What is the meaning of Hebrews 4?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#61
"Nehemiah6" did a fine job explaining the verses of Hebrews 4 so I'll let those stand and go on to answer your question, paraphrased - "would seeking to obey God's commands be working for salvation in my eyes?" In short, no. First, we must understand what a covenant relationship is. Often times we think of this like a contract where one party promises one thing if the other party promises to do another. (think of buying a car: you will give me a car IF I give you so much money). The contract does nothing to change us, in fact, it comes between us because the terms of the deal are clearly defined. This is not a covenant. In a covenant relationship, the very definition of the parties changes. Think of Abram/Abraham in Genesis 15-17.

In the context of salvation - and this is where I believe most Christians get it wrong - salvation is not a contract, it is a covenant. The very nature of my being changes. I'm no longer a 'me', I'm a 'we' because Christ is in me. As a result, when it comes to keeping God's commandments, it's not because I HAVE to obey them to be accepted by Him but rather, because of the love that I have for Him I WANT to obey them. This is not me working to obtain any "greater salvation or reward" but working to please my Father and nothing more. As someone once said, "there is nothing you can do to make God love you any less; and nothing you can do to make Him love you any more."

Amen, take this and learn to love others, as god first loved us, and you have found that wonderful rest spoken of in Heb 4.

yet people want to put us under law and place us under the thing the people the law was given to could not do because it was too great a burden
 
A

Ariel82

Guest
#62
LOL indeed.

clever analogies over the written Word...
Your words not mine.

You have basically said my analogy doesn't line up with Scriptures.

I said you didn't understand what I was commenting about or you would actually agree.

You figure it out.

Maybe you will be humble and truthful enough to apologize. But I won't hold my breath.
 

Shamah

Senior Member
Jan 6, 2018
2,735
692
113
#63
Your words not mine.

You have basically said my analogy doesn't line up with Scriptures.

I said you didn't understand what I was commenting about or you would actually agree.

You figure it out.

Maybe you will be humble and truthful enough to apologize. But I won't hold my breath.
I think maybe you have said some things to me in the past...

OK, so when you say:

Kind of like the difference between the Statue and the hero.
and:

The question is do you worship the Creator or the Creation?

God or statues of God?
Are you not implying or saying that I am "worshiping" Commandments?

You are being dishonest then saying Im being mean, if I listen to Jesus to obey Him am I "worshiping" His words?

No I worship the Most High by seeking to live by what He says, to imply that I

The question is do you worship the Creator or the Creation?

God or statues of God?
"worship" the creation because I believe in obedience to His 4th Commandment is beyond dishonest...

Exodus 20:6, “But showing love to thousands who love Me by keeping My Laws.”


John/Yahanan 14:15, “If you love Me, keep My commandments.”
 

Shamah

Senior Member
Jan 6, 2018
2,735
692
113
#64
Amen, take this and learn to love others, as god first loved us, and you have found that wonderful rest spoken of in Heb 4.

yet people want to put us under law and place us under the thing the people the law was given to could not do because it was too great a burden
You call His Law

the law was given to could not do because it was too great a burden
Yet the word says different...

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1 John 5:2-3, "By this we know that we love the children of Yah, when we love Yah and guard His commands. For this is the love for Yah, that we guard His commands, and His commands are not heavy."[/FONT]



the burden is the commandments of men

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Mat 23:4, “For they (the pharisees not YHWH) bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders, but with their finger they do not wish to move them.”[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]How do they “bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders, but with their finger they do not wish to move them?”[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]New International Version - Mat 23:2-3, "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach."[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]King James Bible - Mat 23:2-3, "Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not."[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Shem Tob's Hebrew Mattithyah - Mat 23:2-3, "The Pharisees and Sages sit upon the seat of Mosheh. Therefore, all that he (Mosheh) says to you, diligently do, but according to their takanot (reforms) and their ma'asim (precedents) do not do, because they talk (Torah) but they do not do."[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Takanot: rabbinical reforms or enactments that falsely change or add to YHWH's Law.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Ma'asim: acts or deeds that serve as precedents for rabbinic law.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Both Takanot and Ma'asim are laws of the Talmud. [/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Mark 7:1-9, “And the Pharisees and some of the scribes assembled to Him, having come from Yerushalayim. And seeing some of His taught ones eat bread with defiled, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees, and all the Yehuḏim, do not eat unless they wash their hands thoroughly, holding fast the tradition of the elders, and coming from the market-place, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions which they have received and hold fast – the washing of cups and utensils and copper vessels and couches. Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do Your taught ones not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands? And He answering, said to them, “Well did Yeshayahu prophesy concerning you hypocrites, as it has been written, ‘This people respect Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrine the commands of men.’ Forsaking the command of YHWH, you hold fast the tradition of men. And He said to them, “Well do you set aside the command of YHWH, in order to guard your tradition."[/FONT]
 

