Hebrews Study

[purgedconscience]

Hi oldhermit.

That was a good introduction.

Regarding authorship, I think that we ought to consider two other internal witnesses:

Hebrews chapter 10 verses 32 thru 34

But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions;
Partly, whilst ye were made a gazingstock both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly, whilst ye became companions of them that were so used.
For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance.

Whoever the author was, he or she had been imprisoned at some point in time and had been shown compassion by those to whom he or she was writing.

Hebrews chapter 13 verses 23 and 24

Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty; with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you.
Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints. They of Italy salute you.

Whoever the author was, he or she was seemingly writing from Italy.

Seeing how Paul was imprisoned in Rome himself, these two internal witnesses lend some credence to him being the author of the epistle.

I'd also like to quickly address a common argument, so I'm not just attributing it to you, against Pauline authorship which I personally don't find to be conclusive at all:

The author’s disassociation with the apostles, 2:3-4.

Here's what the author said:

Hebrews chapter 2 verses 3 and 4

How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

Although there is some sort of disassociation with the Apostles or with them that heard him and with them whom God bore witness, this does not necessarily mean that the author wasn't an Apostle himself. In other words, if Paul was the author, then part of this confirmation by them that heard him could possibly be the following:

Galatians chapter 2 verses 1 thru 9

Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person); for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles);
And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

There was a point in time in Paul's own ministry when he went to Jerusalem to basically have his gospel confirmed by James, Cephas/Peter and John who seemed to be pillars to ensure that Paul hadn't been running in vain. Ultimately, Paul was given the right hand of fellowship by them, so could this be part of the confirmation that the author of the epistle to the Hebrews was talking about?

I'm not sure that one other objection against Pauline authorship is factually correct:

Historically he was not seriously considered as the author of the letter until the 4[SUP]th [/SUP] century A.D. The suggestion that Paul may have been the author originated in Alexandria. Neither the Muratorium Canon, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Gaius of Rome, nor Eusebius (all from the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] cent.) believed that Paul was the author of the letter.

If you and others haven't yet researched Papyrus 46, one of the oldest extant Greek manuscripts from somewhere around the year 200 A.D., then I think that you should all take the time to do so now. This Papyrus contains Paul's writings and the epistle to the Hebrews is included amongst the same. In other words, as early as around the year 200 A.D., there were those who believed in Pauline authorship of this epistle. Here are a couple of links for some general information about Papyrus 46. I'm not overly fond of Wikipedia, but I will include a Wikipedia link simply so that the footnotes can be followed for certification of what is stated within the article:

Papyrus 46

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_46

 

[phil112]

....................To understand the message of verses 1-3 it is essential that we first understand something of the nature of reality itself. The Hebrew writer presents God as the one who connects two incommensurable worlds. Reality exists in three parts.....................

Reality: noun: the true situation that exists
the real situation: something that actually exists or happens

Allow me to verbalize my thoughts on this.
The "teaching" of the bible, as is done by man so many times, gets carried away with itself. It becomes made complicated unnecessarily.
I am 60 years old. Graduated high school, some college, and I read a lot.
I have never in my life heard that "reality exists in three parts".
I understand the first three verses of that chapter clearly.
Why is it necessary to make a statement that, A-cannot be proven to be true, and B-is not needed to explain or teach the word to start with?

I like you Hermit, and we are close on much, if not all, of the word.
I will leave this thread alone but I would caution you to think more about how you present this topic.
Making the gospel complicated or difficult edifies no one.

 

[purgedconscience]

Allow me to verbalize my thoughts on this.
The "teaching" of the bible, as is done by man so many times, gets carried away with itself. It becomes made complicated unnecessarily.
I am 60 years old. Graduated high school, some college, and I read a lot.
I have never in my life heard that "reality exists in three parts".
I understand the first three verses of that chapter clearly.
Why is it necessary to make a statement that, A-cannot be proven to be true, and B-is not needed to explain or teach the word to start with?

I like you Hermit, and we are close on much, if not all, of the word.
I will leave this thread alone but I would caution you to think more about how you present this topic.
Making the gospel complicated or difficult edifies no one.

