Hebrews Study

[oldhermit]

I just spent more than 2 hours looking at all threads since I joined and skimming each possibly relevant thread for your or my participation. I can't find any evidence of an exchange between us on this topic.

It would appear you are correct. I could have sworn we had discussed once before. My apologies. I do address this in the chapter seven outline in case you have not yet gotten that far. You will find it at the bottom of page 13.

 

[MarcR]

Chapter Seven
​

I. Jesus, a High Priest Like Melchizedek, 6:20-8:6.

A. Who was Melchizedek?
There have been many speculations as to who exactly this Melchizedek was. The speculations range for the possible to the absurd. Here is a list of some of the speculations that have been offered by a number of sources. Some have suggested:

1. He was the pre-incarnate Christ. This is a popular idea though not a very good one.
2. He was the Holy Spirit.
3. He was an angel.
4. He was Enoch. By the time Abraham meets Melchizedek, Enoch had been gone for more than a thousand years.
5. He was Shem, the son of Noah. This is a possibility.
6. He was an extra-ordinary emanation of deity.
The only one of these speculation that bears any kind of merit is that he may have possibly been Shem the son of Noah. This is physically possible for Shem and Abraham are contemporaries. In fact, Shem did not die until after Isaac married. As far as any of the rest of the speculations as to the manner of being Melchizedek was, the Hebrew writer leaves no room for speculation. He was a man.

B. Melchizedek is not a proper name but a title. The ancient kings of pre-Israel Jerusalem were called the Tsedeks. Melchizedek is from Meleck meaning King and Tsedek meaning righteousness. Thus, king of righteousness. He was the King of Salem meaning peace. This Salem would later be called Jerusalem meaning foundation of peace. In Joshua 10:1 we encounter another Tsedel of Salem called Adoni-Tsedek meaning lord of righteousness. The difference between these to men is the deterioration of the worship from the time of Melch-Tsedek to Adoni-Tsedek.
C. The nature of Melchizedek – He was a man. “Now consider how great this man was....” The word man in not represented in the text either by ἄνθρωπος nor ἀνήρ. It is provided by the gender of the pronoun οὗτος which is nominative masculine, singular for "this one," thus, this man.

1. The fact that he is a High Priest of God demands that he is of the human race. In 5:1 we learn that every High Priest is taken from among men.
2. As a man, he had a genealogy. “Whose genealogy was not derived from them (the Levites).” This is written in the possessive which says that he had a genealogy but, that it was a genealogy that was not traced from the priestly tribe of Levi.

II. Melchizedek is Both King and Priest, 1-2.
Melchizedek is only one of many shadows of Christ in the Old Testament. He is the example of how the function of both offices can are fulfilled in one man. The two offices of king and priest are manifestly contrary to one another in as much as the administration of the one stands in stark opposition to the other. As king, he is the administrator of justice to the sinner. As priest, he is the administrator of mercy to the sinner. Mercy cannot satisfy the demands of justice for the sinner goes unpunished. On the other hand, when justice is administered to the sinner, there is a complete absence of mercy because the penalty for sin is death. So, how can both offices be effected in one man to render both justice and mercy at the same time?

A. As King, he renders the sentence of death to the sinner. “The person who sins, will die,” Ezekiel 18:20. Because the demand for justice must be met in order for God's holiness to be satisfied, someone must die for sin. It is God's justice that preserves his holiness so for God to allow sin to go unpunished is a violation of his nature.
B. As High Priest, he must supply mercy to the sinner for this is the function of the office. The sinner is guilty and it is imperative that the sin be punished but, as Priest, he must pardon the offender and allow him to go unpunished, 4:14-16. How then does he both demand justice and extend mercy to the sinner?

Jesus himself pays the penalty for all sin for all time for all men. Calvary is the satisfaction of God to extradite his justice on the sins of humanity. Thus, as High Priest, he is able to pardon those who will appropriate to themselves the blood of atonement, 2Thessalonians 1:8-9.

III. A High Priest Without Genealogy, 3.

A. “Without father, mother, or genealogy” - Like Jesus, Melchizedek does not receive his priesthood from a predecessor. In the Levitical system, the high priest was descended only through the line of Aaron.7, 1Chronicles 6:50-52 but, the office of the high priest was not passed on to Melchizedek by his father, nor did he in turn pass it on to his heir. In other words, his is a one-man-forever-priesthood.
B. “Having neither beginning of days nor end of life.” In this there are three possibilities.

1. That this refers to the person of Melchizedek the man. Some argue from this that Melchizedek was not a man but some supernatural being who was neither born of human parents not had a beginning or end of life. But, as the text says, he was a man and as such, he had a past, 6. Some view this with the preceding statement as simply a Hebraism which stresses the obscurity of his genealogy and posterity. Perhaps.
2. That this refers not to the man himself but to his priesthood. This priesthood is unlike that of the Levitical system. We can look back at Sinai and see where the Levitical priesthood had its beginning of days with the anointing of Aaron and his sons, Exodus 28:1ff. We can then look forward from there to the cross and see where this priesthood saw its end of life. Now, a new and greater covenant is inaugurated in Jesus “according to a the power of an endless life.” But, this may not apply to just the priesthood apart from the man because this is a one man priesthood and apart from the man there is no priesthood.
3. That this refers to the man as a high priest. As a man he had a beginning of days and an end of life. As high priest, he has neither but remains a priest continually. This contrasts the priests of the Levitical system whose “beginning of days” began at the age of twenty-five when they began to serve as priests. They reached their “end of life” at the age of fifty when they completed their appointed time of priestly service, Numbers 8:24-25.