graceNpeace

Senior Member
Aug 12, 2016
2,180
107
63
#65
You call His Law



Yet the word says different...
...

Shem Tob's Hebrew Mattithyah - Mat 23:2-3, "The Pharisees and Sages sit upon the seat of Mosheh. Therefore, all that he (Mosheh) says to you, diligently do, but according to their takanot (reforms) and their ma'asim (precedents) do not do, because they talk (Torah) but they do not do."


Takanot: rabbinical reforms or enactments that falsely change or add to YHWH's Law.


Ma'asim: acts or deeds that serve as precedents for rabbinic law.


Both Takanot and Ma'asim are laws of the Talmud.
These are YOUR embellishments!!!!!
I have personally read this with my own eyes from a copy of the Shem Tob translation!

You need to retract this nonsense and apologise for trying to rewrite the Word of God for your own purposes!!!
I am also reporting this disgusting conduct to the moderators and I will ask them to ban you UNLESS you make an unconditional apology and close this thread....
 

Shamah

Senior Member
Jan 6, 2018
2,735
692
113
#66
These are YOUR embellishments!!!!!
I have personally read this with my own eyes from a copy of the Shem Tob translation!

You need to retract this nonsense and apologise for trying to rewrite the Word of God for your own purposes!!!
I am also reporting this disgusting conduct to the moderators and I will ask them to ban you UNLESS you make an unconditional apology and close this thread....
Can you show me my

...disgusting conduct....
Also it is John who sais "His Commands are not heavy...":

1 John 5:2-3, "By this we know that we love the children of Yah, when we love Yah and guard His commands. For this is the love for Yah, that we guard His commands, and His commands are not heavy."

and if I understand Mat 23:2-3 wrong why don't you explain it to me? Oh and I have the Shem Tob translation in hebrew and not a text copy but a literal mocrofilm, so a Lamsa or Howard transltion may not convey the origial hebrew, have you seen Howards comparison can you quote his translation and complare it to the Hebrew original?

 

graceNpeace

Senior Member
Aug 12, 2016
2,180
107
63
#67
Can you show me my



Also it is John who sais "His Commands are not heavy...":

1 John 5:2-3, "By this we know that we love the children of Yah, when we love Yah and guard His commands. For this is the love for Yah, that we guard His commands, and His commands are not heavy."

and if I understand Mat 23:2-3 wrong why don't you explain it to me? Oh and I have the Shem Tob translation in hebrew and not a text copy but a literal mocrofilm, so a Lamsa or Howard transltion may not convey the origial hebrew, have you seen Howards comparison can you quote his translation and complare it to the Hebrew original?

There is no Hebrew original - what you are supposedly quoting (and embellishing) is a translation from Greek circa 1385!
What form your version is in - microfilm changes nothing...

Also, the fact that you would try and quote from a version that is dedicated to an anti-Christian stance is also abominable!

As for explaining anything to you - I repeat what I have said a couple of times in the last few days across this and other threads - learn exegesis instead of literally placing your own understand (misunderstanding) on the text.
Neither the Greek nor any current English translation allows one to make the conclusions that you are drawing.

You are continuing to make dishonest claims...

So, instead of trying to defend the indefensible, using heretical texts, I think you need to apologise!
 

Shamah

Senior Member
Jan 6, 2018
2,735
692
113
#68
There is no Hebrew original - what you are supposedly quoting (and embellishing) is a translation from Greek circa 1385!
What form your version is in - microfilm changes nothing...

Also, the fact that you would try and quote from a version that is dedicated to an anti-Christian stance is also abominable!

As for explaining anything to you - I repeat what I have said a couple of times in the last few days across this and other threads - learn exegesis instead of literally placing your own understand (misunderstanding) on the text.
Neither the Greek nor any current English translation allows one to make the conclusions that you are drawing.

