Hebrews

for the Practical Messianic

© 2006 John Kimball McKee

2012 printing

All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the author(s).

Cover photos: Istockphoto

Published by TNN Press, a division of Outreach Israel Ministries

908 Audelia Rd. Suite 200-228

Richardson, Texas 75081

(407) 933-2002

www.tnnonline.net/tnnpress

originally produced by TNN Press 2012 in Kissimmee, Florida

Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard, Updated Edition (NASU), © 1995, The Lockman Foundation.

Table of Contents

PROLOGUE

INTRODUCTION

HEBREWS 1

HEBREWS 2

HEBREWS 3

HEBREWS 4

HEBREWS 5

HEBREWS 6

Excursus on Calvinism, Arminianism, and the Messianic Movement

HEBREWS 7

HEBREWS 8

Excursus on the "New Covenant" or "Renewed Covenant"?

HEBREWS 9

HEBREWS 10

HEBREWS 11

HEBREWS 12

HEBREWS 13

EPILOGUE

THE MESSAGE OF HEBREWS

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS: AN AUTHOR'S RENDERING

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

BIBLIOGRAPHY

An Important Word From the Publisher:

TNN Press is pleased to offer you this eBook version of Hebrews for the Practical Messianic. Please be aware that there are some formatting differences between this electronic edition for Amazon Kindle, and the printed edition. It is highly recommended that if you are interested in perusing this publication for research purposes, that you procure a hard copy available from TNN Press.

Footnotes have also been converted to chapter endnotes. These not only include important references to primary sources, but also will point to other books, commentaries, and articles produced by TNN Press, Outreach Israel Ministries, and TNN Online.

Abbreviation Chart and Special Terms

The following is a chart of abbreviations for reference works and special terms that are used in publications by TNN Press. Please familiarize yourself with them as the text may reference a Bible version, i.e., RSV for the Revised Standard Version, or a source such as TWOT for the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, solely by its abbreviation. Detailed listings of these sources are provided in the Bibliography.

Special terms unique to this publication that may be used have been provided in this chart:

ABD: Anchor Bible Dictionary

AMG: Complete Word Study Dictionary: Old Testament, New Testament

ANE: Ancient Near East(ern)

Apostolic Scriptures/Writings: the New Testament

Ara: Aramaic

ASV: American Standard Version

ATS: ArtScroll Tanach (1996)

b. Babylonian Talmud (Talmud Bavli)

B.C.E.: Before Common Era or B.C.

BDAG: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich)

BDB: Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon

BECNT: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

BKCNT: Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament

C.E.: Common Era or A.D.

CEV: Contemporary English Version (1995)

CGEDNT: Concise Greek-English Dictionary of New Testament Words (Barclay M. Newman)

CHALOT: Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament

CJB: Complete Jewish Bible (1998)

DRA: Douay-Rheims American Edition

DSS: Dead Sea Scrolls

ECB: Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible

EDB: Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible

eisegesis: “reading meaning into,” or interjecting a preconceived or foreign meaning into a Biblical text

EJ: Encylopaedia Judaica

ESV: English Standard Version (2001)

exegesis: “drawing meaning out of,” or the process of trying to understand what a Biblical text means on its own

EXP: Expositor’s Bible Commentary

Ger: German

GNT: Greek New Testament

Grk: Greek

halachah: lit. “the way to walk,” how the Torah is lived out in an individual's life or faith community

HALOT: Hebrew & Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Koehler and Baumgartner)

HCSB: Holman Christian Standard Bible (2004)

Heb: Hebrew

HNV: Hebrew Names Version of the World English Bible

ICC: International Critical Commentary

IDB: Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible

IDBSup: Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible Supplement

ISBE: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

IVPBBC: IVP Bible Background Commentary (Old & New Testament)

Jastrow: Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Bavli, Talmud Yerushalmi, and Midrashic Literature (Marcus Jastrow)

JBK: New Jerusalem Bible-Koren (2000)

JETS: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

KJV: King James Version

Lattimore: The New Testament by Richmond Lattimore (1996)

LITV: Literal Translation of the Holy Bible by Jay P. Green (1986)

LS: A Greek-English Lexicon (Lidell & Scott)

LXE: Septuagint with Apocrypha by Sir L.C.L. Brenton (1851)

LXX: Septuagint

m. Mishnah

MT: Masoretic Text

NASB: New American Standard Bible (1977)

NASU: New American Standard Update (1995)

NBCR: New Bible Commentary: Revised

NEB: New English Bible (1970)

Nelson: Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of Old Testament Words

NETS: New English Translation of the Septuagint (2007)

NIB: New Interpreter’s Bible

NIGTC: New International Greek Testament Commentary

NICNT: New International Commentary on the New Testament

NIDB: New International Dictionary of the Bible

NIV: New International Version (1984)

NJB: New Jerusalem Bible-Catholic (1985)

NJPS: Tanakh, A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures (1999)

NKJV: New King James Version (1982)

NRSV: New Revised Standard Version (1989)

NLT: New Living Translation (1996)

NT: New Testament

orthopraxy: lit. “the right action,” how the Bible or one's theology is lived out in the world

OT: Old Testament

PreachC: The Preacher’s Commentary

REB: Revised English Bible (1989)

