, and if he was, why did he not serve in the temple?"
14 Because we have therefore a great High Priest, Yeshua the Messiah, the Son of God, who has ascended to Heaven, let us hold fast to his confession.
The author uses this verse to segue from the previous section, where he frequently urged the reader with words like "hold fast" and "from beginning to end". He ties that to the High Priest discussion by saying, "with such a High Priest we should cling to his every word".
The author says Jesus is:
- Great High Priest
- Messiah
- Son of God
- Ascended to Heaven
So who else are you going to hold on to?
15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot suffer with our weaknesses, but one who was tempted in all things like we are, apart from sin. 16 Let us come therefore publicly to the throne of his grace to receive mercy, and we shall find grace to help in a time of suffering.
He says of this High Priest that he lived as one of us and understands our weaknesses, and he suffers in empathy with us when we are tempted. He too had those same weaknesses and was tempted. The important difference between him and us is that he did not sin. Because we have this in common with our High Priest, we can depend on his grace and receive mercy and help when we suffer from our weaknesses.
The author says "Publicly." What does it mean? Why is it here? I'm not sure.
1 For every High Priest of the children of men was appointed for the sake of men over the things that are of God, to present offerings and sacrifices for the sake of sin, 2 who can humble himself and suffer with those who are ignorant and erring because he is also clothed with weakness, 3 And he owes a debt for his own sake, that as for the people, in this way also for his own sake, he will make an offering for his sins.
The author says that Jesus is like the Aaronic High Priests in that they:
The author just spoke about Jesus as a High Priest. Now he begins a contrast between him and the men who were High Priests. He refers to the High Priest only and not the other priests. The High Priest delegated his duties to the other priests, and He oversaw their work, so speaking of him includes them. But he did have special duties that only he could perform. For example: on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year, he could enter the Holy of Holies. These duties will be the focus of this section of Hebrews.
On that day the High Priest would strip himself of the special garments he normally wore. In doing so, he became just like the other priests. He would make special sacrifices and offerings that were done only on that day. Then he would take some of that blood into the Holy of Holies and sprinkle it on the Ark of the Covenant. He would also offer burnt incense. This was the only day on which he could enter the Holy of Holies.
Everything that occurred on Yom Kippur has symbolic meaning that refers to various aspects of the mission and person of the Messiah, Jesus. The author is going to refer to these over and over and base his arguments on them, so it's important to understand them. At the time of Jesus, very little of these symbolic meanings was understood.
As the author says in verse 1, the High Priest was chosen for this role to benefit mankind by making offerings and sacrifices for sin. In this role he was in charge of the articles that had been consecrated and made holy by the sprinkling of blood. He was also in charge of performing the services correctly.
The High Priest, in stripping himself of his special clothing, humbled himself and clothed himself in weakness. Being a man, he was able to suffer with those who suffered in their weakness.
All of this parallels what Jesus was and did. He stripped himself of his glory that he might be like other men. "But he stripped himself and took the form of a servant and was in the form of the children of men, and was found in fashion as a man" (Philippians 2:7). He is in charge of the things of God in the temple in Heaven. He makes sacrifices for sin, and so on.
That's where the parallel ends though. The High Priest also made an offering for his own sins because he was the same as the people he served, a man like any other man. If he sinned, he also had to make an offering / sacrifice
4 And it was not for himself that a man took the honor, but he who was called by God, just as Aaron.
The High Priest did not take this role to benefit himself or as a career move. Instead he was chosen by God. The parallel with Jesus applies here as well, as he was also chosen by God for his role.
5 So neither did the Messiah glorify his soul to be High Priest, but he who said to him, "You are my son; today I have begotten you", 6 as he said in another place, "You are a priest for eternity in the image of Melchizedek."
The author quotes first from Psalm 2:7 and then Psalm 110:4. These verses provide the prophetic words that show Jesus did not come as the Messiah to glorify himself. He too was chosen by God and declared to be a priest, but a priest from a different line than the sons of Aaron.
The author refers to Melchizedek. The only event involving Melchizedek is short (Genesis 14:18-20), seemingly unimportant, and gets very little mention. However, it is very significant.
Abram and his people are returning from a battle where they retrieved property and people stolen from them and also plunder. As they return, they meet a person.
Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, 19 and he blessed Abram, saying, "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, creator of heaven and earth. 20 And praise be to God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand." Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything. (Genesis 14:18-20)
That’s it, the only reference to Melchizedek as a living person.
We have to ask, why is this text in the Bible? The answer is that it shows that there was a priesthood of God prior to Aaron. God was choosing priests 400 years before Aaron, perhaps before that.
With Jesus being a priest in that order, you would expect parallels between Melchizedek and Jesus. They are clear, bread and wine, king and priest, Salem (Jeru-salem). Some have suggested that Melchizedek really was Jesus / the Son of God but the Bible does not say that.
Melchizedek is mentioned twice more in the Bible, and these are the verses the author of Hebrews quotes.
The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek." (Psalm 110:4)
Some translations say "image of Melchizedek," "pattern of Melchizedek," or "like Melchizedek." There's no real difference. It means: "You are a priest forever in the same way that Melchizedek was a priest."
The author of Hebrews says this verse is about Yeshua, that he would be a priest and a priest forever because he cannot die.
Melchizedek's name is interesting. Melki-Zedek means "king of righteousness." This also ties in to Jesus.
Judaism has come to see Melchizedek in a completely different light. I suspect this is because of what the author of Hebrews has been saying here - Jesus was a priest of God, but in a different order. The Jews weren't accepting that. So the Jewish translation is completely different.
You are a priest forever because of the speech of Melchizedek.
Without Biblical support, the Jews have fabricated a story about Melchizedek. They say he was actually Shem, the son of Noah. He was not a good man because, in blessing Abram before he blessed God, he sinned. Therefore the title of priest was taken from him. Later it was given to Aaron when Aaron became the first High Priest. They believe David is saying Aaron became a priest (500 years later) because of what Melchizedek said. So they see Melchizedek as a failed priest in the only line of priests that God ever had. Do with that what you will.
7 While also he was clothed in the flesh, he offered prayers, supplications, strong shouting and tears to him who was able to give him life from death, and he was obeyed.
8 And although he is the son, he learned obedience by the fear and the suffering which he endured; 9 and in this way he was perfected and became the cause of eternal life to all those who obey him. 10 And he was named the High Priest by God, in the image of Melchizedek.
The author uses three variations of "obey" in these verses.
The author also continues to show the extent of the parallels between Jesus and the High Priests, who were men. Here he says that Jesus offered up "prayers, supplications, strong shouting, and tears." The author doesn't say it here specifically but these are a parallel to the smoke from the incense the High Priest offered. Jesus prayed many times, but the particular offering referred to here is when Jesus prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane immediately before he was captured, tried, and sacrificed.
Jesus, being the Son of God, could only die if he allowed himself to die. He who had healed the sick, raised the dead and walked through a crowd trying to throw him off a cliff could have avoided the cross, stepped down from it, or even refused to die. Instead, as instructed by his father, he submitted himself to death, the horrible death of crucifixion.
Having lived a perfect life, there was only one more thing he needed to do to be perfect – give up that life. Thus he became the source of eternal life for believers and was made the High Priest of the priesthood that included Melchizedek.
This section is not an answer to a question. Instead the author takes a moment to admonish his Hebrew readers for their lack of progress and closes with some words of encouragement for them.
11 But about this Melchizedek we have much to say, but it is hard to explain it because you have bad hearing.
What the author says here we might say as "I'd like to tell you more about Melchizedek, but you don't understand the words that are coming out of my mouth." Thus he shows his frustration that their questions reflect a lack of knowledge about spiritual matters he taught them previously. They have bad "spiritual" hearing
12 For you ought to be teachers, because of the time you have had in the doctrine, but now, again, you need to learn those things which are the primer letters of the first words of God, and you have need of milk and not of solid food. 13 But every person whose food is milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, because he is an infant. 14 But solid food is for the mature, those whose senses are instructed to distinguish good and evil, because they practice.
The author continues to tear into them. He says they should be teaching the word of God, but instead they are still trying to learn the first letters of the first words. Ouch! He says they need milk, then says that those who need milk are "unacquainted with the word of righteousness." Then he sums up what may be the problem: they don't practice what they were taught. Double ouch! I've had some failures in my life but none of them will be read about for the next 2000 years.
1 Because of this, let us leave the beginning of the message of the Messiah, and let us go on to perfection; or are you laying again another foundation for conversion from dead works and for faith in God, 2 for the teaching of baptism, the laying on of hands, for the resurrection from among the dead, and for eternal judgment?
3 We shall do this if the Lord Yahweh permits.
The author had been talking about how Jesus was perfected by his endurance through the obedience to death that he showed. Now he announces that he is going to continue on that topic. Then he takes another swing at them by implying that they have been trying to create a different foundation for all the basic tenets of Christianity. He must be commenting on the confusion expressed in their questions.
I think it is correct to say that he is saying the foundation of all these tenets is Jesus' perfection by his endurance through his obedience to death.
The author now begins a preview of a topic that he will cover in detail in chapter 10.
4 But those who have descended once to baptism and tasted the gift from Heaven and received the Spirit of Holiness, 5 and tasted the good word of God and the power of the future world, 6 who would sin again and again crucify the Son of God, and become contemptible, cannot be renewed to conversion.
The author says, "Would sin." By "would," he means by "will" or "with intent / knowledge."
The author does not mean that, if we sin once, that is unforgivable, and we have lost our hope of everlasting life. If that were the case there would be very few who would make it, perhaps none.