You are continuing to make dishonest claims...

So, instead of trying to defend the indefensible, using heretical texts, I think you need to apologise!
yes I am talking about the microfilm of the 1583 Shem Tob version, it is the original of that version and not an english translation. There are no originals, as in the first copy of any manuscript we have...

however it was originally written in Hebrew and translated in to greek;

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The Ebionites were a Christian sect that claimed to preserve the original autograph of apostle Matthew in Hebrew. It is quoted often by Epiphanius in the 300s. He said its official title was “The Gospel according to Matthew.” (Epiphanius, Panarion 30, 13, 2-3.)[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Apostle John told Papias around 90 A.D. about this book of Matthew: “Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.” (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 39, quoting Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord)[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Irenaeus likewise says: “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter I, quoted in Eusebius,[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Ecclesiastical History, Book V, Chapter VIII.)[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Jerome around 404 A.D. wrote of this too: “The Hebrew [Matthew] itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered.” (Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, Chapter III.)[/FONT]


“[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Matthew collected the oracles (ta logia) in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could.” – Papias (Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.16)

Ok a few other things, just because you disagree with my view does not me me wrong, it makes me wrong in your view. Why don't you then explain what MAt 23:2-3 means to me? and I am not apologozing when I did nothing wrong, I am supposed to apologize to false accusation.... this is a bible debate forum the purpose is to talk about the word
[/FONT]
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
790
113
#69
1. Can you prove that your "microfilm" Matthew is the same text Ireneus or Eusebius had in mind?

2. Our gospel of Matthew is not a translation from Hebrew, its synoptic. The Hebrew gospel Ireneus or Eusebius talked about had not make it to the NT canon, so its apocrypha.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#70
You call His Law



Yet the word says different...

1 John 5:2-3, "By this we know that we love the children of Yah, when we love Yah and guard His commands. For this is the love for Yah, that we guard His commands, and His commands are not heavy."



the burden is the commandments of men

Mat 23:4, “For they (the pharisees not YHWH) bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders, but with their finger they do not wish to move them.”


How do they “bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders, but with their finger they do not wish to move them?”


New International Version - Mat 23:2-3, "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach."


King James Bible - Mat 23:2-3, "Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not."


Shem Tob's Hebrew Mattithyah - Mat 23:2-3, "The Pharisees and Sages sit upon the seat of Mosheh. Therefore, all that he (Mosheh) says to you, diligently do, but according to their takanot (reforms) and their ma'asim (precedents) do not do, because they talk (Torah) but they do not do."


Takanot: rabbinical reforms or enactments that falsely change or add to YHWH's Law.


Ma'asim: acts or deeds that serve as precedents for rabbinic law.


Both Takanot and Ma'asim are laws of the Talmud.


Mark 7:1-9, “And the Pharisees and some of the scribes assembled to Him, having come from Yerushalayim. And seeing some of His taught ones eat bread with defiled, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees, and all the Yehuḏim, do not eat unless they wash their hands thoroughly, holding fast the tradition of the elders, and coming from the market-place, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions which they have received and hold fast – the washing of cups and utensils and copper vessels and couches. Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do Your taught ones not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands? And He answering, said to them, “Well did Yeshayahu prophesy concerning you hypocrites, as it has been written, ‘This people respect Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrinethe commands of men.’ Forsaking the command of YHWH, you hold fast the tradition of men. And He said to them, “Well do you set aside the command of YHWH, in order to guard your tradition."
You do not get it, and sadly I fear you never will

The commands are burdensome because we can not keep them according to Gods standard (perfection)

And no. it is not men laws.

You want to be burdened, be burdened, but do us all a favor. Let the rest of us find the rest in Christ. or is that to difficult for you to do? are you afraid we are going to find something you can't find?
 

Shamah

Senior Member
Jan 6, 2018
2,735
692
113
#71
1. Can you prove that your "microfilm" Matthew is the same text Ireneus or Eusebius had in mind?

2. Our gospel of Matthew is not a translation from Hebrew, its synoptic. The Hebrew gospel Ireneus or Eusebius talked about had not make it to the NT canon, so its apocrypha.
1. I never said it was, there is no way to know. It is however the most original in content out of any version we have, reading it shows this.