C. “But made like the Son of God.” Here, the order is reversed. In 6:20, Christ is presented as a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. Now, Melchizedek is said to be a High Priest who was made like the Son of God. Like everything else that is type, Melchizedek is the shadow of the reality. This is like the building of the tabernacle in Exodus 25:40 being built according to the “pattern shown to you on the mountain.” Everything that is shadow must be patterned according to the substance it represents. The substance ALWAYS precedes the type. It must reflect the reality. Jesus is not a type of himself. The reality can never serve as the representation or shadow.
D. He “remains a priest continually.” His priesthood is uninterrupted even by death. He leaves his office to no one else. Although Melchizedek has been dead for many centuries, he is still the central figure in the one man forever priesthood. Like the Son of God, he carries his priest beyond the grave. His priesthood, in contrast to that of the Levites is not bound by the physical - “not according to the law of fleshly commandment,” 15-16. This fleshly commandment says that the Levitical priest must end his days of service at the age of 50. The High Priest ended his days of service at his death. In contrast, the priesthood of Melchizedek is greater. He continues as the High Priest of his priesthood even though he is dead, 8. Jesus cannot occupy two existing priestly offices. Since both high priests exist forever what would this have to say about the theory that Jesus was Melchizedek?

The fact that he is a High Priest of God demands that he is of the human race.

In 5:1 we learn that every High Priest is taken from among men. If, as I believe, Heb 5:1-3 refers specifically to the Levitical priesthood; then it would not apply to Melchizedek. This belief is based on verse 2; which obviously does not apply to Jesus' high priesthood.. Hence if Melchizedek is indeed a Christophany; he is likewise excluded..

Regarding Melchizedek's humanity; it should be noted that in many passages which are obvious Christophanies, or Theophanies; God/ or Christ is figuratively represented as a 'man..

Although Melchizedek has been dead for many centuries IMO, this begs the question because it denies that Melchizedek is a Christophany without sufficient grounds.

 

[purgedconscience]

The fact that he is a High Priest of God demands that he is of the human race.

In 5:1 we learn that every High Priest is taken from among men. If, as I believe, Heb 5:1-3 refers specifically to the Levitical priesthood; then it would not apply to Melchizedek. This belief is based on verse 2; which obviously does not apply to Jesus' high priesthood.. Hence if Melchizedek is indeed a Christophany; he is likewise excluded..

Regarding Melchizedek's humanity; it should be noted that in many passages which are obvious Christophanies, or Theophanies; God/ or Christ is figuratively represented as a 'man..

Although Melchizedek has been dead for many centuries IMO, this begs the question because it denies that Melchizedek is a Christophany without sufficient grounds.

Hi Marc.

I think that it's extremely unlikely that Melchizedek was a Christophany of Christ for at least the following reason:

Genesis chapter 14 verses 17 thru 20

And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's dale.
And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:
And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.

Here, it certainly seems as if Abram was being met by actual reigning earthly kings and Melchizedek certainly seems to be one of them. In other words, this doesn't seem like an isolated manifestation of Christ which is basically what I understand a Christophany to be. I'd imagine that you don't believe that the pre-incarnate Christ was actually reigning over Salem during the time of Abram and if so, then it's best to abandon the idea that Melchizedek was a Christophany of Christ.

 

[oldhermit]

Chapter Eight
​

I. We Have Such a High Priest, 1-3.

A. What kind of High Priest was needed?

1. One who is bound by an oath.
2. One whose priesthood was not rooted in an earthly linage.
3. One who is holy, not one who simply wore holy garments.
4. One who is innocent.
5. One who is undefiled.
6. One who is separated from sinners, i.e one who did not associate by reason of participation in their sin.
7. One who is exalted above the heavens.
8. One who has no need of personal atonement.
9. One who has no weaknesses.
10. One who is able to perfect the worshiper.

B. “Taken his seat” – There was no prevision made for Aaron to sit in the holy of holies because his work of sacrifice was never finished. He was constantly going in and going out. Every time he went out, more blood was spilled. Every time he went in, more blood was sprinkled. Jesus went in only once saying “It is finished” and sat down, 1-3, Daniel 9:26-27. He has no need to go out again having put an end to sacrifice.
C. “At the right hand of the throne” – This is his rightful place. What is the significance of the right hand position? This is the position of authority, rule, adjudication. The one who occupies the throne is the wielder of the scepter of iron and the scepter of righteousness, Daniel 7:13-14.
D. The sanctuary and the true tabernacle – This is the tabernacle established, pitched by Jesus himself, 3:6, Matthew 16:18.

II. The New Covenant, 6-13 – “I will be their God, they shall be my people.”

A. The Nature of the New Covenant, 6

1. It is a better covenant – It is a covenant of redemption, a solidified relationship between God and man.
2. It is established on better promises, 12.

a. The foundational promise of this covenant was “Their sins and iniquities I will remember no more.” Every other promise stands upon this one.
b. Subsequent promises are given in Revelation 2-3.

B. The weakness of the law was man– “Finding fault with them,” Romans 8:1-3

1. The first covenant condemned the sin as well as the violator.
2. The second covenant condemns the sin and pardons the sinner. This too stresses the superiority of the second covenant over the first.

C. The καινήν (kainan) covenant

1. With respect to form, καινήν refers to something that is recently made, unused, something that is new both in time, quality, and function.
2. With respect to substance, it speaks of type or kind, something that is unprecedented. This is a new kind of covenant, “Not like the covenant I made with their fathers.”

a. It is a covenant that is written on the hearts and the minds, 10.
b. Participation in this covenant is also different and on different terms. This time, it will be by individual consent. It will be entered into by man through a decision of the will, not by fleshly circumcision at eight days old, 11.