Instead his message is that if you sin by your will, i.e., intentionally, then God's grace no longer covers. We are out of the kingdom, but we can get back in. True repentance is required to begin a new conversion. This topic will come up again in more detail in Hebrews 10, where a more detailed analysis is done.
The author talks about crucifying Jesus. There were two kinds of people at Jesus’ execution. Those who believed in him and those who were crucifying him. So the author is saying that to willfully, knowingly sin is to reject him, which is to crucify him, which makes a person contemptible to God.
This idea that some sins we commit are immediately forgiven upon recognition of them, but others require repentance, is quite biblical.
If a man sees his brother who sins a sin that is not worthy of death, let him ask, and life will be given to him for those who are not sinning unto death; for there is mortal sin; I do not say that a man should pray for this. 17 For every evil is sin, and there is sin that is not mortal. (1 John 5:16-17)
I have done a study that goes into this idea in great detail. It is called "How Many Strikes Until You Are Out?"
The interesting thing to note here is the context. He hasn't finished admonishing the intended audience. That doesn't come until verse 9. Therefore this comment has to be seen as part of the rebuke and directed at them. This has to be seen then as a serious warning that they are in danger of drifting away.
This ties in with everything he has said so far about keeping the faith.
7 But the Earth that drinks rain that comes to it often, and makes vegetation grow that is useful for those for whom it is cultivated, receives blessing from God. 8 But if it should produce thorns and thistles, it would be rejected and not far from curses, but its end is burning.
The author is saying:
Here the author uses a metaphor to tell them the end result of intentional sin that is un-repented – fire. He also says that, if they grow and produce good works, they will instead receive blessings. His audience, with their background in the Old Covenant, cannot miss the implication in his use of the words "blessings" and "curses". This is a reference back to Deuteronomy when Moses warns the Israelites about blessings and curses.
In that message, Moses uses two mountains to represent the two options they must choose between.
See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse: 27 the blessing, if you listen to the commandments of the Lord your God, which I am commanding you today; 28 and the curse, if you do not listen to the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn aside from the way which I am commanding you today, by following other gods which you have not known" (Deuteronomy 11:26-28).
His point to them is that they are at a place where they must choose which way they will go.
9 But we are persuaded concerning you, my brethren, those things that are excellent and that accompany life, even though we speak in this way. 10 For God is not evil, that he would disregard your works and your love which you have shown in his name, which you have ministered to the saints, and you do minister.
Verse 9 may appear not to be a sentence. That's because it isn't. It's actually a clause on the very complicated previous sentence. It makes more sense when simplified this way: "But if it should produce thorns and thistles, it would be rejected […] but we see in you, things that are excellent." Yeah it's still a tough read. Think of it this way, "But we are persuaded concerning you, my brethren, [that you produce] those things that are excellent."
Even though they have weakened in faith, they have continued to show love and have helped the apostles, and still do.
The good news is that the author has refrained from picking on the intended audience. By "even though we speak this way," he is saying "even though we've been hard on you here." The author and those with him stabilize the Hebrews by saying they are convinced that the Hebrews are yielding the good fruit that accompanies eternal life.
The author assures them that God will not ignore the good works and love they have done and continue to do in his name.
11 But we desire that each one of you have this diligence for the perfection of your hope until the end, 12 and that you should not lose heart, but that you would be imitators of those who by faith and patience have become heirs of the promise.
In essence, the author is saying he has only said these words to instill in them a diligence that will last until the end. He does not want them to become discouraged but to be like those who have been patient and died in faith, confirming them for the resurrection and eternal life.
The author segues into his next topic by pivoting on the word "promise" from the previous verse. His point is going to be that, if we are patient, we will receive that promise, because God does not lie.
13 For when God made a promise to Abraham, because there was no greater than he by whom to swear, he swore by himself, 14 and he said, "Blessing, I shall bless you, and multiplying, I shall multiply you."
The author quotes from Genesis 22:17. First though he makes a reference to verse 16, but does not quote it, where God, through an angel, says "By Myself I have sworn". The author will explain in the next verse why God must swear an oath by himself.
By swearing this oath, God says both that he is God and that it is God making this oath, and he assures Abraham that the oath will be fulfilled.
The "blessing" / "bless" and "multiplying" / "multiply" phrase is the way God emphasizes the greatness of the promise, blessings upon blessings, offspring upon offspring.
15 And in this way he was patient and received the promise. 16 For among men, they swear by that which is greater than they, and concerning every dispute which they have had among them, a sure end of it has come by an oath.
In our society, people don't swear oaths much anymore. About the only time we do that is in legal matters, particularly for loans. Another place where this is still done is the courtroom, where a person might place his hand on a Bible and say, "I swear to tell the truth." These are compelled oaths - oaths you must take in order to get what you want.
There was a time when people would voluntarily swear an oath. They might say something like, "As God is my witness, I will not let this continue." Or they might swear by something important to them, like their "mother’s grave." This is the kind of oath that the author is talking about here. The purpose of the oath is to bind yourself to something greater or more important than you, for the purpose of showing your sincerity to do what you say you will do. There is a great example in the Bible.
So Jezebel sent a messenger to Elijah to say, "May the gods deal with me, be it ever so severely, if by this time tomorrow I do not make your life like that of one of them." (1 Kings 19:2)
The author says the assurance of this promise was enough that Abraham believed and was secure enough in it that he was able to be patient and wait for its fulfillment.
The author also explains why Abraham was able to accept the promise and be patient. He says men swear by something greater than themselves to show the sincerity of what they say. Such an oath is enough to assure other men. The author's point is that it is no different with this promise that God has made, except that God could only swear by himself.
17 Because of this, God was all the more willing to show the heirs of the promise that his promise would not change, and he bound it with an oath, 18 that by two unchangeable matters, because God cannot lie about them, we who have sought refuge in him have great comfort, and we may seize the hope which was promised to us, 19 which we have as an anchor that holds fast in our soul, which will not be moved, and has entered inside the veil, 20 where Yeshua entered before for our sake and has become the priest for eternity in the image of Melchizedek.
This is another long sentence that is full of content.
The author says men felt it was valuable to swear such oaths by something greater. It gives them assurance and therefore patience. Thus God was willing to bind his promise with an oath. This was done to show those who would receive the promise that the promise was secure and would not change.
There is some uncertainty about the "two unchangeable matters." It is commonly accepted that these two matters refer to the promise and the oath. We know God cannot lie, says the author, therefore the promise and the oath are secure. Therefore like the people who are comforted by the oath of a man, those whose faith is in God are comforted by the oath of God. We are thus able to hold on to the hope of the promise.
Was God’s promise alone not sufficient? It was sufficient. The author says God cannot lie about either of these. So, why? The reason seems to be based on a Biblical concept, "the truth is established with 2 or 3 witnesses." So God provided a second "witness," so we would have "great comfort" … sufficient to seize the promised hope
The author continues on to say that this hope that we have, which we have been promised, keeps us from drifting just as an anchor keeps a ship from drifting.
The author begins talking about an anchor. The purpose of an anchor is to keep a boat from drifting away by holding to the sea floor. The author is speaking of spiritual drifting away, and the spiritual anchor is the hope we have in that oath and promise.
Now the author goes deep into Judaism. He says the anchor has entered inside the veil. The "veil" he is referring to is the thick curtain into the Holy of Holies in the temple. Now, remember that the earthly temple was a physical copy of the heavenly temple. The men who were High Priests could only enter inside the physical veil once … a year. Jesus, the Great High Priest, entered the heavenly veil once.
Remember now that the promise was eternal life through Jesus for those who believe. Therefore, the anchor is Jesus, who is already inside the veil. Therefore he is the anchor to which your boat is tied, and that anchor will not move.
This is different from men who were High Priests. One day a year, the High Priest would enter there bringing the blood of animals to sprinkle on the Ark of the Covenant. But God has struck down priests in the past, so there was a concern among the priests that the High Priest would be struck down while in there, and no one could enter to drag his body out without also being struck down. Therefore, with only human reasoning and without Biblical support, they decided that the High Priest would have a rope tied around his leg when he went inside the veil so they could drag his body out, if need be.
In case you might think that you should emulate God and begin making oaths … don't. Jesus said not to, saying, "let your 'Yes' be yes and your 'no' be no." His reason for this is that we do not know the future as God does. Therefore our oaths could become lies.
And here comes Melchizedek again.
All of Chapter 7 is about Melchizedek. The author had said he had much to say about Melchizedek. Here it comes. This is the third section in Hebrews that mentions Melchizedek. His name appears only 2 times in the Old Testament, and no place in the New Testament other than Hebrews, where it appears 9 times.
Why spend so much time on Melchizedek? Melchizedek was nothing until King David prophesied about him. Then he became a key element of what would be Christianity. He is plainly important, and we saw why earlier. He is the evidence that there was a non-Aaronic priesthood, making it possible for Jesus to be a priest.
Why is it so important for Jesus to be a priest? The physical temple was a model of the heavenly temple. The physical temple had a High Priest who had a critical role in atonement for sin; he made atonement happen. He was the mediator between man and god.
We'll see that the author's argument here is based on three OT verses, which he uses over and over.
This chapter is going to have a lot of Judaism in it and will be hard to follow. Here is a preview of the concepts it will discuss.
1 This Melchizedek is the King of Shalim, priest of the most high God, and he met Abraham when he returned from the massacre of Kings and blessed him. 2 And Abraham distributed to him a tenth of everything that he had with him; but his name is interpreted, "King of Righteousness" and again "King of Shalim", which is "King of Peace",
The author is pointing out how Melchizedek is a pattern (type) of the Son of God. He was also the "King of Righteousness" and the "King of Peace." "Shalim" is translated "Salem" in the Greek & English Bibles; Salem is ancient Jerusalem.