Hi Phil and thanks for sharing your thoughts. I'll now quickly share mine in relation to what you just said. I personally don't believe that oldhermit complicated anything. It seems to me that he was simply stating that there is (1) an unseen world and this is certainly true, (2) a seen world and this is certainly true and (3) a need to somehow link that which is unseen with that which is seen. In other words, there basically needs to be some sort of mediation or Mediator between that which is unseen in the spiritual realm and that which is seen in the natural world and that God bridged the gap, so to speak, in old times via the spoken Word through His prophets whom He inspired and now in the latter times He has bridged the gap in His Son, the ultimate Mediator between God and man.

 

[purgedconscience]

Hi oldhermit.

I hope that you will understand and appreciate the spirit or the heart motivation behind what I'm about to say and not view it as being critical or disruptive. Seeing how the main theme of the epistle to the Hebrews is the contrast between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, even as you've described, I feel the need to caution you from using a certain portion of scripture as a proof text as you did twice already. I'm referring to the following:

“In many portions.” No one prophet was ever given the full message of the mystery. It was received in bits and pieces to different men, Isaiah 28:9-11. “Order upon order, line upon line, here a little and there a little.” This protects the integrity of the message.

Although it's true that no one prophet was ever given the full message of the mystery, Isaiah 28 was actually spoken by God via the prophet in a totally negative context in that it foretold of how much of Israel was going to reject the very New Covenant which we're now discussing while clinging to the Old Covenant to their own destruction:

Isaiah chapter 28 verses 9 thru 13

Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

Here, God foretold through the prophet how that many were going to reject His rest and refreshing which is associated with stammering lips and another tongue or the New Testament gift of the speaking of tongues:

I Corinthians chapter 14 verses 21 and 22

In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

Again, these tongues were for a sign to them that believe not and this is precisely what Isaiah was talking about. It was those who were going to reject this rest, refreshing and tongues as afforded unto us through Christ and the Holy Spirit in the New Testament in place of precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little and there a little or in place of the Old Testament law who were destined to go and fall backward and be broken and snared and taken. In other words, this whole precept upon precept thing was spoken in a negative connotation and this portion of scripture should never be used in a positive light as a proof text even though it commonly is by many within professing Christendom.

Hopefully, you not only recognize what I'm saying, but also the heartset behind the same. Again, I'm not seeking to be either critical or disruptive. I'm simply seeking to uphold the integrity of God's Word for everybody's mutual benefit.

Thank you.

 

[atwhatcost]

Allow me to verbalize my thoughts on this.
The "teaching" of the bible, as is done by man so many times, gets carried away with itself. It becomes made complicated unnecessarily.
I am 60 years old. Graduated high school, some college, and I read a lot.
I have never in my life heard that "reality exists in three parts".
I understand the first three verses of that chapter clearly.
Why is it necessary to make a statement that, A-cannot be proven to be true, and B-is not needed to explain or teach the word to start with?

I like you Hermit, and we are close on much, if not all, of the word.
I will leave this thread alone but I would caution you to think more about how you present this topic.
Making the gospel complicated or difficult edifies no one.

Um, it edifies me. I'm tired of simplified god. I want all of God. I was told for decades to keep God simple. He's not simple, and I can't keep him. So, no, it really does edify. It just doesn't edify you, and that's okay. Just don't assume you speak for all.

 

[atwhatcost]

Hi oldhermit.

I hope that you will understand and appreciate the spirit or the heart motivation behind what I'm about to say and not view it as being critical or disruptive. Seeing how the main theme of the epistle to the Hebrews is the contrast between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, even as you've described, I feel the need to caution you from using a certain portion of scripture as a proof text as you did twice already. I'm referring to the following:

Although it's true that no one prophet was ever given the full message of the mystery, Isaiah 28 was actually spoken by God via the prophet in a totally negative context in that it foretold of how much of Israel was going to reject the very New Covenant which we're now discussing while clinging to the Old Covenant to their own destruction:

Isaiah chapter 28 verses 9 thru 13

Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

Here, God foretold through the prophet how that many were going to reject His rest and refreshing which is associated with stammering lips and another tongue or the New Testament gift of the speaking of tongues:

I Corinthians chapter 14 verses 21 and 22

In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

Again, these tongues were for a sign to them that believe not and this is precisely what Isaiah was talking about. It was those who were going to reject this rest, refreshing and tongues as afforded unto us through Christ and the Holy Spirit in the New Testament in place of precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little and there a little or in place of the Old Testament law who were destined to go and fall backward and be broken and snared and taken. In other words, this whole precept upon precept thing was spoken in a negative connotation and this portion of scripture should never be used in a positive light as a proof text even though it commonly is by many within professing Christendom.