* Israel, under the first covenant, was entered into covenant upon being born in the the nation by natural birth.
* We enter into covenant the new covenant by reason of spiritual birth (See the example of Nicodemus in John 3).

3. The education process is different, 11.

a. They were born into a covenant relationship that was confirmed through the shedding of blood in circumcision. They then had to be taught to know the Lord.
b. We, on the other hand, are first taught to know the Lord and are then brought into a covenant relationship which is also confirmed through the circumcision of the heart and the shedding of blood.

4. In this covenant, there is no more remembrance of sin, 12-13 and 10:3.
5. The first covenant has now been rendered obsolete, it has grown old, and has vanished away.

 

[purgedconscience]

As ought to be obvious by now, I wrestle with a couple of things in my mind that have come up in this study:

1. The alleged eternal Sonship of Christ.

2. This whole for ever Priesthood thing in relation to Christ.

I touched upon the first point briefly on this thread and more extensively on another thread, so I'm not going to address that in depth now. My struggles with the second point basically pertain to THE MAN Christ Jesus. In other words, seeing how our Mediatorial High Priest is a resurrected MAN, I wonder how Christ's Priesthood can be called a for ever Priesthood in that He hasn't eternally been a MAN, but only for about the last 2000 years or so or only since the time that the Word was made flesh. Here are my present musings on the matter. I don't present them as dogma, but simply as thoughts that are going through my mind as I try to rectify this whole thing and make peace with it. We read:

Hebrews chapter 7 verses 11 and 12

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

We know, from scripture, that there have been changes made to both the priesthood and the law, so I'm going to quickly address the changes to the law to see if the same type of change possibly pertains to the priesthood and I'm specifically going to address the sacrifices in that they pertain directly to both the priesthood and the law. Long before the law was ever given, Christ had been foreordained in the foreknowledge of God as the Lamb of God:

I Peter chapter 1 verses 17 thru 21

And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:
Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.

Although Christ wasn't truly sacrificed in linear time until approximately 2000 years ago, His sacrifice had been foreordained in the foreknowledge of God since before the foundation of the world and possibly since eternity past. As such, it seems that Christ's sacrifice has both eternal and linear timeframes attached to it:

1. Eternal in that it was possibly foreordained from eternity past and at least since before the foundation of the world.

2. Linear in that it literally transpired approximately 2000 years ago.

My questions then are these:

1. Does God deem foreordained events as being eternal in that they were foreknown even though they weren't fulfilled until a certain point in linear time?

2. If so, then could THE MAN Christ Jesus' Priesthood rightly be called a for ever Priesthood in that it was both foreordained and foreknown even though Jesus wasn't eternally a MAN and He didn't become one until the time that the Word was made flesh approximately 2000 years ago?

Turning back to the sacrifice for a minute or turning back to Jesus being the foreordained Lamb of God, we not only see sacrifices which preceeded Jesus' sacrifice in linear time all throughout the Old Testament, but we also see people, like Abel, for example, being justified by faith in such sacrifices or by faith in the One to Whom they pointed. As such, the type had some redeeming qualities to it in that it pointed to the Antitype Who wouldn't actually fulfill the type until many, many years later.

For the last couple of days, I've been thinking about the first sacrifice which actually transpired in linear time which is alluded to in scripture:

Genesis chapter 3 verse 21

Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

I trust that we've all heard how that the LORD God killed an animal or animals to get these coats of skins and that the animal or animals pointed to Christ the Lamb of God Who would ultimately be slain for our sins. Well, if this is true and I personally believe it to be true, then wouldn't this in a very real sense be the first example of a Priest that we are given in scripture? In other words, wasn't the LORD God here functioning in a Priestly manner by making a sacrifice on behalf of sinners? The first time that the word priest, kohen in the Hebrew, appears in scripture is here:

Genesis chapter 14 verse 18

And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

Is Melchizedek truly the first priest mentioned in scripture or did the LORD GOD precede Him as Priest in His sacrificing of the animal or animals by which He made coats of skins for both Adam and Eve? In other words, was the LORD always Priest in the foreknowledge of God and was Melchizedek, the first man to actually be mentioned as being a priest of God in the Bible, merely a type of the true Priest or a type of the One Whom we now know as Jesus Christ?

When it comes to the law, we know that it was actually preceded by faith. Again, by faith Abel was justified and that in relation to him looking forward to the sacrifice of Christ. Again, said sacrifice seems to have both eternal and linear qualities attached to it in that it was foreordained in the foreknowledge of God before the foundation of the world, but not actually fulfilled in linear time until approximately 2000 years ago. Could this same principle apply in relation to THE MAN Christ Jesus' for ever Priesthood? In other words, although Jesus hasn't been a MAN since eternity past, could it be that in the foreordained foreknowledge of God that He was and that God therefore accounts His Priesthood as being for ever even though THE MAN part didn't go into effect in linear time until approximately 2000 years ago? Is it also possible that Melchizedek was the first MAN to be called a priest of God in that his priesthood was deliberately designed to foreshadow the Priesthood of Christ?

Turning this back to the alleged eternal Sonship of Christ for a moment, as I've said before, I lean rather heavily towards Incarnational Sonship or towards Jesus having become the Son of God at His incarnation. Even if this is true, in light of what I'm presently asking, could Jesus be considered to be the eternal Son of God not that in He was literally the Son of God from eternity past, but in that in the foreordained foreknowledge of God He was to become the Son of God at a certain point in time in linear history? Along the same vein of thinking/speculating, could THE MAN Christ Jesus' Priesthood be for ever or eternal not that in He actually was a MAN from eternity past, but in that in the foreordained foreknowledge of God it had been determined that at a set point in linear time the Word would be made flesh, crucified, buried, resurrected from the dead and then ascended back to heaven to function as THE MAN Christ Jesus, the only Mediator between both God and men?