3 Without his father and his mother being written in the genealogies, neither having beginning of his days nor end of his life, but in the likeness of the son of God, his priesthood remains for eternity.
Genealogy was very important to the Jews. They kept genealogical records of every person's birth and death, parents, and children. This is why Luke is able to trace Jesus' lineage back to Adam (Luke 3:23). For the descendants of Aaron, their authority to serve as priests came from those records.
The author's point is that Melchizedek does not appear in those records, and nothing is known of his history or genealogy. This is very odd. Still, he existed and was a priest of God, and his priesthood remains as a type. The Word, who became Jesus, is the fulfilment of that type. The Word had no beginning or end, nor any genealogy.
Some people ask if the author is saying that Melchizedek was never born and never died and therefore must have been God, likely the Word who would become Jesus. I don't believe that is the author's intent. His point seems to be limited to Melchizedek being like Jesus.
4 But how much greater is this one than the man Abraham, chief of the fathers, to whom he gave the tithe of the best? 5 For those of the sons of Levi who received priesthood had a commandment of the written law to take a tenth part from those people of their brethren, as also they had come forth from the loins of Abraham.
The author begins giving reasons why Melchizedek was greater than Abraham. Because Abraham was the father of the Levitical (Aaronic) priests, this means Melchizedek was a greater priest than they.
The Levitical priests got their authority from the law (genealogy), which entitled them to "take" tithes from their brothers. Melchizedek got his authority from God.
6 But this man who is not written in their genealogies received the tithe from Abraham and blessed him who had received the promise. 7 But without dispute, he who is lesser is blessed by him who is greater than he.
Abraham freely offered a tithe to Melchizedek, not because there was a law that required it, but because Abraham recognized him as being greater.
This is how tithing works. The one who is lesser gives tithe to the one who is greater. A brother would not give tithe to a brother except for a law. The brothers of the sons of Levi would not have given a title to the sons of Levi, except that there was a law requiring it.
8 And here the children of men who die receive tithes, but there, he about whom the Scriptures testify that he lives.
In Israel, men receive tithes and eventually die
In Heaven, the Son of God but still lives.
This is a broken parallel. Part that we would expect to be there is not there - something about the Son and tithes. In other parallels, the author is not sloppy with them, meaning he doesn't expect the reader to fill in the blanks. Therefore we have to accept that the omission is intentional.
The omission is also theologically valid. Tithes were given to the Aaronic priests by law to sustain them. In Christianity, there are no priests, despite what some churches say. We are, as the Bible says, priests over our own temples. Therefore, anything given to support a church must be given by free will and from love, not from compulsion. As Paul says:
Every man according to what he is in his mind and not according to grief or of compulsion, for God loves the joyful giver. (2 Corinthians 9:7)
9 And as a man, let us say about him that by Abraham, Levi, who receives tithes, was caused to tithe. 10 For he was yet in the loins of his father when he met Melchizedek.
The author says something very strange. Levi was caused to tithe to Melchizedek. But Abraham and Levi were 3 generations apart and never met. The author doesn't help much by saying that Levi was still in Abraham's loins. How then did Levi tithe to Melchizedek?
I believe the right answer here is this. If your father, even your great-great-grandfather, gives a tithe to someone, you get less inheritance, even if you have not been born yet. In a sense, he gave that tithe, but he gave it through Abraham, as the author says.
The point here is: Levi, though greater than some, is less than Melchizedek. You can imagine how the Jews of that time would not appreciate this insight.
11 If perfection therefore is by priesthood of Levi, (for by it the written law was established to the people), why was another priest needed to arise in the image of Melchizedek? But does it say that he would be in the image of Aaron?
The author says the written law was taught by the Levitical Priests. They also adjudicated decisions about the law and performed the sacrifices. Then he asks if this made the people perfect, why did David say another priest was coming? Why wasn't it sufficient for him to be a Levitical priest? All of this shows the law could not perfect people.
12 But just as there was a change in the priesthood, in this way there was also a change in the law. 13 For he about whom these things were said was born from another tribe, from which a man never ministered at the altar.
David's prophecy showed there was going to be a change in the priesthood. Along with that, there had to be a change in the law because the law said only the tribe of Levi could be priests. Yeshua, about whom we are speaking, was not from the tribe of Levi. No one from Yeshua’s tribe ever assisted with animal sacrifices.
14 For it is revealed that our Lord arose from Judah, about which tribe Moses never said anything concerning priesthood. 15 And moreover, again, it is apparent by this that he said that another priest arises in the image of Melchizedek, 16 He who was not by the law of carnal commandments, but by the power of an indestructible life.
The parents of Yeshua were both from the tribe of Judah, so he certainly was. Not only did Moses not give any role in the priesthood to the tribe of Judah, but he also specifically excluded all of the tribes except Levi. Therefore Jesus had no connection to the priesthood.
But David said another priest would come, one like Melchizedek. From this, he says, we see that Jesus was not made a priest by the law and its commandments for the flesh. Instead he became a priest because the life that he lived was worthy of it.
17 For he testified about him, "You are the priest for eternity in the image of Melchizedek." 18 But there was a change in the first testament because of its impotence, and there was no benefit in it. 19 For the Written Law perfects nothing, but hope, which is greater than it, entered in its place, by which we approach God.
The author says the first testament (Old Covenant) was impotent. The Old Testament could not make a person better. It could only say when a person had done wrong. Paul talks about this in detail in Romans. A person's conscience could become seared (numb) by repeated sin, and the law could not cause guilt and could not do anything about that searing.
The author uses the word "hope" to refer to the New Covenant. He spoke earlier about that hope in the Messiah and the promises he gave, including the giving of the Holy Spirit. By this we approach God, he says, where previously only the High Priest could approach God.
20 And he confirmed it to us by an oath. 21 For they were priests without an oath, but this one, with an oath, as he said to him by David: "Lord Yahweh has sworn and will not lie, that you are the priest for eternity in the image of Melchizedek."
Yeshua’s priesthood was confirmed by God through a prophecy through David, giving an oath, a rare event. The Aaronic priests were not made priests by such a sworn oath.
22 This Covenant, of which Yeshua is the guarantor, is entirely better.
Throughout what we have seen above, the author has been showing the many ways in which Jesus is a better High Priest and the Covenant he created is a better covenant. Here he sums that up … but then he continues on.
23 And there were many Priests because they were dying and were not permitted to continue. 24 But this one's priesthood, because he is eternal, does not pass away. 25 And he can give life for eternity to those who come near to God by him, for he lives always and offers prayers for our sakes.
Another flaw in the Aaronic Priests, says the author, is that they are men and therefore they die, grow old, or fail for other reasons. Because of these, there was a time for each priest when he was not permitted to continue to serve as a priest. There was an age limit, but sometimes other things made it impossible to continue to serve at a younger age.
Yeshua has the advantage that he is eternal. Therefore his priesthood does not end. He can give life for eternity (because he is eternal) and he can always offer prayers for us.
26 For because this priest also was right for us: pure, without malice and without defilement, who is separate from sin and exalted higher than Heaven, 27 And he has no compulsion every day as the chief priests to offer sacrifice, first for his sins and then for the people, for this one did it one time by his life which he offered. 28 For the law establishes weak men as priests, but the word of the oath which was after the law, the son, who is perfect for eternity.
Yeshua is flawless, undefiled, holy, and higher. He no desire to do evil, unlike us. He is not compelled to make daily sacrifices for sins as the Aaronic Priests were. These sacrifices were for the sins of others but also for themselves.
The law made them priests, though they were men with all the weaknesses that men have. But the oath that God swore later established the Son as the perfect priest for eternity.
Yeshua sacrificed one time for our sins by sacrificing his life.
1 But the summit of all these things that we have: the High Priest who sits at the right hand of the throne of the majesty in Heaven. 2 And he is the minister of the Holy Place and the true tabernacle, which God set up, and not man.
The author has been saying that the priests of the Old Covenant were limited by their humanity. Now he summarizes what he has said about Jesus as a priest. Jesus is in Heaven, has direct access to God, and has authority. Earlier he raised the topic that the earthly temple was a shadow of the temple that is in Heaven. He'll say that in the next set of verses. Now he says Jesus also ministers in a temple, meaning Jesus has things to do in the temple.
3 For every High Priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices, and because of this, it was right also for this one to have something to offer. 4 And if he were on Earth, he would not be a priest, because there have been priests who have been offering gifts according to what is in the Law, 5 those who serve the form and the shadow of these things that are in Heaven, as it was said to Moses when he made the tabernacle, "See and do everything by the image that appeared to you on the mountain."
One of the things a priest does is to make offerings, so you would expect Jesus to do the same thing. But if Jesus tried to make an offering in the Earthly temple, he would not be allowed to because he would not be a priest there. There is already a priestly order functioning there according to the Old Covenant law, which tells them to do everything the way Moses saw it being done in the Heavenly temple.
6 Now Yeshua the Messiah has received the ministry which is better than that, as the covenant of which he is made the mediator is better, and it is given with better promises than that. 7 For if the first one had been without fault, then there would have been no place for this second one. 8 For he found fault with them, and he said,
The author says Jesus has been given a ministry (temple service function) and that ministry is to be the mediator of his covenant, just as the High Priests were the mediators of the Old Covenant. But Jesus' ministry is better than the ministry of the earthly priests. This is because the mediator of the covenant is better, and the promises of the covenant are better. This ministry was created because the Old Covenant had a flaw in it.