Hopefully, you not only recognize what I'm saying, but also the heartset behind the same. Again, I'm not seeking to be either critical or disruptive. I'm simply seeking to uphold the integrity of God's Word for everybody's mutual benefit.

Thank you.

Titus 2: 6 Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled. 7 Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, 8 and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us.

 

[atwhatcost]

My thoughts here on verse 1-3:
Wow! Can you imagine being God's chosen people, used to God speaking directly to the prophets who then past it on the the chosen people for millennium, possibly even missing the significance of that guy (Jesus) who was the talk of the town a couple of decades or so ago, and then finding out he was God's last prophet, as well as God himself? That's it. The old ways are gone, replaced by Jesus. Imagine having to reprogram your very way of thought and life to adapt to this new way. And I have trouble simply adapting to the world of portable phones and computing devices! This was much, much bigger than that!

 

[peacefulbeliever]

The Recipients: This was not a general epistle. It was written to a specific group of Jewish Christians.

Yes . . . it is addressed to Jews who believed and were yet "all zealous of the law." They clung to their rites and ceremonies being zealous of the law - (Acts 21:20) they walked after the customs (v21) and they made "vows" (v23); they used divers "baptisms" (Heb. 6:2) and continued to offer sacrifices (Acts 21:26). . . . . So Hebrews was written to show that all these things were done away by the one offering once offered, Jesus Christ, and the other things were but "shadows of things to come".

 

[Gr8grace]

It is seems certain that Hebrews was written to a specific group of Jewish Christians. It may even be possible that it was written by Apollos to the Jews at the Church at Corinth which was his home.

Hello Brother thanks for this study. maybe something to ponder.

I believe this letter was written to the congregations in Jerusalem(Hebrew Christians). Judah was the last client nation to receive their last cycle of discipline from the Lord. this book was written a little before 70AD(when Jerusalem fell to Rome)

So I believe the book of Hebrews is specifically to Jerusalem believers with emphasis on the High Priest. A warning along with the precise doctrine they need after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Heb 7~~ 11Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? 12For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also. 13For the one concerning whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar.14For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests.

 

[oldhermit]

Allow me to verbalize my thoughts on this.
The "teaching" of the bible, as is done by man so many times, gets carried away with itself. It becomes made complicated unnecessarily.
I am 60 years old. Graduated high school, some college, and I read a lot.
I have never in my life heard that "reality exists in three parts".
I understand the first three verses of that chapter clearly.
Why is it necessary to make a statement that, A-cannot be proven to be true, and B-is not needed to explain or teach the word to start with?

I like you Hermit, and we are close on much, if not all, of the word.
I will leave this thread alone but I would caution you to think more about how you present this topic.
Making the gospel complicated or difficult edifies no one.

Triadic reality is a simple fact of existence. Everything in the human experience is governed by triadic structure. You cannot escape and it is very easy to prove. You cannot even perform as simple a task as brushing you teeth without triadic structure. This is simply how the universe is designed. The relationship between the natural world and the unseen world is one of incommensurability and this requires a linking agent to bring these two worlds together. This is precisely what we see in verse three. I really did not intend to defend this particular point in any depth on this thread. It is just too complex and would distract from this study but if you are interested in looking at this in greater depth I will be more than happy to spend some time with you on this.

 

[oldhermit]

Hello Brother thanks for this study. maybe something to ponder.

I believe this letter was written to the congregations in Jerusalem(Hebrew Christians). Judah was the last client nation to receive their last cycle of discipline from the Lord. this book was written a little before 70AD(when Jerusalem fell to Rome)

So I believe the book of Hebrews is specifically to Jerusalem believers with emphasis on the High Priest. A warning along with the precise doctrine they need after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Heb 7~~11Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? 12For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also. 13For the one concerning whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar.14For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests.