I'm not sure that I've articulated my thoughts in such a manner that you all will even understand what I'm suggesting or asking so if what I've written is confusing, then please don't hestitate to ask me questions. Thank you.

 

[oldhermit]

As ought to be obvious by now, I wrestle with a couple of things in my mind that have come up in this study:

1. The alleged eternal Sonship of Christ.

2. This whole for ever Priesthood thing in relation to Christ.

I touched upon the first point briefly on this thread and more extensively on another thread, so I'm not going to address that in depth now. My struggles with the second point basically pertain to THE MAN Christ Jesus. In other words, seeing how our Mediatorial High Priest is a resurrected MAN, I wonder how Christ's Priesthood can be called a for ever Priesthood in that He hasn't eternally been a MAN, but only for about the last 2000 years or so or only since the time that the Word was made flesh. Here are my present musings on the matter. I don't present them as dogma, but simply as thoughts that are going through my mind as I try to rectify this whole thing and make peace with it. We read:

Hebrews chapter 7 verses 11 and 12

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

We know, from scripture, that there have been changes made to both the priesthood and the law, so I'm going to quickly address the changes to the law to see if the same type of change possibly pertains to the priesthood and I'm specifically going to address the sacrifices in that they pertain directly to both the priesthood and the law. Long before the law was ever given, Christ had been foreordained in the foreknowledge of God as the Lamb of God:

I Peter chapter 1 verses 17 thru 21

And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:
Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.

Although Christ wasn't truly sacrificed in linear time until approximately 2000 years ago, His sacrifice had been foreordained in the foreknowledge of God since before the foundation of the world and possibly since eternity past. As such, it seems that Christ's sacrifice has both eternal and linear timeframes attached to it:

1. Eternal in that it was possibly foreordained from eternity past and at least since before the foundation of the world.

2. Linear in that it literally transpired approximately 2000 years ago.

My questions then are these:

1. Does God deem foreordained events as being eternal in that they were foreknown even though they weren't fulfilled until a certain point in linear time?

2. If so, then could THE MAN Christ Jesus' Priesthood rightly be called a for ever Priesthood in that it was both foreordained and foreknown even though Jesus wasn't eternally a MAN and He didn't become one until the time that the Word was made flesh approximately 2000 years ago?

Turning back to the sacrifice for a minute or turning back to Jesus being the foreordained Lamb of God, we not only see sacrifices which preceeded Jesus' sacrifice in linear time all throughout the Old Testament, but we also see people, like Abel, for example, being justified by faith in such sacrifices or by faith in the One to Whom they pointed. As such, the type had some redeeming qualities to it in that it pointed to the Antitype Who wouldn't actually fulfill the type until many, many years later.

For the last couple of days, I've been thinking about the first sacrifice which actually transpired in linear time which is alluded to in scripture:

Genesis chapter 3 verse 21

Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

I trust that we've all heard how that the LORD God killed an animal or animals to get these coats of skins and that the animal or animals pointed to Christ the Lamb of God Who would ultimately be slain for our sins. Well, if this is true and I personally believe it to be true, then wouldn't this in a very real sense be the first example of a Priest that we are given in scripture? In other words, wasn't the LORD God here functioning in a Priestly manner by making a sacrifice on behalf of sinners? The first time that the word priest, kohen in the Hebrew, appears in scripture is here:

Genesis chapter 14 verse 18

And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

Is Melchizedek truly the first priest mentioned in scripture or did the LORD GOD precede Him as Priest in His sacrificing of the animal or animals by which He made coats of skins for both Adam and Eve? In other words, was the LORD always Priest in the foreknowledge of God and was Melchizedek, the first man to actually be mentioned as being a priest of God in the Bible, merely a type of the true Priest or a type of the One Whom we now know as Jesus Christ?

When it comes to the law, we know that it was actually preceded by faith. Again, by faith Abel was justified and that in relation to him looking forward to the sacrifice of Christ. Again, said sacrifice seems to have both eternal and linear qualities attached to it in that it was foreordained in the foreknowledge of God before the foundation of the world, but not actually fulfilled in linear time until approximately 2000 years ago. Could this same principle apply in relation to THE MAN Christ Jesus' for ever Priesthood? In other words, although Jesus hasn't been a MAN since eternity past, could it be that in the foreordained foreknowledge of God that He was and that God therefore accounts His Priesthood as being for ever even though THE MAN part didn't go into effect in linear time until approximately 2000 years ago? Is it also possible that Melchizedek was the first MAN to be called a priest of God in that his priesthood was deliberately designed to foreshadow the Priesthood of Christ?

Turning this back to the alleged eternal Sonship of Christ for a moment, as I've said before, I lean rather heavily towards Incarnational Sonship or towards Jesus having become the Son of God at His incarnation. Even if this is true, in light of what I'm presently asking, could Jesus be considered to be the eternal Son of God not that in He was literally the Son of God from eternity past, but in that in the foreordained foreknowledge of God He was to become the Son of God at a certain point in time in linear history? Along the same vein of thinking/speculating, could THE MAN Christ Jesus' Priesthood be for ever or eternal not that in He actually was a MAN from eternity past, but in that in the foreordained foreknowledge of God it had been determined that at a set point in linear time the Word would be made flesh, crucified, buried, resurrected from the dead and then ascended back to heaven to function as THE MAN Christ Jesus, the only Mediator between both God and men?