The author is about to quote Jeremiah 31:31-34. His purpose is to show that, back in Jeremiah's time, God said there was a flaw in the Old Covenant and that there was going to be a new covenant.
6 "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord Yahweh, and I will perfect a new covenant for the family of the house of Israel and for the family of the house of Judah. 9 Not like that covenant that I gave to their fathers in the day when I took their hands and brought them from the land of Egypt, because they did not continue in my covenant; I also rejected them, says the Lord Yahweh. 10 But this is the covenant that I shall give to the family of the house of Israel: After those days, says the Lord Yahweh, I shall put my law in their minds and upon their hearts I shall write it, and I shall be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people. 11 And a man will not teach a citizen of his city, neither his brother, and say, ‘Know the Lord Yahweh’, because they shall all know me, from their little ones and unto their elders. 12 And I shall purge them of their evils, and I shall not remember their sins again."
13 In that he said, "New", he has made the first old, and that which is outdated and old is near destruction.
The author makes an interesting point here. He says the Old Covenant became old because of the New Covenant, but though it was old, it was only "near" destruction. It hadn't been destroyed yet. So that leaves us with the questions: when did it become old and when was it destroyed? Most people try to answer this within the timeframe of the author, so they say the Old Covenant became old when the New Covenant came into effect, which was when Jesus died, or maybe when the Spirit was given at Pentecost, or when the temple was destroyed in AD 70. That is not correct.
The author has been quoting Jeremiah, and that's the time frame we should be using. In the verses above, God says, "they did not continue in my covenant, so I rejected them." So the Old Covenant became old when God made this announcement through Jeremiah that there would be a new covenant. But Jeremiah didn't know when the Old Covenant would be destroyed. That would not come for another 600 years. There is some disagreement as to exactly when the Old Covenant was destroyed and what event marked it. Some say it was when Jesus died, when the Spirit was given at Pentecost, or when the temple was destroyed in AD 70.
1 But in the first there was an order of ministry and a worldly sanctuary. 2 For the first tabernacle that was made there had the Menorah and the table of showbread, and it was called the Holy Place. 3 But the inner tabernacle from within the second veil was called the Holy of Holies. 4 And there was in it the golden place of incense and the Ark of the Covenant, all overlaid with gold, and it had a pot of gold in which was manna and the rod of Aaron which budded, and the tablets of the covenant. 5 And above, the cherubim of glory, which shrouded over the mercy seat; but there is no time for us to speak about each one of these things which were thus fashioned.
The author describes part of the earthly temple and some of the objects in the different areas of it. He then implies he could tell us much about all of that, but there was no time. Personally, I wish he had taken the time. I'm sure he would have had wonderful insights, as he already has had about other things. But, of course, it was not the Spirit's will that he would speak of those.
The author also says "first tabernacle." There were two tabernacles, the one that Solomon built according to David's plans, which was destroyed by the Babylonians, and the one that was built by the Jews after they returned from captivity, and which was enlarged by King Herod the Great. That one was destroyed by the Romans while retaking Jerusalem in AD 70 after a Jewish revolt. Why would the author specify the first tabernacle?
The reason is that the second temple / tabernacle never had the Ark of the Covenant in it. The Ark disappeared just before the Babylonians captured Jerusalem. It has not been seen since. There are lots of theories about what happened to it, but no one knows for certain.
So the author lists the things that were in the first temple, including the Ark and its contents, which were not in the second temple.
6 But the priests were always entering the outer tabernacle and performing their ministry, 7 but the High Priest would enter the inner tabernacle once a year by himself with blood, which he was offering in the place of his soul and in the place of the evil doing of the people.
The author speaks again about ministry, this time the ministry that was performed in the earthly temple. He is going to say there is a lesson to be learned from the fact that these priests kept entering the outer tabernacle many times a day and the inner tabernacle annually.
8 But by this the Spirit of Holiness had taught that the way of holiness had not yet been revealed, as long as the first Tabernacle was standing.
The author says that, as long as the first tabernacle stood, it made the statement that the path to holiness had not been shown to the people. Therefore it also made the statement that there would be a change.
The author doesn't seem to consider the second tabernacle to be legitimate.
9 And this was a symbol for that time in which gifts and sacrifices were offered, which were not able to perfect the conscience of him who offers them, 10 except in food and drink only, and in various washings, which are ordinances of the flesh that are established until the time of reformation.
The author says that none of the sacrifices that were offered in that temple would result in the perfection of the conscience of the person who offered the sacrifice. When he says "perfect the conscience," he refers to a person who would be guided entirely by his conscience. Since our consciences have God's law stamped on them, such a man would never sin again, once his conscience was perfected.
Verse 10 speaks about a time of "reformation." That word could also be "correction." It isn't clear what this is referring to. This is the only use of this word in the New Testament. It may refer to the changes that come with the Millennial Kingdom, but the use of a phrase that is not used elsewhere in the Bible makes it impossible to know.
This whole verse is so different from the context that a person could also wonder whether it is original. The point the author is making in verse 9 is that the gifts and sacrifices could not perfect the conscience, and verse 10 says, "no, no, these things continue on until the 'reformation'". So v.10 is fighting against the idea that v.9 is saying that gifts and sacrifices were cancelled, which it isn't saying. So it seems very likely that some group with a specific issue wedged in v.10.
11 But the Messiah who has come has become the High Priest of the good things that he did, and he entered the great and perfect tabernacle which is not made with hands, and was not from these created things. 12 And he did not enter with blood of yearling goats and of calves, but with his own blood he entered the holy place one time and has achieved eternal redemption.
The author uses the phrase "High Priest of the good things that he did." What were those things? He established a new covenant. He sacrificed himself to be the atonement for the rest of us.
This "great and perfect tabernacle" is another way of describing the heavenly tabernacle that the author has spoken of before, the one that was the model for the earthly tabernacle.
Like all priests, he had blood to sacrifice, but it wasn't the blood of animals, like the Earthly priests had. It was his own blood. With that, he entered once and provided an atonement that would be forever.
When the author talks about yearling goats and calves, he is talking about the purification sacrifices described in Leviticus 9:1-4. These sacrifices began the sacrificial system by purifying and redeeming both the people and the priests.
13 For if the blood of kids and of calves and the ashes of a heifer were sprinkled on those who were defiled and it sanctified them for the purifying of their flesh, 14 How much more therefore, will the blood of the Messiah, who by the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works that we may serve the living God?
Leviticus spells out all the different kinds of impurities and how they should be dealt with. The author says that the blood of these sacrificed animals purified the flesh. Earlier he said that these sacrifices could not purify a conscience. Then he asks how much more the blood of the Messiah will be able to purify, even to our consciences. With consciences purified we will avoid "dead works," things we do that take us away from life, and instead we will serve God.
15 Because of this, he is the mediator of the New Covenant, for in his death he is salvation to those who violated the First Covenant, that we, those who were called to eternal inheritance, would receive the promise.
The author says that, because the Messiah, Yeshua, Jesus, offered his blood as atonement, he became the mediator for the New Covenant. Also that atonement covers the people who violated the Old Covenant. That would include the author and his intended audience.
This was necessary because the sacrifices of the Old Covenant could not atone for sin. They were only symbolic of the atonement that would come. God said that he would (future tense) forgive them if they made the prescribed sacrifices, but the atonement was still due until Jesus paid it.
16 For where there is a testament, it shows the death of him who made it;
The author is going to use a practice of his time to explain purification by blood in both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. His intended audience would have understood this, but we don't have the same practices in our time, so we don't.
He uses the word "testament" in a way that would be more like our use of "will", which is the short form for "last will and testament."
17 But it is only valid concerning one who is dead, because as long as he who made it lives, there is no use for it. 18 Because of this, not even the first was established without blood.
While the person is alive, the words in their will are nothing. They can be changed by the person, or the will can be destroyed. The words have no effect. When the person dies, then the words mean something. They have become law.
Apparently the use of blood was common practice for covenants between the people at that time as well.
Then the author applies this to the covenants. He says that the first covenant (Old Covenant) became law by death and by blood.
19 For when the entire ordinance which was in the Law had been commanded by Moses to the people, Moses took the blood of a heifer and water with scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled upon the scrolls and upon all the people. 20 And he said to them, "This is the blood of the Covenant which was commanded you by God."
Moses brought the old Covenant into effect by commanding it to the people, to which they said, "We will obey all that is written in the law." Then he sprinkled the blood of the sacrificed heifer on the written covenant and on the people. When Moses says, "This is the blood …" he is saying, "See, this covenant between you and God is sealed."
21 Also he sprinkled blood upon the Tabernacle and upon all the vessels of the ministry, 22 because all things are purified by blood in the Law, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. 23 For it is necessary that these things which are symbols of the Heavenly are purified by these things, but the Heavenly by better sacrifices than these.
Moses didn't stop there with sprinkling blood. It was necessary that the tabernacle (a tent at that time) be purified, and also the altars, the Ark, and all the other objects that were part of that worship. They needed to be purified for service, and the Law said there was only one way to purify something. The blood of a sacrifice was also the only way to forgiveness for a person, which required purification and atonement.
However, the author had said earlier that the blood of an animal could only purify those things that were physical. It could not purify a conscience.
Then the author says that purification of the heavenly temple required a better sacrifice, by which he means Jesus.
24 For it was not the Holy Place made by hands that the Messiah entered, and which was the symbol of the real one, but he entered Heaven to appear before the face of God in our place;
Earlier the author had talked about Jesus being a High Priest in the temple, which is in Heaven. Here, he repeats some of that. He says Jesus did not enter the Earthly temple (made by human hands). That temple was only a symbol; the temple in Heaven is the real one.