2. The content is more original. Just one example. In chapter 1 it gives Yahshua/Jesus geneology, in EVERY greek version known it gives 13 generations from Babylon to Messiah (husband and wife are not 2 generations) in the 1583 hebrew version it gives all 14 generations. Also there is proof hebraisims remain the in greek, I am not a master of the greek language to know enough about this in completeness, but it is there for those who want to look into it.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
790
113
#72
1. I never said it was, there is no way to know. It is however the most original in content out of any version we have, reading it shows this.

2. The content is more original. Just one example. In chapter 1 it gives Yahshua/Jesus geneology, in EVERY greek version known it gives 13 generations from Babylon to Messiah (husband and wife are not 2 generations) in the 1583 hebrew version it gives all 14 generations. Also there is proof hebraisims remain the in greek, I am not a master of the greek language to know enough about this in completeness, but it is there for those who want to look into it.
1. No, its from the 16th century. Its not "the most original in content" when we have Greek Matthew from 4th century in full.

Just because its in Hebrew does not mean its original or most original.

2. The same as 1.
 
A

Ariel82

Guest
#75
Please explain what you just said.
A memorial is made to honor and remember a person or event. Memorials in themselves are not wrong. However statues can become idols if people worship them instead of remember the person they are suppose to honor.

The point was that the seventh day of creation is not the weekly Sabbath. The. Weekly Sabbath is in memorial of the Seven day of creation,

It's quite simple, but some folks would seek offense.
 

Lewiz

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2018
346
22
18
#76
You are not discussing Hebrews chapter 4 - all you are doing is cherry picking verses from all over to peddle a theological mess.

A serious discussion of Hebrews means one has to exegete Hebrews - not try to interpret it on the basis of your biases...
Somehow....... looking at what scripture he used, and then all those that "liked" your post, I get the funny feeling that shamah has stumbled onto some scripture that makes you just a tad uneasy.

Perhaps because he quoted V1 & some others?

1Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it.

A promise of entering our final rest, yet we can still miss it?

That's bad for freegrace theology & OSAS.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
16,187
7,981
113
#77
Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it.
A promise of entering our final rest, yet we can still miss it?
"His rest" (God's rest) is NOT the same as "our final rest". We enter into "His rest" right now. And to fall short of it is to revert to the rites and rituals of the Old Covenant and the works of the Law in order to be justified, even though those believers were justified by grace through faith. There is no rest in that whatsoever.

This is the same as when Paul says "ye are fallen from grace" in Galatians. But that still did not impact their salvation. There is no hint that the Galatians had lost their salvation because of this faulty doctrine.

Brethren, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen. (Gal 6:18)
 
A

Ariel82

Guest
#78
Somehow....... looking at what scripture he used, and then all those that "liked" your post, I get the funny feeling that shamah has stumbled onto some scripture that makes you just a tad uneasy.

Perhaps because he quoted V1 & some others?

1Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it.

A promise of entering our final rest, yet we can still miss it?

That's bad for freegrace theology & OSAS.
If you wait to enter God's rest upon death you won't make it.

Yes Hebrews 4 talks about entering the Promised land. the Heavenly Jerusalem.

The question is it possible to enter while still alive? John did.

The other question is how does one rest in the Lord?

Jesus tells us by not worrying about food or clothes or tomorrow, but seek first the Kingdom of God and all else will be added unto you.

.Jesus tells us the Sabbath isn't about a weekly observance (of not working or Jewish man made traditions like reciting Hebrew while lighting a candle) but daily trusting in God and His providence. Doing God's work every day. Speaking God's words of love and hope always.
 

Lewiz

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2018
346
22
18
#79
And you cannot know the year, the decade or the century either...

The point of the texts telling us to keep watch is PRECISELY because we do not know, nor cannot know, when he will return...
Yet you are confidently telling us the timeline??!!????
Ridiculous!
I keep getting the impression you just don't like what he's doing, as if what he's quoting is getting under your skin.

Why?
 
A

Ariel82

Guest
#80
I keep getting the impression you just don't like what he's doing, as if what he's quoting is getting under your skin.

Why?
I keep getting the impression you want to make personal ad hominem attacks instead of address the topic...,

Do you believe that Jesus has to come within this 1000 years and he couldn't have come earlier?