I'm not sure that I've articulated my thoughts in such a manner that you all will even understand what I'm suggesting or asking so if what I've written is confusing, then please don't hestitate to ask me questions. Thank you.

I'm sorry I have not responded to this yet but I will. Been otherwise occupied the last few days.

 

[purgedconscience]

I'm leaving the forum. Farewell.

 

[Billyd]

I'm leaving the forum. Farewell.

Really sad to see you leave. You really have much to offer.

 

[oldhermit]

Chapter Nine


​

I. The Climatic Architecture of Hebrews

- In chapter one Jesus is the conduit of divine communication.
- In chapter two he is the perfect representation of humanity and the bio-representation of God.
- In chapter three he is the architect of the house of God.
- In chapter four he is the rest giver.
- In chapter five he is the High Priest.
- In chapter six he is the surety of the oath and the promise.
- In chapters seven and eight he represents the superior of priesthood
- In chapter nine he is setting up the tabernacle for the day of atonement. The sacrifice is being slain and the blood is being sprinkled.
- In chapter ten he is the perfection of atonement and the call to fidelity is issued.
- In chapter eleven we are given the outline of faithfulness in the history of God's people.
- In chapter twelve the need for our divide discipline is set forth.
- In chapter thirteen we are give sundry admonitions.

II. The First Covenant, 1-10 was represented by an earthly tabernacle, Leviticus 10: 1-3.

A. The silent hermeneutic – “Even the first covenant...”

1. Regulations of divine worship. Worship was controlled by God. God alone defines what is acceptable to him as worship, Numbers 28:2, Leviticus 22:2. God established restrictions and boundaries that were not to be crossed.
2. The earthly tabernacle, 2 – This was the place where God was to meet with his people. Now, he is himself the tabernacle made ready for the Day of Atonement and the High Priest is preparing to enter, 26.

a. The outer sanctuary – The first veil separated it from the courtyard, 6.
b. The second veil separated the sanctuary from the Holy of Holies.
c. The Holy of Holies

* The altar of incense – this represented the prayers of the people.
* The ark of the covenant – This represented the presence of God seated between the wings of the cherubim on the mercy seat of the ark.

d. Regulation of restricted access, 7-9.

* God establishes the link between the symbol and what the symbol represented.

- It stood against the backdrop of Calvary
- These sacrifices were still being offered at the time of the writing of the book of Hebrews.

> "Are offered"
> "Cannot make perfect the conscience"
> "Relate only"
These are all present tense verbs.

* The revelation of typology is determined by the Holy Spirit. We cannot just attach whatever definition we want to biblical symbols. What does this say about a hermeneutic that says the Bible can be interpreted in many different ways? Scripture only says what God intends for it to say, 2Peter 1:20-21. (ἐπιλύσεως ((epiluseos)) – to unloose, to decide a controversy, to settle, to explain something hard to understand.)

B. The New Covenant, 11-17 is represented by the greater and more perfect tabernacle.

1. The officiating High Priest is God himself.
2. More precious blood – It has the power to redeem, to cleanse the conscience.
What was the power of the blood of bulls and goats? It was a constant reminder of sin and for fleshly purification – The red heifer of Numbers 19
3. Jesus entered one time for all time for all humanity, 12-13.
4. Those sacrifices fulfilled their intended function not having been offered through the Spirit. Since this is true, how much more can the perfect sacrifice that is offered through the Holy Spirit fulfill the intended function to purify the human conscience?
5. Our function in all of this is service to God. We have been purified, cleansed, and set apart for priestly service with everything this implies.

a. Service to God - Not just:

* Showing up on Sunday morning and singing a few hymns, offering up a couple of prayers, and partaking of the Lord's Supper.
* It is more than just putting a check in the collection plate and listening to a sermon that always seems to apply to someone else.

b. Service to God means

* First and foremost, keeping myself pure before God and before others.
* Surrendering myself to the needs of others even to the neglect sometimes of my own needs.
* Loving one another, forbearing with one another, and forgiving one another.
* Extending ourselves to the lost, the ignorant, and the misguided.
Make no mistake about it, everything about our redemption is for the purpose of service. “We are not our own. We have been bought with a price.” And we have been bought for service.

6. Death is for confirmation, 15-17 .

a. “For this reason” – because he offered himself without blemish.
b. Mediator – To arbitrate an agreement between two parties, to arbitrate a dispute. The dispute is against us. God is the offended party.
c. For those under both covenants.
d. Death ratifies the agreement – A contract has been sealed in blood. Death is imperative for a will to have any power.

C. Both covenants are inaugurated with blood, 18-28.

1. The dedication of the tabernacle, Exodus 40.

a. The narrative in Exodus 24 does not mention:

* The goat
* The water
* The scarlet wool – although the scarlet wool is mentioned in connection with the red heifer sacrifice, the scape goat, and the cleansing of the leper.
* The hyssop
* The book
These are the same examples at that mentioned in Acts 20:35 and John 21:25 - Not everything that took place was recorded. Josephus agrees with this process. Everything connected with covenant bore the mark of blood and death.

b. The tabernacle and all its vessels
c. “ALMOST all things were cleansed with blood.” Some things were cleansed with water, others by fire.
d. The shedding of blood is essential for forgiveness because it connects us with life, Leviticus 17:11. Sin kills. Blood restores life.

2. Necessary for covenants, 23-26

a. Since the first covenant was type, the blood that ratified it must also be type. This means redemption.
b. Since the new covenant is heavenly, only the blood of the one who came out of heaven can ratify this one. One time for all time for all mankind.