I believe there is a parallel here that his intended listeners would have gotten that we do not. Moses appeared before God to institute the first covenant as the representative of the people (in their place). God was at a distance on the mountain at the time. Jesus appeared before the face of God (in Heaven) to institute the second covenant as our representative.
25 And not that he should offer himself many times, as the High Priest was doing and entered the Holy Place every year with blood that was not his; 26 otherwise, he ought to have suffered many times from the beginning of the world, but now in the end of the world, he has offered himself one time to destroy sin by his sacrifice.
The author leads us to an interesting thought. The earthly temple has a flaw because the priests who served in it were human. It was not possible for them to die and afterward also offer their own blood. Therefore they offered the blood of animals, but then it was necessary for them to make many such offerings, which began with the first covenant and only covered the people in that covenant.
Jesus, as the Great High Priest, offered his own blood. Therefore it was not necessary for him to be crucified many times a year, and to have been crucified this way from the beginning of time. He offered his blood once to destroy all sin, including the sin of people not yet living.
27 And just as it is appointed to the children of men to die one time, and after their deaths the judgment, 28 in this way also, the Messiah was offered one time and he slaughtered in his person the sins of the many, but the second time he appears without our sins, for the life of those who expect him.
The author is drawing some parallels here that most translators sacrifice on the altar of readability.
The two uses of "one time" in these verses echo the "one time" in verse 26. Also the use of "second time" in verse 28 shows an understanding that "one time" is also the "first time." So he is also linking to the idea of a first coming and second coming. The phrase "second time" could also be understood as "again appearing," as in "not dead."
He also does this.
| people dying one time | after their deaths | judgment (normally death) |
| Jesus dying one time as a sacrifice | again appearing | bringing life |
The author plays "after their deaths" against "again appearing", which seems odd to us. The purpose seems to be to indicate that people die and stay dead. Not so with Jesus.
He also plays "bringing life" against "judgment." Implied in this is the idea that the Second Coming is a judgment that separates out "those who expect him" and to whom he brings life. The others are left to the normal judgment.
This is what the author means: Beginning with Eve's children, it was and is the fate of all mankind to die once and later be judged, but the Messiah died once, as a sacrifice, to change that for those who expect his return. His sacrifice killed our sins, and he will return (before judgment day), bringing life.
For any of what he says here to make sense, two things must be true. Jesus has to return before judgment day. He brings eternal life at the Second Coming. Therefore no one receives eternal life until Jesus returns and judgment day comes after that.
1 For the Law had a shadow in it of good things that were coming. It was not the essence of those matters; because of this, while they were offering those sacrifices every year, they could never perfect those who offered them.
The author's point here is that the sacrificial system foreshadowed something better that would come. He is referring to Jesus' sacrifice. He takes a step further by saying the sacrificial system was flawed because it could not perfect them and the evidence is that year after year they made their sacrifices.
Understanding the discussion on sacrifices in this chapter requires that we understand something of the sacrificial system. He is going to be speaking of the yearly Yom Kippur sacrifices and the one-time sacrifice to purify a new temple. This is determined from the animals that are listed.
It also needs to be understood that the sacrificial system symbolically described a process whereby sin was removed from the universe. The sacrifices for each individual transferred the sin from the individual to the animal and, after the sacrifice, from the animal to the priest and into the temple. With the Yom Kippur sacrifices, the sins were transferred from the temple to a goat for Azazel, which was driven out into the wilderness.
This depicted a future Yom Kippur where the Messiah's sacrifice would purge all sins from the universe and place them back on the head of the one they came from and banish him (and his followers) to the Lake of Fire.
2 For if they had perfected them, doubtless, they would have ceased from their offerings, because their conscience would not have been buffeted by sin once they had themselves been purged;
His argument that the sacrificial system fore-shadowed something better continues. If it had perfected them, he says, they would not have sinned again and therefore would not have been driven by their guilty consciences to return to make more sacrifices. The point is that the Yom Kippur sacrifices of animals showed that they were not effective for purging sins.
3 But by those sacrifices they remember their sins every year, 4 for the blood of oxen and of yearling goats cannot purge sins.
The author says that the sacrifices of animals could not be effective for purging. It simply wasn't possible for an animal sacrifice to do that. All they could do was to serve as a yearly reminder of the sins of the people. A better sacrifice was required.
5 Because of this, when he entered the universe, he said, "Sacrifices and offerings you did not want, but you have clothed me with a body, 6 and burnt peace-offerings for sins you have not demanded. 7 And I said, 'Behold, I come', because in the beginning of the writings it is written of me, 'to do your will, oh God.'"
Because of this flaw in the sacrificial system, a better sacrifice was needed. The quote describes that sacrifice entering the universe as someone clothed by God in a human body. We know this person now as the Messiah, who was clothed in a body that he might be a sacrifice.
We don't know, however, where this quote comes from. It seems to be a compilation of ideas from various Old Testament sources. The only part that is directly attributable to the Bible is from Psalms 40:7-9.
The verse above refers to "the beginning of the writings." The Old Testament is broken into the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. Psalms is the first book of the Writings.
8 Above, he said, "Sacrifices and offerings and burnt peace offerings for sins you did not want"; those that were offered were by the Law. 9 And afterward he said, "Behold, I have come to do your will, oh God." In this he abolishes the first to establish the second. 10 For in this, his will, we are made holy in the offering of the body of Yeshua the Messiah, once.
The author quotes the verse to show that God never wanted those sacrifices. His meaning is that they were necessary for a period of time before the system for managing sin was in place. During that time, the sacrifices of that old system were specified in the Torah, and it was necessary for the people to observe them. The Messiah came to bring about the will of God by establishing that new system.
11 For every High Priest who has stood and served those with those sacrifices every day was offering those things which were never able to purge sins. 12 But this one offered one sacrifice for the sake of sins, and he sat down at the right side of God for eternity. 13 And he waits from then on until his enemies are put as a footstool under his feet,
Previously the author has been describing the Yom Kippur sacrifices; now he also says that the sacrifices brought by individuals also could not purge them of sin. Yet they were required by the Law, and God had said that they would be accepted as an atonement for unintentional sins. There was no sacrifice for intentional sins. This also showed that the old sacrificial system was incomplete.
In establishing the new system the Messiah's one-time sacrifice replaces all those animal sacrifices that could not purge sin.
14 For by one offering he has perfected those who are sanctified by him for eternity.
In this new system we can remain sin-free because the atonement is permanently in place for unintentional sins. Therefore, as stated in verses 1 and 2, we are perfected and our consciences do not drive us to return to sacrifice for sin.
15 But the Spirit of Holiness also testifies to us, who says: 16 "This is the covenant that I shall give them after those days, says the Lord Yahweh: I shall put my law into their minds, and I shall write it upon their hearts, 17 and their evils and their sins I shall not remember."
The author says this new system was prophesied by Jeremiah. The Holy Spirit would make it possible for us to live according to God's law. But we fail sometimes. God says he will not remember those. This is possible because they will be forgiven, and the Messiah's atonement covers them.
18 But where there is forgiveness of sins, no offering for sins is needed.
Because the sins are forgotten, there is no need for a sacrifice for sin.
19 Therefore brethren, we have boldness in the entrance of the holy place by the blood of Yeshua. 20 And the way of the Life who made us new is now within the veil which is his flesh. 21 And we have the High Priest over the house of God.
The veil separated the Holy of Holies, i.e., the opportunity to be in the presence of and in unity with God, from the people. The author says things have changed.
22 Let us approach therefore with a true heart and the confidence of faith, while our hearts are sprinkled and purified from a wicked conscience and having bathed our bodies in pure water; 23 And let us grasp firmly the confession of our hope and not waver, for he who has promised us is faithful.
24 And let us pay attention to one another in the encouragement of love and of good works. 25 And we should not be forsaking our meetings, as is the custom for each person, but plead with one another all the more, as long as you see that day drawing near.
The author now discusses how we should live as a result of these changes. He says:
26 For if a man shall sin by his will after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there is no sacrifice to be offered afterward for sins, 27 but that terrible judgment is ready and the zeal of fire which consumes the enemies.
The author now shifts the topic a bit. So far he has been talking about unintentional sins and how those are forgiven by God and atoned for by Jesus' sacrifice. We mentioned above that there was no sacrifice for intentional sins in the old system. He says there still is none in the new system.
The author says that when someone has been told the truth about a matter and accepted that as truth and then that person sins intentionally against that truth, that person is separated from God, and Jesus' sacrifice can no longer be applied to cover future sins. Instead, the author says, if that person continues in that state, he has nothing left to look forward to but the destiny of the enemies of God, eternal death.
This is a very different understanding than is taught in many churches who are teaching some form of Once-Saved-Always-Saved or an all-loving God who would never do anything bad to his people.
Other churches teach that too many sins cause people to be separated from God. Many translations of these verses have been tailored to read that way. This one is from the NIV.
If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, (Hebrews 10:26 NIV)
Other translations render the phrase "keep on" as "go on" or "persist in." The Greek text does not support these translations. Therefore not all translations twist the words this way. For example, the NKJV says it as:"
For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, (Hebrews 10:26 NKJV)
The phrase "keep on" is desirably vague. It introduces unanswerable questions like: "How many is too many?", or, "Is that a lifetime count or does it reset to zero after a period of not sinning? This allows a person to say, "Yeah, I do that once in a while, but not always, so I'm good."
The real problem is not the sin but the heart behind the sin. A heart that knows what is wrong and wilfully does it anyway, tramples on Jesus, and is out.