That is indeed very possible.

 

[atwhatcost]

Yes . . . it is addressed to Jews who believed and were yet "all zealous of the law." They clung to their rites and ceremonies being zealous of the law - (Acts 21:20) they walked after the customs (v21) and they made "vows" (v23); they used divers "baptisms" (Heb. 6:2) and continued to offer sacrifices (Acts 21:26). . . . . So Hebrews was written to show that all these things were done away by the one offering once offered, Jesus Christ, and the other things were but "shadows of things to come".

Don't give up on them so easily. Imagine you woke up one morning and found out you now live in Russia. Doesn't it take time to adapt to that? These people spent at least 2000 years being told they were God's chosen people -- and they were. Suddenly that all changes. Don't you think they need to learn the new way of thinking? Our culture is merely ingrained in us. Their culture was handed over to them by God. It takes some getting used to, once we found out everything we ever thought we knew was flipped. Still true, but an entirely different thing then we thought it was.

I was born a nonbeliever and then God flipped me. It's 43 years later and I'm still trying to get it all. It's only been 10-15 years for them.

 

[oldhermit]

Hi oldhermit.

That was a good introduction.

Regarding authorship, I think that we ought to consider two other internal witnesses:

Hebrews chapter 10 verses 32 thru 34

But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions;
Partly, whilst ye were made a gazingstock both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly, whilst ye became companions of them that were so used.
For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance.

Whoever the author was, he or she had been imprisoned at some point in time and had been shown compassion by those to whom he or she was writing.

Hebrews chapter 13 verses 23 and 24

Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty; with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you.
Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints. They of Italy salute you.

Whoever the author was, he or she was seemingly writing from Italy.

Seeing how Paul was imprisoned in Rome himself, these two internal witnesses lend some credence to him being the author of the epistle.

Good point but this could also have been said of many of Paul's group as well as others.

I'd also like to quickly address a common argument, so I'm not just attributing it to you, against Pauline authorship which I personally don't find to be conclusive at all:

Here's what the author said:

Hebrews chapter 2 verses 3 and 4

How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

Although there is some sort of disassociation with the Apostles or with them that heard him and with them whom God bore witness, this does not necessarily mean that the author wasn't an Apostle himself. In other words, if Paul was the author, then part of this confirmation by them that heard him could possibly be the following:

There is a revelation continuum presented in verse two that looks like this.

"Him" (Jesus)-----"those who heard" (the apostolic band or others of the first disciples)-----"Us" (those who received the word not by Jesus himself but by the mouths of "those who heard"). The writer groups himself with the latter set. He classes himself with those who heard the word through secondary sources. Whoever this author is, he seems to be a second generation Christian. Apollos would certainly fit this category but then again, so would a number of others. Paul would not fit in this category because he was one of "those who heard" directly from the Master.

Galatians chapter 2 verses 1 thru 9

Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person); for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles);
And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
There was a point in time in Paul's own ministry when he went to Jerusalem to basically have his gospel confirmed by James, Cephas/Peter and John who seemed to be pillars to ensure that Paul hadn't been running in vain. Ultimately, Paul was given the right hand of fellowship by them, so could this be part of the confirmation that the author of the epistle to the Hebrews was talking about?

Well, that is one possibility. The NLT uses the word 'delivered' here for ἐβεβαιώθη but this is not what the word means. The word literally means to establish something as a fact. Indeed, Paul says that when he compared his gospel to that of the other apostles there was found no point of deviation. If it is to be understood that Paul (as the author of this letter) was considering himself among those who had the word conformed then this would mean that the rest of the "us" would also have to have had their gospel they were preaching confirmed in the same way by the apostles. This seems something of a stretch. Like I showed above, what the writer is presenting in verse three is a revelation continuum, an chain of elements that show a process of receiving revealed truths - the gospel. But you raise an interesting point I have not considered before.