3. How certain is the effectiveness of this sacrifice? As certain as judgment follows death, 27-28.

 

[oldhermit]

III. The Danger of Not Holding Fast, 23-39.

A. Support of the body of Christ is a one another responsibility. If one does not hold fast, the Church loses one more badly needed support element. Keeping one another active in our love for one another and involved in doing good is vital to the health of the body. When we are thus engaged, we spend our time thinking about the needs of others instead of focusing on things that pull us away.

B. Forsaking the assembly - To abandon, desert, to leave in straits. This is a barometer for a spiritual condition. It is a reflection of an attitude. It reveals:

1. Complacency
2. Shame
3. Avoidance
These are exercises in rationalization and is often the result of:

a. Uncomfortable relationships with another member, the preacher, a certain teacher, or the elders
b. Being confronted for sin in one's life.

4. Abandonment is a decision of the will that develops into habit.
5. It becomes a rejection of sacrifice.
6. It is an insult to the Spirit of grace because it disregards the grace that has been extended to you. It rejects the gift.
7. It is a rejection of the covenant between you and God. We have set aside the covenant in favor of personal interests.

a. They have trampled underfoot the Son of God.
b. They have rejected the blood as something that is unclean – The hog slaughtered on the altar as it were.

C. This decision forces a change of relationship whether we accept it or not. Proverbs 16:28.

1. We have become a hindrance to the body. We are either a part of the support system or we are part of the problem – a hindrance.
2. We have become enemies of God. This is self-separation.

D. Consequences, 28-31.

1. Divine vengeance – Example: Moses and the Law – Death.
2. More sever punishment town us than was levied against those of old.
3. Total separation

E. A call to remembrance, 32-39

1. Remember the former days when you endured. What is the virtue in remembering times of endurance?

a. They had been made a public spectacle.
b. They had became sharers with those who were persecuted
c. They had suffered the confiscation of their property – Jewish disinheritance.

2. Realization of a better possession.
3. There is great reward for holding on.
4. You have need of endurance – Why? More difficult days are coming for you.

 

[oldhermit]

Chapter Ten

​

I. Shadow and Form, Substance, Reality, 1-4

A. The characteristics of shadow

1. A shadow always represents something beyond itself.
2. Shadow has no form or substance of its own.
3. Shadow can only be seen against the backdrop of light.
4. Shadow only reveals the basic outline of the true form without providing any detail by which the form can be clearly distinguished.
5. It can never fulfill the function of the real thing.
This was the nature of the law. One could never quite get a distinct picture of what was coming. Only vague representations of good things to come.

B. If perfection could have been obtained through those sacrifices, would not that first Day of Atonement in Leviticus nine have been the last Day of Atonement? Since that was only for national atonement, what about the rest of humanity?
C. Why was this impossible? Because God took no pleasure / satisfaction in those sacrifices, 6.

II. The Acceptable Sacrifice, 5-22

A. The choosing of the sacrifice. “A body you have prepared for me.”

1. No spot or blemish
2. No sores
3. No broken bones
4. Could not be sick or lame
5. Must be a male goat - a ram.
See Isaiah 50:4-7 and Psalms 40:6-8 – Jesus is being consecrated and prepared for atonement.

B. Satisfaction achieved – The function of any sacrifice is to satisfy the will of God.

1. He takes away the first to establish the second.
2. He sat down upon completion.
3. He provided perfection for all time.
4. He ratified a new covenant.
5. Now, there is no more remembrance for sin.
6. There is no more need for another sacrifice.

C. We are granted throne room access, 19-22.

1. Not just to enter the throne room but, to approach the throne itself. BUT, more than just being privileged to approach the throne, one day we too shall take our place upon the throne, Revelation 3:21.
2. Preparations for entrance

a. Hearts sprinkled
b. Bodies washed – this is where we come into contact with the blood.


III. Maintaining a Standard of Faithfulness, 23-39 – The standard of our faithfulness is the faithfulness of God. The admonition is “Let us old fast...” Our fidelity is demonstrated in two ways.

A. Our relationships to one another in love and good deeds.
B. Our responsibility to fellowship. This involves:

1. Exhortation
2. Corporate worship
3. The fellowship of the table.

C. Unfaithfulness to the assembly equals sin. Our personal habits of honoring the assembly are a barometer of our spiritual condition. This is a reflection of an attitude toward God and one another.

1. Forsaking the assembly becomes a habit. Complacency builds from a tendency to rationalize the behavior.

a. Assembly forsaken in favor of other things
b. Assembly forsaken to avoid:

* Uncomfortable relationships with other members, the preacher, a certain teacher or the elders.
* Being confronted for sin in their lives.

2. Forsaking the assembly is a decision of the will.
3. It is an insult to the Spirit of grace.
4. It is a rejection of the covenant between you and God. This sets aside one's covenant with God in favor of personal comfort and other interests.

a. This person has “trampled under foot the Son of God.”
b. It regards as unclean the blood of Christ - The proverbial hog slaughtered on the altar.

IV. This Decision Forces a Change of Relationship – Whether we accept it or not!

A. We become a hindrance to the body
B. We have become enemies of God. This is self separation.
C. The Consequences are:

1. Divine vengeance – Exodus example of Moses and the Law – Death!
2. More severe for us.
3. Total separation from God and the assembly

V. The Remedial Recommendations

A. Remember your former days – Bring back the zeal.
B. Remember your participation in the welfare of the saints.
C. Do not throw away your confidence in the promises of God to bless and to curse.

 

[oyster67]

B. We have become enemies of God. This is self separation.

Does this mean we have separated ourselves from a state of being saved, or is our salvation still intact?

 

[oldhermit]

Does this mean we have separated ourselves from a state of being saved, or is our salvation still intact?