28 For if any violated the law of Moses, he would die without mercy by the mouth of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more do you think he will receive capital punishment, he who has trampled upon the Son of God and esteemed the blood of his covenant to be like that of every person, who also was made holy by it, and he has despised the spirit of grace?
The author argues that this should be obvious. The Old Testament law pronounced death for many intentional sins. The Son of God is greater than the law of Moses, so why would we expect anything less than a pronouncement of death for intentional sin?
Intentional sin has treated the Son of God very badly. We may not think of it this way, but God says the man who does this has
If you think you are covered by grace, notice the last point.
Such a sin requires repentance, which cleans the slate. Unfortunately repentance cleans the whole slate. This is what Ezekiel says about that.
But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and does according to all the abominations that a wicked man does, will he live? All his righteous deeds which he has done will not be remembered for his treachery [betrayal of trust] which he has committed and his sin which he has committed; for them he will die. (Ezekiel 18:24)
But if the wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed and observes all My statutes and practices justice and righteousness, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22 All his transgressions which he has committed will not be remembered against him; because of his righteousness which he has practiced, he will live. (Ezekiel 18:21-22)
Repentance brings forgiveness after intentional sin, but there is a loss. Say goodbye to all the glory you would have received for the good works (righteous deeds) that you had done.
Therefore repentance is better than remaining in sin, but keeping from intentional sin is better still.
If this seems harsh for a loving god, you are not alone. The Israelites of Ezekiel's time thought the same. In the above passages from Ezekiel God repeats these words:
Yet you say, 'The way of the Lord is not right.' Hear now, O house of Israel! Is my way not right? Is it not your ways that are not right? (Ezekiel 18:25)
Just recently, I saw a video entitled "Will God Forgive My Repetitive Sins?". Such a video exists because of the bad teaching in churches, and by wilfull translators.
There is much more to this topic than I can cover here. I've done a study called "How Many Strikes Until You Are Out?". It covers all the details.
Returning now to this chapter of Hebrews.
30 For we know him who said, "Vengeance is mine, and I shall give payment." And again, "the Lord Yahweh will judge his people." 31 It is very terrible to fall into the hands of the living God.
The author now says something that we would say as "Believe it!" The enemies of God will feel his vengeance. Don't be one of them. In making his point, he quotes first from Deuteronomy 32:35 and then from Deuteronomy 32:36, which is also found in Psalm 135:14. Note that he is applying the Old Testament ways of God to the New Testament people in this situation of intentional sin. Same God – same ways.
32 Remember therefore the first days in which you received baptism and endured a great contest of suffering with reproach and affliction. 33 And you became a spectacle, and you were also made associates with people who endured these things. 34 And you were grieved concerning those who were imprisoned and you endured with joy the robbery of your possessions, because you know you have a possession in Heaven which is greater and does not pass away. 35 Therefore do not throw away the boldness which you have, for a great reward is coming for it.
The author's message here is to remember all that you have gone through as though it were an investment. Then he says not to shrink back and thereby lose that investment.
36 For you must have patience to do the will of God and receive the Promise, 37 "Because in a very short time, he who is coming will come and will not delay." 38 "But the righteous one shall live by my faith, and if he gives it up, my soul is not pleased with him."
The author repeats his point – do not give up the faith. He quotes from Isaiah 26:20 or Habakkuk 2:3 and then from Habakkuk 2:4.
39 But we are not of despondency which leads to destruction, but of the faith that imparts to us our soul.
Despondency, a state of low spirits caused by loss of hope or courage (Google Online Dictionary).
We have no reason to be despondent, says the author, we have a hope that comes from faith and gives us courage and brings everlasting life.
The word "perfect" from the start of this chapter and the word "promise" in verse 36 are going to come back in chapter 11.
It appears that the question answered in this chapter is about maintaining the faith to receive the promise. The author will build a list of examples of faith beginning in Genesis and going all the way through the Old Testament. The author begins by defining faith.
1 Now faith is the conviction concerning those things that are in hope, as if it were these things in action, and the revelation of those things that are unseen; 2 And by this there was a testimony concerning the ancients.
The word "faith" is commonly used as a synonym for religion. For example, someone might say, "That's what my faith believes." But that is not the meaning of faith that is being used here. The author refers to faith as a conviction, or firm belief about something that is hoped for or desired. Further he says that this faith is so certain it is as though the things desired were happening or the things wanted were coming into existence.
This is the kind of faith that God wants from us. It is the kind of faith that makes things happen. It was the kind of faith required of the people in Jesus' time in the miracles he performed.
The author also says that faith is a testimony to us from the ancients, by which he means the people of ancient times.
3 For by faith we understand that the worlds were fashioned by the word of God, and these things that are seen came into being out of those things which are unseen.
This same faith that God requires of us is also the faith by which the universe was created.
4 By faith, Abel offered to God a sacrifice much better than that of Cain, and because of it there is a testimony concerning him that he was righteous, and God testifies concerning his offering; and because of it, although he died, he also speaks.
By faith, Abel obeyed God and offered a sacrifice that was pleasing to him. Cain offered an unacceptable sacrifice. Abel's faith, which led to obedience, speaks a testimony about him that he was righteous before God.
Abel's death speaks to something else as well. God said that Abel's blood calls out for justice. That will come up a little later.
5 By faith, Enoch was transported away and he did not taste death, neither was he found, because God transported him away; for before he was to transport him, there was this testimony concerning him: "He pleased God." 6 But without faith, no one can please God, for whoever is brought near to God must believe that he exists and that he is the rewarder of those who seek him.
The author's point here is that Enoch also had faith, although the Bible does not say that he did. The author says that we know he had faith because it was said of him that he pleased God, and because it is not possible to please God without faith, we know that Enoch had faith.
7 By faith, Noah worshiped, when those things which had not been seen were spoken to him, and he made the Ark for the lives of his children in his household, by which he condemned the world, and he became the heir of the righteousness which is in faith.
When Noah built the Ark, there had never been rain, and so there had never been floods. Yet he believed God when God told him of these things, and so he built the Ark. The Ark would save his family, but because they would not repent, it was also the death of the world of that time. Their deaths would leave Noah as the leader of a new generation that was righteous because of their faith.
So far the author's trip through history by examples of faith has taken us through the time prior to the Israelites. We'll come back to that later. Now we move forward into the Israelite phase.
8 By faith, Abraham, when he was called, obeyed to go out to the place that he was going to receive for an inheritance, and he went out when he did not know where he was going. 9 By faith he became an inhabitant in that land which was promised to him, as in a foreign land, and he dwelt in tents with Isaac and Jacob, his heirs of the promise. 10 For he was looking for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
When Abraham was told by God to take his family and move to a place that God would show him, it was by faith that Abraham went, even though he did not know where he was going. He was convinced that God would be true to his promise. That promise included a city built by God.
11 By faith also Sarah, who was sterile, received power to conceive seed, and she who was not in the time of her years gave birth, for she was sure that he who promised her was faithful. 12 Because of this, from one who was failing in old age were born as many as the stars in the Heavens, and as the sand which is upon the seashore, which has no measure.
Sarah also had faith that God would be true to his promise. As a result she conceived and gave birth to a nation – a nation that still exists today.
In the middle of this list of the stalwarts of faith that the author is building, he decides to do a short summary of what he has covered.
13 These died in faith, all of them, and they did not receive their promise, but they saw it from a distance and rejoiced in it and confessed that they were foreigners and nomads in the Earth. 14 But those who say these things show that they seek their city. 15 And if they had been seeking that city which they had left, they had time to return again to it. 16 Now it is apparent that they longed for better than that, which is in Heaven; because of this, God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.
Abraham, Sarah, all their family died without seeing the promise fulfilled but by faith they knew it would come to be. The author makes an important argument here. Abraham considered himself as someone away from his true city and a traveler without a city. The author says that because of this we know that he was talking about the city of God, because if he had meant the city of Ur, they could have gone back there. So there was no city on the earth that they considered theirs.
All the others, like them, were as strangers in a strange land, knowing this was not their home and desiring their real home. Yet they did not reach it, but because of God's promises, they knew it was there, though far off.
Because of their faith in his promise, God has prepared a city in Heaven for them, and for us.
17 By faith, Abraham offered Isaac during his testing, and laid his only son on the altar, whom he had received by the promise. 18 For it was said to him, "In Isaac your seed shall be called." 19 And he accepted in his soul that God was able to raise him from the dead, and because of this, he was given to him in a simile.
Abraham was told by God that the promise would be fulfilled through Isaac; therefore when God instructed him to sacrifice Isaac he still had faith in that promise. He reasoned to himself that if he killed Isaac as a sacrifice, God would raise Isaac from the dead in order to fulfill that promise.
Not everyone agrees about the meaning of verse 19. A simile is a phrase that uses 'as' or 'like', for example, 'as white as a sheet'. So the intent is to show that Isaac is like something else. It could be saying that because of Abraham's faith that Isaac would die as a sacrifice and be raised it was 'like' he had been sacrificed. It could also be that Isaac was like Jesus, dying as a sacrifice and being resurrected. It could also be that Isaac is like all those who had faith, dying and being resurrected to see the promise. It could also be that God intended all these meanings to be true and valuable to us.
We'll skip verses 20 through 23 for brevity. These verses talk about the faith of Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and the parents of Moses. These people were the fathers of the Israelites, and were considered the greatest of them.
24 By faith, Moses, when he became a man, renounced being called the son of Pharaoh's daughter. 25 And he chose to remain in affliction with the people of God and not to enjoy sin for a short time. 26 And he considered that the reproach of the Messiah was much greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was attentive to the payment of the reward. 27 By faith he forsook Egypt and was not afraid of the rage of the King and he endured as if he had seen God, who is unseen. 28 By faith he observed Passover and sprinkled the blood, lest he who was destroying the firstborn should touch them.