I'm not sure that one other objection against Pauline authorship is factually correct:

If you and others haven't yet researched Papyrus 46, one of the oldest extant Greek manuscripts from somewhere around the year 200 A.D., then I think that you should all take the time to do so now. This Papyrus contains Paul's writings and the epistle to the Hebrews is included amongst the same. In other words, as early as around the year 200 A.D., there were those who believed in Pauline authorship of this epistle. Here are a couple of links for some general information about Papyrus 46. I'm not overly fond of Wikipedia, but I will include a Wikipedia link simply so that the footnotes can be followed for certification of what is stated within the article:

Papyrus 46

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_46

Yes this is often cited as a case for Pauline authorship for Hebrews but the presence of this letter among the other Pauline letters in hardly conclusive. This does indeed show the possibility that some of the early church of the 2-3rd century may have considered the Letter to be Pauline but there never seemed to be any widespread acceptance of this until the fifth century. Remember, I am not saying that Paul was not the author, he may well have been. All I am saying is the evidence for Pauline authorship is very slim.

Good points. Good Post.

 

[oldhermit]

Hi oldhermit.

I hope that you will understand and appreciate the spirit or the heart motivation behind what I'm about to say and not view it as being critical or disruptive. Seeing how the main theme of the epistle to the Hebrews is the contrast between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, even as you've described, I feel the need to caution you from using a certain portion of scripture as a proof text as you did twice already. I'm referring to the following:

Although it's true that no one prophet was ever given the full message of the mystery, Isaiah 28 was actually spoken by God via the prophet in a totally negative context in that it foretold of how much of Israel was going to reject the very New Covenant which we're now discussing while clinging to the Old Covenant to their own destruction:

Isaiah chapter 28 verses 9 thru 13

Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

Here, God foretold through the prophet how that many were going to reject His rest and refreshing which is associated with stammering lips and another tongue or the New Testament gift of the speaking of tongues:

I Corinthians chapter 14 verses 21 and 22

In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

Again, these tongues were for a sign to them that believe not and this is precisely what Isaiah was talking about. It was those who were going to reject this rest, refreshing and tongues as afforded unto us through Christ and the Holy Spirit in the New Testament in place of precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little and there a little or in place of the Old Testament law who were destined to go and fall backward and be broken and snared and taken. In other words, this whole precept upon precept thing was spoken in a negative connotation and this portion of scripture should never be used in a positive light as a proof text even though it commonly is by many within professing Christendom.

Hopefully, you not only recognize what I'm saying, but also the heartset behind the same. Again, I'm not seeking to be either critical or disruptive. I'm simply seeking to uphold the integrity of God's Word for everybody's mutual benefit.

Thank you.

The only point I was making here is the fact that revelation was never given as an entire composition to any one person. It came in bits and pieces through many generations. This is the point the Hebrew writer is making.

 

[peacefulbeliever]

Good point but this could also have been said of many of Paul's group as well as others.



There is a revelation continuum presented in verse two that looks like this.

"Him" (Jesus)-----"those who heard" (the apostolic band or others of the first disciples)-----"Us" (those who received the word not by Jesus himself but by the mouths of "those who heard"). The writer groups himself with the latter set. He classes himself with those who heard the word through secondary sources. Whoever this author is, he seems to be a second generation Christian. Apollos would certainly fit this category but then again, so would a number of others. Paul would not fit in this category because he was one of "those who heard" directly from the Master.

<snip> If it is to be understood that Paul (as the author of this letter) was considering himself among those who had the word conformed then this would mean that the rest of the "us" would also have to have had their gospel they were preaching confirmed in the same way by the apostles. . . . <snip>

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets [God spoke unto the fathers by prophets] Hath in these last days spoken unto US by his Son . . . doesn't say by the mouth of "those who heard" but "spoken unto US by his Son" . . . So Paul would have been included in the apostolic band or others of the first disciples for Paul received revelation from Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:12). Just saying . . . .

 

[oldhermit]

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets [God spoke unto the fathers by prophets] Hath in these last days spoken unto US by his Son . . . doesn't say by the mouth of "those who heard" but "spoken unto US by his Son" . . . So Paul would have been included in the apostolic band or others of the first disciples for Paul received revelation from Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:12). Just saying . . . .

2:3 tells says that the "US" were those who had the gospel confirmed to them by those who had received it from the Son. Yes, Paul was of the apostolic band and like the other apostles had received his gospel from the Lord himself, not from those anyone else.