How does one retain salvation when he chooses to separate himself from God? Salvation is not without condition and obligation.

 

[oldhermit]

Chapter Eleven


​

I. How the Hebrew Writer Represents the Function of Faith in Chapter Eleven:

- It is foundational to life.
- It is evidence of an unseen reality.
- It is instructive of things that are beyond our ield of observation.
- It influences human behavior.
- It is a reward from God.
- It Pleases God.
- It Engenders obedience.
- It strengthens us to accomplish the impossible.
- It creates an inspired representation of human existence.
- It produces confidence in God.
- It trusts God's control of events.
- It produces courage.
- It rejects material allurements.


II. The Definition of Faith

A. It is the foundation of hope – Hope is expectation / This expectation must be rooted in something we cannot see.

B. Faith is itself the evidence that there is a causative source beyond the observable universe.

III. The Implications of Faith

A. Faith always stands in contrast to rationalization, common sense, and reason. Faith is never accompanied by these things. Biblical faith is our capacity to accept things beyond the scope of human reason. The opposite of faith is not disbelief, it is rationalization. Unbelief is the product of rationalizing one's empirical observations of the natural processes and attempting to link causation to the natural world. Scripture never allows us to formulate a belief structure based on our experiences. Every time we see someone do this in scripture it is always regarded as faithlessness, unbelief, or disobedience. Scripture NEVER calls us to reason. It calls us to faith.
B. Biblical faith is never the product of our observation of the natural world. Biblical faith never comes out our experiences with the natural world. It comes from linking our experiences to the reality, presence, and the power of God. Any belief structure that comes through the observation of natural process is based on sight. This is not how we are charged to live, 2Corinthians 5:7. “We walk by faith, not by sight.” Faith is contrary to naturally perceived evidences.

IV. Faith is the Foundational Structure Upon Which We Construct a Revealed Cosmology. “By faith we understand..” 3

A. The understanding of causation does not come from our observation of material evidences. This produces atheism, Darwinism, evolutionism, pragmaticism, and idolatry. We can have a proper understanding of causation because scripture says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” We accept this NOT on the basis of natural evidences (this is walking by sight) but, on the basis of faith – because scripture reveals it.
B. The creation of matter

1. “Not made out of things which are visible.”

a. Matter is not eternal
b. Matter has no natural or material antecedents – God alone is causal.
c. God speaks and matter responds and conforms to the will of God.
d. Matter without divine influence in benign. There are no natural laws, no 'mother' nature that is regulative. Matter without mind in non influential. Nothing happens until God speaks. Nature is always reactive, never causal, Job 38, 39.

2. Two natural planes.

a. The heavens – Not a reference to the empty expanse of space nor to the celestial bodies. This is the aqua-firmament.
b. Earth

3. Prepared – κατηρτίσθαι (katartisthai) – to arrange, to put in order. It is also a passive verb meaning that the action of being arranged or put in order was something that was performed upon it from another source beyond itself.

IV. By Faith We Gain Divine Approval, 4-31.
Faith is an actuator that brings the power of God to bear upon the natural world. It moves God to act on our behalf. Because of faith, God forces things in the natural world to respond to the needs of the righteous. The writer will use not less than twenty-five pragmatic examples in chapter eleven to illustrate this point. BY FAITH...

A. Able, 4 – Offered a better sacrifice than Cain. What made it better was the element of faith. Able had it and Cain did not. The problem was not with the sacrifice. Cain and Able are both offering the same sacrifice. The problem lies with the worshiper.
We learn in 1John 3:11-12 how Cain's lack of faith manifested itself - evil deeds. Faith is not attributed to the sacrifice. The sacrifice means nothing without the heart of the worshiper. Able is not faithful because of the sacrifice, his sacrifice is acceptable because of his faith. This is not a sacrifice of atonement or contrition. This is a thanksgiving sacrifice that does not require blood. This also does not suggest that this is the first time either of these sacrifices were offered. The problem that seems to reside within Cain is his relationship with his brother. Could there be a connection to Cain and Able and the lesson of Jesus in Matthew 5:21-24?
B. Enoch, 5-6 – Taken up to escape death. The grandfather of Noah, Enoch lived in a generation of wicked men, Jude 14-15. Yet, because of faith, he was pleasing to God. Faith has all but disappeared from the earth in his time. Faith is preserved in his line. In his generation there were none who:

1. Sought God
2. Believed that God is.
3. Believed that God rewards.
There were none who please God. This gives emphases to the statement "Noah found grace in the eye of the Lord.” In his generation, he would be exceptional.

V. To the Unbelieving Observer, Biblical Faith is an Exercise in Irrationality.

A. Noah, 7 – There was no rational, no reason, and no logic behind the building of the ark. Human reasoning operating outside of a revelation can only conclude that:

1. There were no historical antecedents. Nothing like this had ever been heard of.
2. There was no material evidence – such an event as the flood could not be validated by the natural world. It had never happened before.

a. No evidence that God had told Noah anything.
b. No evidence to suggest that a flood was even possible.
c. On the basis of the natural evidence, there appeared to be no conceivable need for a boat 450' long, 75' wide, and 45' high.

B. The building of the ark rested on a single antecedent – The Word of God. No natural antecedents were present. Acting on faith without any appeal to rational considerations resulted in:

1. The salvation of Noah's household.
2. The condemnation of the world – He brought the judgment of God against the world.
3. He received the inheritance of righteousness.
All of this is the reward of faith. What is the consequence of the rational mind? Ask those who did not make it aboard the ark.