Moses' faith was such that he gave up the life of wealth and power he could have had for a promise he was given by God. He reasoned wisely that the worst criticism he would receive from the Messiah would be better than anything and everything that Egypt could offer. In faith Moses also told the people to prepare for their first Passover. In faith the Israelites did as they were told and saved their firstborn sons.
We'll skip verses 29 through 31 for brevity. These verses relate the stories of faith by the Israelites as they passed through the water on dry land, of faith to destroy Jericho by walking around it, and of the faith of Rahab, who helped the Israelite spies.
32And what more shall I say? For I have little time to recount about Gideon and about Baraq, about Samson, about Jephthah, about David, about Samuel and about the other Prophets: 33 Those who by faith conquered Kingdoms and wrought justice, received promises and shut the mouths of lions; 34 They quenched the power of fire, were delivered from the edge of the sword, were strengthened out of weakness, became strong in battle and overturned enemy camps. 35 And they gave women their children by resurrection of the dead, and others died by torture and did not expect to be delivered, that they would have a better resurrection; 36 Others entered mockings and scourgings; others were handed over to chains and to prison cells; 37 Others were stoned; others were sawn in half; others died by the edge of the sword; others traveled wearing skins of sheep and of goats, and were needy, afflicted and beaten; 38 Persons of whom the world was not worthy; and they were as wanderers in desert places and in mountains and in caves and caverns of the Earth.
39 And all of these, concerning whom there is a testimony of their faith, did not receive the Promise. 40 Because God provided for our benefit that they would not be made perfect without us.
Again the author says what he said earlier; they did not receive that promise, but they kept the faith despite what happened to them, that they might receive that promise.
Now the author says something very important that everyone misses, and some read through as if in a fog. What does he mean by "they would not be made perfect without us"? He has been talking about all these people who believed in the promise but did not receive the promise. Now he says "made perfect".
We will all receive the promise of perfection together, when the Messiah comes and not sooner. Therefore none of these Old Testament saints can be in Heaven because they are not perfected.
1 Therefore, we also, who have all of these witnesses who surround us like clouds, let us throw off from us all the weights of the sin which is always ready for us, and let us run with patience this race that is set for us. 2 And let us gaze at Yeshua, him who is the author and the perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was his, endured the cross and ignored the shame, and he sits upon the right side of the throne of God.
Verse 1 is often used as a standalone verse. Because of that it loses the context, and people start to misunderstand who "these witnesses" are, and interpret them as other things, such as the people in Heaven looking down on us, watching what we do.
This book has odd chapter breaks. I admit that the author seques from topic to topic very smoothly, usually in the middle of a sentence, and that makes it hard to find a place for a chapter break. Verses 1 and 2 here show that. Verse 1 begins with "therefore," so it is plainly a conclusion drawn from what was said previously, but then in verse 2, which is part of the same sentence, he says, "who for the …" and he's off again on a new topic.
Back to "these witnesses," the author is talking about all of the stalwarts of faith that he mentioned in chapter 11. So when he says witnesses, he doesn't mean witnesses in a courtroom who say they saw you do something bad. He means that their acts of faith stand as a witness to us that people can walk in faith when it is difficult to do so.
He says this because the intended audience is struggling in faith. He is using these examples to encourage them to be strong.
3 Behold, therefore, how much he endured from sinners, those who were themselves opponents to their own souls, so that you do not become careless in yourselves, neither weaken your souls.
The author says Jesus endured sinners. He is speaking of the mockery, abuse, injustice, and death that Jesus was treated to. Then he says "opponents to their own souls." He means that these sinners were only hurting themselves by what they were doing. His point is that Jesus endured all of this from the very people he came to help. How would you feel if you tried to help someone and they started screaming at you and hitting you with a stick? We have a saying, "No good deed goes unpunished." So we know other people have experienced this as well.
4 For you have not yet come as far as to blood in the struggle against sin. 5 And you have strayed from the teaching which speaks to you as to sons: "My son, turn not away from the course of the Lord Yahweh, neither neglect your soul when you are rebuked by him. 6 For whomever the Lord Yahweh loves, he instructs, and draws aside his children with whom he is pleased."
The author quotes from Proverbs 3:11,12. In doing so he uses the wisdom of Solomon as a guide.
The author's point here is for his intended audience. He says your struggle with sin has not taken you to the point where you have lost blood, as was the case for Jesus and other stalwarts of the faith, yet here you are, straying from your teachings. The author does not pull his punches.
He also says that they have forgotten that God is like any father. He wants what is best for them so he rebukes them when they are wrong and instructs them as they are ready to hear. Sometimes a father grabs his child by the arm and pulls him away to give some quick instruction, even though he is happy with the child. They have taken the challenges posed by fellow Jews as strikes against them, not as testing from God. Therefore they have withered in the fire instead of being purified.
7 Therefore endure the discipline, because God deals with you as with children; for who is the son whom his father does not discipline? 8 And if you are without the discipline by which every person is disciplined, you are strangers and not children.
The author says that not only should you experience testing and discipline but you should expect it. A father does not discipline someone else's children. If you aren't receiving his discipline, then you aren't his. So endure it when it comes.
9 And if our fathers who are in the flesh have disciplined us and we did revere them, how much more ought we submit to the Father of Spirits and live?
The author plays two words against each other: "revere" and "submit." His point is that revering (deeply respecting) leads to submission.
Because we had deep respect for our fathers, he says, we accepted our father's discipline and submitted to it. Therefore, with God, who we should revere much more than our fathers, we should submit to his discipline more readily.
10 For they, for that short time, disciplined us as they pleased, but God, for our benefit, that we may share in his holiness.
The author plays "as they pleased" against "for our benefit" to make the point that our earthly fathers did what they thought was best, but maybe it wasn't always. With God, though, we know that it will be for our best.
11 But no discipline in its time seems to be joyful, but it is sorrowful; but in the end it yields the fruit of peace and of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.
No one enjoys the time during which we are disciplined. It is a struggle for us. Even so, we can count on God's discipline, if we will learn from it, to make us better.
12 Therefore strengthen your hands and set your shaky knees firmly. 13 Make straight paths for your feet, that the lame member may not fail, but that it may be healed. 14 Run after peace with every man, and after holiness, without which no one shall see Our Lord. 15 And be watchful, lest anyone among you be found lacking the grace of God, or lest the root of bitterness produce vines and harm you, and many be defiled by it, 16 or lest a man be found among you as a fornicator, or debauched …
I broke that verse because the author is about to segue into some examples.
The author uses some idioms here that we don't understand because of cultural differences, mainly that we don't walk as much as they did. His points are:
16 or lest a man be found among you as a fornicator, or debauched, like Esau, who for one meal sold his birthright. 17 For you know that afterward he desired to inherit the blessing and was rejected, for he found no place of restoration, while he sought it in tears.
The author is speaking about spiritual fornication and debauchery. Esau threw away his birthright, a gift from God for his whole life, for something temporary. The author is speaking about people who would chase after other gods (fornication) or turn away from the faith for nothing (debauchery).
Then the author warns them that Esau was unable to get back what he had thrown away.
18 For you have not approached the fire that burned and was tangible, neither to the darkness and dark fog and the tempest, 19 neither the sound of the trumpet and the voice of words, which those who heard it refused, so that no more would be spoken with them. 20 For they were not able to endure anything that was commanded: "If even an animal shall approach the mountain, it shall be stoned." 21 And so terrible was the sight that Moses said, "I am afraid and fainthearted."
The author is refering to the time when God descended onto mount Sinai and began to give the 10 Commandments as a "voice of words." His intended audience would have understood and remembered the key verse from that story, but Christians do not.
And Moses said to the people, "Do not be afraid; for God has come in order to test you, and in order that the fear of Him may be with you, so that you may not sin." 21 So the people stood at a distance, but Moses came near the dense gloom where God was. (Exodus 20:20)
So the author is using this hidden reference to Exodus 20:20 to refer back to what he said before about God testing them and about enduring those tests. If Hebrews were easy, you wouldn't be reading this.
The author's point here is not that though. When he says, "You have not approached [that]," he is starting one long sentence that continues with the next verse. He is saying they have not come into a situation that is so difficult to endure that even Moses said, "I am afraid and fainthearted." Instead they have come into a different situation.
22 But you have come to the Mountain of Zion and to the city of the living God, to the Jerusalem which is in Heaven, and to the assembly of myriads of Angels; 23 and to the church of the firstborn ones who are written in Heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous who are made perfect, 24 and to Yeshua, the mediator of the New Covenant, and to the sprinkling of blood, which speaks better than that of Abel.
They have come into a situation that is full of good things. It is also a prophesied future, even for us who are not his intended audience.
The reference to Abel is oblique as well. When Abel was killed by Cain, God said Abel's blood called out for vengeance.
In chapter 11 of Hebrews, which we've just studied, the author said of Abel that although he died, he also speaks, which refers back to the Cain and Abel story. We need to be careful here. Chapter 11 talks about the sacrifices that both Cain and Abel made, with one being better than the other. Then it makes the jump to say that Abel's death speaks. Here we are talking about the sprinkling of the blood of Abel to enact a covenant.
The verse doesn't say it directly, but the sprinkled blood comes from a sacrifice. So, in a sense, Abel was a sacrifice. Just as the bull was sacrificed so that its blood could be sprinkled and enact the Old Covenant, Abel and Jesus were sacrificed for their blood. In all three of these cases, the sacrifice was sacrificed by force.
The author's point is that Jesus' blood is better because it doesn't speak out a call for vengeance but instead speaks out a call to forgiveness and eternal life.