 

[directline2iam]

You stated: Privileged access we were given that the forefathers were not privileged to see. Perhaps clarification is in order here as John 9:56 begs to differ
KJB Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: AND HE SAW IT, and was (past tense) glad.
PS God is the God of the living not the dead.

 

[MarcR]

It is seems certain that Hebrews was written to a specific group of Jewish Christians. It may even be possible that it was written by Apollos to the Jews at the Church at Corinth which was his home.

Excellent insight! Much in Hebrews comports well with issues Paul addressed in his two extant letters to the church at Corinth.

 

[purgedconscience]

Thanks for the intro. I cannot say with any degree of certainty, but I tend to believe that it was written by Paul. The only thing that I feel lacking to completely convince me is the way that he always introduces himself in his other letters. Could it be that the letter was dictated and the person actually writing it felt that it was not important to include Paul's greeting.

Hi Billy.

Paul normally, but not always, began his epistles by identifying himself as an apostle. If he did author the epistle to the Hebrews, then might there be any justifiable reasons why he would refrain from identifying himself in this manner? Personally, I can think of two justifiable reasons.

First, whoever the writer was, he or she referred to Jesus as being the Apostle of our profession:

Hebrews chapter 3 verse 1

Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

In other words, if Paul was the author, then he might not have mentioned his own apostleship out of respect for the much greater Apostleship of Christ Jesus.

Second, if Paul was the author, then being the apostle to the Gentiles he simply might not have addressed himself as an apostle to this Hebrew audience.

Btw, and I'm curious as to what oldhermit thinks about this, there have been many throughout church history who have believed that Paul authored the epistle to the Hebrews because of something which Peter wrote:

2 Peter chapter 3 verse 15

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

In other words, seeing how the gospel of the circumcision, Galatians chapter 2 verse 7, or the preaching of the gospel to the Jews had been committed unto Peter, there are many who believe that Peter was writing here solely to Jews and they therefore ask:

Where is the writing which Paul had written unto the Jews if not the epistle to the Hebrews?

I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with this argument, but it has been out there for a long, long time. I personally believe that Peter was writing to more than just Jews, especially since in I Peter chapter 2 verse 10 he quoted a scripture which pertains specifically to Gentiles and not to Jews, but I'm just wondering if anybody else has heard this argument and if so, then what do they think about it?

 

[Bowman]

3. “In many portions.” No one prophet was ever given the full message of the mystery. It was received in bits and pieces to different men, Isaiah 28:9-11. “Order upon order, line upon line, here a little and there a little.” This protects the integrity of the message. Revelation is not the product of any form of human organizational skills. The time modality makes this impossible. These men were not only separated by centuries of time but also geographically. There was no way humanly possible to coordinate such a task that would produce the Old Testament.
4. “In many ways.” In dreams, visions, and dark sayings, Numbers 12:6-8.

As I already mentioned in your first Hebrews thread - you are merely lecturing on YOUR own private view of scripture.

You are NOT performing an exegesis...but an eisegesis...

The very basis of any critical examination of ANY text is to first define the terms being used, and to then concord the term(s) to any other possible location within scripture.

You can't even perform this elementary task.

Here's how you should have started...so that you would NOT have missed the big picture...

Heb 1.1

πολυμερως και πολυτροπως παλαι ο θεος λαλησας τοις πατρασιν εν τοις προφηταις επ εσχατου των ημερων τουτων ελαλησεν ημιν εν υιω

POLYMERŌS kai POLYTROPŌS palai ho theos lalēsas tois patrasin en tois prophētais

By many portions and in various forms, God spoke to the fathers in the prophets;



Heb 1.1 immediately informs the reader that the One God of the OT has always revealed Himself ‘by many portions’ (polymeros) and ‘in various forms’ (polytropos).


These two Greek terms are only used this one time/ea in the entirety of the Holy Bible, and lexically are defined as ‘One of the constituent parts of a whole; in a context where the whole and its parts are distinguished.’


A clear signal of the ONE Triune Creator God of the Universe.


Anyone who knows exegesis can clearly see what you completely missed!!!