 

[oldhermit]

VII. Abraham and Sarah, 8-22.
Abraham is Called out of Haran by God, 8-10.
“Get you out of your country, and from your kindred, and from your father's house, unto a land that I will show you: And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great; and you shall be a blessing. And I will bless them that bless you, and curse him that curses you: and in you shall all families of the earth be blessed.”
According to Acts 7:4 God calls Abraham to depart from Haran after his father's death. Terah dies at the age of 205 years of age and when Abraham is 70 years old he departs from Haran. This would mean that Terah was 130 years of age when Abraham was born. Abraham is now called upon to leave behind everything he knows to go to a place of which he knows nothing. This certainly represents quite a shift in Abraham's life in at least four areas.

A. This is an Identity shift.

1. He is removed from everything he knows. He will no longer be called the son of Terah. From now on he will be the father of a divinely appointed nation of people. He will be called the “friend of God.”
2. He will no longer derive his identity through his father but through his association with God; not based on who he is but on who he will become. From an obscure nobody in the line of Shem he would be catapulted into history as the father of a great nation. He is THE patriarch, THE beginning. In this respect he has no predecessors.

B. This is a cultural and psychological shift. One's psychology is initially shaped by one's culture.

1. He is separated from his support system. He is removed from everything and everyone that had before provided structure and stability in his life. This is important because it removes him from that sphere of influence. God does not leave a void. God would be the influential agent in his life from this point on.
2. He was separated from everything that provides a sense of security.

a. Economically – For Abraham, economics would no longer be rooted in a financial system or a local market – “I will bless you, I will multiply you.”
b. Protection from his enemies will no longer be ensured through walled cities or a standing army. “I will bless them that bless you, and curse him that curses you.”

C. This is a theological shift. There is no indication that Abraham's theology was any different than that of Terah. What could have defined the erosion of theology within the culture of Ur? Theological possibilities:

1. The deterioration of theology into a naturalistic idolatry with no link to the God of Noah.
2. The deterioration of God into a degenerated triad; like what we find in the camp of Israel at Sinai.
It would seem from the language of Joshua 24:2-4 that the first possibility is the more likely. In either case, all Abraham knew about any kind of God was what had been formed out of the natural world. His experience with theology was based on a dyadic concept of the universe where god was the product of the human mind. But, when God calls him out of Haran, he risks everything on the promises of a God he can neither see nor touch and with whom he had no prior experience. How does he know this God can do what he promised? This is incredible!

D. This is an epistemological shift. Epistemology is simply a word used to describe the nature of how knowledge is obtained, i.e. how we know what we know. The two fields of epistemology with which we are concerned in this study are human experience and revelation.

1. Human experience is knowledge that is obtained through one's experiences in the natural world. This is knowledge that is constructed through direct observation of statistical regularities. This knowledge will always be restricted by the use of language constraints that are linked to physics and physiology. We will look at this more later.
2. Revelation is knowledge that is gained from man's representation of human experiences on the basis of revelation. From now on, Abraham would have to learn to look beyond the scope of natural determined relations (what we generally regard as natural laws). These things would be manipulated and overturned by God on his behalf. His representation of his experiences on the basis of revealed knowledge would develop in him a level of faith that would become the standard of acceptable faith for the remainder of human history. This will represent a dramatic transformation of Abraham's psychology.

VII. NEED TO DO 11-12

A. “By faith even Sarah herself received ability to conceive, even beyond the proper time of life, since she considered Him faithful who had promised.” This information is not shared with us in the O.T. account. What we are shown is Sarah's doubt that is directly related to their biological conditions.
B. Sara's laughter is turned from that of speculation into that of joy.

1. “Who would have said unto Abraham, that Sarah should have nursed children?” There are no natural explanations for the birth of Isaac. It is beyond the realm of human possibilities. It defies all the laws of physics and physiology.
2. The only possibility lies in the power of God to overturn all natural limitations. “God has made me to laugh.” One can never appeal to the natural sciences to explain a non-natural event.

 

[psychomom]

a. They have trampled underfoot the Son of God.
b. They have rejected the blood as something that is unclean – The hog slaughtered on the altar as it were.

although i see a definite connection between the warning about forsaking the assembly and the following part,
please can you elaborate on the quote?

 

[oldhermit]

although i see a definite connection between the warning about forsaking the assembly and the following part,
please can you elaborate on the quote?

Are you talking about "They have trampled underfoot the Son of God."

 

[psychomom]

Are you talking about "They have trampled underfoot the Son of God."

yes. i see it a bit differently, and am hoping you can connect the dots between the two.

 

[oldhermit]

Trampling underfoot is an expression that means to consider something as worthless. Jesus used this same expression in Matt. 5:13, "You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men." The writer is labeling those Christians who had abandoned the Church as having now regarded Jesus as worthless. Forsaking the assembly is a reflection of an attitude of rejection. These have rejected the cross, insult to the Spirit of grace, and now consider the sacrifice of Christ as worthless. Understand, he is not talking about the person who simply misses the assembly on occasion. He is talking about the person who has become habitual in the practice, the person whose habit has become an abandonment of the assembly.

 

[psychomom]

my grammar question

i'm fairly certain you won't agree, yet i know you'll hear me out and i thank you.

Heb 10:29
How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?

we assume 'by which he was sanctified' refers to the hypothetical apostate, but could it refer to its closest antecedent 'the Son of God'?
He sanctified Himself by the blood of the covenant, something no one else could do.

also, i have to consider v.10
By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

and v.14
For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

in this light, it seems the apostate is a tare... never truly a part of the Church.
he may have sat in the assembly and partaken of the Lord's Supper, and heard the Word of God and even been baptized.
yet he never submitted to the Righteousness of God in Christ and received the gift of salvation through faith in Christ.

thanks, oldhermit