Connecting chapters 11 and 12 together by using the word "better", we get a bigger picture. The author is saying that just as Abel's sacrifice was better than Cain's, Jesus' sacrificed and sprinkled blood shows a better covenant than Abel's.
25 Beware therefore, lest you refuse him who speaks with you, for if those were not saved who refused him who spoke with them on Earth, how much less are we if we shall refuse him who speaks with us from Heaven? 26 whose voice shook the Earth …"
I'm breaking a verse again because, again, the author is doing a seque in the sentence.
The author goes back to Mount Sinai and says if the people who rejected God, who spoke to them from the mountain, were not saved (to reach the promised land), how much worse will it be for those who reject God, who speaks from Heaven; that same voice that shook the Earth.
The shaking that he refers to was part of the experience at mount Sinai.
26 Whose voice shook the Earth, but now he has promised and said, "One more time, I shall shake, not only Earth, but also Heaven." 27 But this that he said: "One time", indicates the change of those things that are shaken, because they are made, that those things which are not shaken may remain.
The author is quoting from Haggai 2:6, a prophecy about events that are still in the future.
At Mount Sinai, the ground shook. This prophecy says that another event is coming where the Earth will shake again, but this time also Heaven. We need to be careful with the word "Heaven." It is actually "Heavens" and can refer to the atmosphere of Earth, space (where the planets and stars are), or the Heaven where God lives, or any combination of these. From the context, we can see that it refers to both the atmosphere and space. So in total, everything that is made (created) will shake.
28 Therefore, because we have received the kingdom that is not shaken, we shall receive grace by which we shall serve and please God in reverence and in awe. 29 For our God is a consuming fire.
The author again echoes themes from Mount Sinai. God's goal there was that the people would be in awe of him and serve him and revere him and not sin. Even in the spiritual kingdom, God wants this, but in this covenant, we do that by grace.
1 Let the love of the brethren continue among you.
Continue to love one another (as Jesus said).
2 And do not forget kindness to strangers, for by this, some who, while they were unaware, were worthy to receive Angels.
Be kind to everyone. You may be in the presence of angels.
3 Remember those who are imprisoned, as if you are imprisoned with them. Call those to mind who are afflicted, as if you are the people who wear their bodies.
Prison at that time was a much worse experience than what we know. The conditions were worse, and sometimes your friends on the outside needed to bring you food to survive.
The author is applying the Golden Rule here: treat others as you would want to be treated. The author applies this also to everyone who is "afflicted," meaning everyone who is going through difficult times. Probably health issues are in focus here.
4 Marriage is honorable with all and their bed is pure, but fornicators and adulterers God judges.
Essentially the author is saying that marriage is a good thing. There were some who preached that abstinence was holiness; some still do. He adds, "their bed is pure," which, at its simplest, means that they are not defiled by a sexual relationship. This points back at those who preached abstinence. It is deeper than that though. It means that they are not defiled by whatever sexual activity they agree to. There have been some who have placed limits on sex, such as the Missionary position.
5 Let not your mind love money, but let whatever you have suffice for you, for the Lord Yahweh has said, "I shall not forsake you, neither shall I let go of your hand." 6 And it is for us to say confidently, "The Lord is my helper; I shall not fear what anyone does to me."
Many other places in the Bible speak about the love of money. The author brings up contentment, which is the last of the 10 Commandments. If we are content with what we have, we can trust that God will provide. The author quotes God speaking protection in Deuteronomy 31:6 and saying that our response should be Psalm 118:6,7.
A key piece of that response is "my helper." God does not intend for us to do nothing and expect to be cared for. God wants his people to do the work he has given them, to walk in faith. Provision comes from doing that.
7 Be mindful toward your leaders who have spoken with you the word of God. Consider the results of their conduct and imitate their faith:
The author is referring to the leaders of their assembly. He isn't advocating slavish obedience, but to consider what they teach, how they live, and the faith they show.
8 Yeshua the Messiah; He is yesterday, today and forever. 9 Do not be led to strange and changeable teaching, for it is good that we strengthen our hearts by grace and not with foods, because those who have walked in them have not been helped.
The author mentions food here. Clean and unclean food was a problem in Christianity at that time. The Jews had food laws, the ascetics had even stricter food laws, and the apostles were teaching that only the much less strict Noahide food laws needed to be followed.
The author doesn't dig into this issue. He refers to strange teachings, which wouldn't be Jewish law nor Christian. He only says that these teachings haven't done anyone any good; don't follow them.
10 But we have an altar from which those who minister in the Tabernacle have no authority to eat. 11 For the flesh of these animals, whose blood the High Priest brought to the Holy Place for the sake of sins, was burned outside of the camp. 12 Because of this, Yeshua also suffered outside of the city to sanctify his people by his blood.
The author is referring again to Jewish Law. Unclean food could not be sacrificed and certain sacrifices or parts of the sacrifice were for the priests to eat. Only they could eat those. He says we have a spiritual altar in the tabernacle in Heaven from which not even they are allowed to eat.
The author has said before that the Old Covenant ministries were shadows of Heavenly things. In the same way, the disposal of the dead carcasses of the sacrifices foreshadowed Jesus. They were burned outside of the camp. Jesus was also "burned" outside of the camp.
The author doesn't explain how Jesus was burned because his intended audience would have understood. The Passover meal, which symbolized Jesus, required that the lamb be roasted.
13 We also, therefore, should go out to him outside of the camp, while we bear his reproach.
No one is certain what the author is saying here. The central question is: what does it mean to the intended audience to be "outside of the camp." Some say it refers to leaving Judaism for Christianity. Others say it refers to leaving the world. There are other ideas.
In my way of thinking, Jesus is likened to the dead carcass that was thrown away and burned because it had no value. The death had value; the blood had value; generally the meat had value. The carcass had none. Next we ask who decided Jesus had no value. The author spoke about this earlier, saying that everyone who rejects Jesus has crucified him again. Therefore it makes sense to me that leaving the camp would mean leaving the world. That aligns well with "bearing his reproach." We are hated by the world because they hated him first. It also aligns well with what the author is about to say.
14 For we have no city here that abides, but we look for that which is coming.
The author is refering back to the chapter on the stalwarts of faith. There he said that they wandered about in the world and had no city of their own but looked for a city.
15 And through him let us offer sacrifices of praise always to God, which is the fruit of the lips giving thanks to his name.
Depending on your translation, Hosea 14:2 may say "the bulls of our lips," which is the literal translation, or "the fruit of our lips," which attempts to be clearer to the reader. The author is doing the same thing here. The point is that sacrifices of bulls have been replaced by sacrifices of praise.
16 And do not forget charity and sharing with the poor, for with these sacrifices a man pleases God.
Some of the people of that time knew true poverty, and some died from it. In our time we have people with cellphones who insist they are poor. To receive charity in that time, it was normal to beg. That is less common in our time, but we see that some people can shrug off what should be the embarrassment of begging and beg because they are too lazy to work.
17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they watch for the sake of your souls, as persons who give an account, so that they may do this with joy and not with groans, because that is not advantageous to you.
The author has spoken about leaders before. Here he expands on that to say that we should obey and submit to them. He gives a reason. They should not have to endure people who disobey, resist, or defy them. He says it is in your interest not to be like that.
18 Pray for us, for we trust that we have a good conscience, for we desire in all things to conduct ourselves well. 19 I especially seek of you to do this, that I may return quickly to you.
These are the final requests.
20 Now the God of peace, who brought forth from the place of the dead the Great Shepherd of the flock, Yeshua the Messiah our Lord, by the blood of the eternal covenant, 21 perfect you in every good work to do his will and perform in us whatever is excellent before him by Yeshua the Messiah, to whom is glory to the eternity of eternities. Amen.
The blessing.
22 I beseech of you, my brethren, to be patient in your spirit with the word of exhortation, because I have written to you with brevity. 23 But know that our brother Timotheus has been released, and if he comes soon, I shall see you with him. 24 And invoke the peace of all your Leaders and of all the holy ones. All of those who are from Italy invoke your peace. 25 Grace be with all of you. Amen.
The final charge.
So we return to the question from the beginning: what is Hebrews about? Is it thematic?
I mentioned a person who was certain the book was thematic and that the theme was "Jesus is better." He based this on the number of times that the author says "better." That theme ignores the times when something other than Jesus was said to be better. More importantly it ignores the passages that are unrelated to better. For example, the passage about Sabbath keeping is not about being "better." Neither is the passage about intentional sin. Chapter 11, the faith chapter, is also not about being better.
I do not see the book as thematic. It is a polemic work intended to challenge the readers to correct their beliefs. He musters a series of arguments to show that Christianity is firmly built on Judaism, but is the next evolution of God's plan of salvation. Therefore it is better than the previous version because there would be no point in offering a new plan that was worse than the previous one.
From what he says in this book, it appears that the intended audience is being challenged by Jews who are criticizing Christianity. We know that apostles ran into Jews who challenged them very directly. The apostles were armed with understanding that allowed them to fend off those attacks. It appears the intended audience was not so armed and was shrinking back, even losing faith.
This book presents them with the understanding they need to defend against Jews. It also warns them about losing faith and turning away.
Because it contains sections that are not directly related to that defense, such as the sections mentioned above, it appears the author had been told about specific questions the intended audience had. The author knows about their spiritual condition, but we don't know how. Likely he knows about these specifics in the same way.
1 George H. Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis (NovTSup, no. 73; ed. A. J. Malherbe and D. P. Moessner; Leiden, New York: E.J. Brill, 1994), xvii.
2 Genesis 1:26-27