RSV: Revised Standard Version (1952)

t. Tosefta

Tanach (Tanakh): the Old Testament

Thayer: Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament

TDNT: Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

TEV: Today’s English Version (1976)

TLV: Tree of Life Messianic Family Bible—New Covenant (2011)

TNIV: Today’s New International Version (2005)

TNTC: Tyndale New Testament Commentaries

TWOT: Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament

UBSHNT: United Bible Societies’ 1991 Hebrew New Testament revised edition

v(s). verse(s)

Vine: Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words

Vul: Latin Vulgate

WBC: Word Biblical Commentary

Yid: Yiddish

YLT: Young’s Literal Translation (1862/1898)

PROLOGUE

Various teachings have come forth in the past year (2005-2006) that have disturbed a fair number of Believers in sectors of the Messianic community as to what the message of Hebrews actually is. Some of these teachings not only have planted seeds of doubt into the minds of some people, but they have led them to conclude that the Epistle to the Hebrews is not inspired Scripture and should be removed from the Bible. I believe these teachings are based on a misunderstanding of the overall message of the text, failure to consult the Greek source text that sits behind our English translations, failure to understand the historical setting of the text, and above all is based in some kind of subjective criteria that attempts not only to denounce the inspiration of Hebrews, but ultimately to dismantle the entire Apostolic canon—leading to a discreditation of Yeshua the Messiah and His atoning work. These occurrences are quite serious, and the only way that any criticisms of Hebrews can be properly examined is in a commentary of the entire book.

The current state of the broad Messianic movement is somewhat unique, because we are a growing and a maturing group of people. When we come across what appear to be contradictions in the Biblical text, we are forced to ask ourselves one of two questions: (1) Is there a problem with the text? (2) Is there a problem with how I am examining the text?

Conservative theologians often ask the latter question. If God indeed inspired this writing, via the work of human beings, then certainly there cannot be any major problems with it. Readers have the responsibility to discover why there are no major problems with it, even though on the surface there may appear to be problems. Examiners have at their disposal a vast array of English Bible translations, Bible encyclopedias and dictionaries, Hebrew and Greek lexicons and grammars, and today Bible software to aid them in our understanding of the Scriptures. People really have no excuse if all they are simply doing is reading from one English Bible translation, and force-feeding what they want the Scriptures to say.

Liberal theologians often ask the former question. They presuppose that the Bible is a work entirely of human origin. The writing contained in Scripture is merely our human “response” to God, they may argue. Liberals contend that not only is Scripture full of contradictions, but texts have been manipulated, changed, or even destroyed by religious authorities attempting to maintain a position of power. While these texts are inspirational and moving, and we should learn from them as Jews or Christians, they say, they were never meant to be taken that literally. Do we really believe that Jesus was born of a “virgin”? Do we really believe that David killed “a giant”? Do we really believe in a “Red Sea Crossing” or a “Noah’s Flood”? Do we really believe that God made Adam and Eve out of dirt, when science has proven that we exist because of millions of years of evolution? This is what liberal theologians often argue.

One of the important premises in what is often termed “higher criticism” by liberals is that we really do not know who wrote the books of the Bible. As higher critics attack the New Testament, they will say things like, “The Gospel writers do not once identify themselves in the text; they are anonymous. Maybe Paul wrote some of his letters, but we don’t know if James was really written by the brother of Christ, or that Peter really wrote Peter. We don’t know which ‘John’ wrote John, or Revelation.” When they attack the Tanach or Old Testament, they will readily say that there have to be many, many textual changes between what was preserved before the Jews’ exile to Babylon and after it. Higher critics will say that we do not know which Scriptures are original and which are inauthentic. And concerning the Torah, the Torah is viewed by higher critics as being entirely a product of the post-Babylonian exile. Higher critics will readily point out that there is no stated author of Genesis in Genesis itself, indicating that it had to have been written or compiled by someone other than Moses.

Many teachers in the Messianic community today have not been exposed to liberal views concerning the composition of the Scriptures, of both the Tanach and Apostolic Writings. I believe that if some of them had, that some of the Hebrews controversy now circulating would not be present, because they would see through the higher criticism that has been used. The exact same subjective criteria that have been used to discount the message and veracity of the Epistle to the Hebrews, has been used by liberals to more easily discount the Book of Genesis. It is claimed that we do not know the author of Hebrews; the author of Genesis does not identify himself once in the text. It is claimed that Hebrews was written after the First Century; how did Abraham pursue Lot’s captors as far as “Dan” (Genesis 14:14), a place that would not have been named until after the Israelites’ conquering of the Promised Land? How did Abraham know to call God by the Divine Name YHWH (Genesis 21:23), which was not revealed until Moses saw Him before the burning bush (Exodus 3:15)? It is claimed that Hebrews does not accurately reflect the information we see in the Torah; how do we know that the Ancient Israelites did not borrow the Flood narrative from the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh? These are only a handful of what could be considered “contradictions” in Genesis and the rest of the Torah that liberal theologians point out.

I hope you understand that I consider both Hebrews and Genesis to be Divinely inspired books of the Bible. I accept what they say as being true and historically accurate. But I think that it is very sad to see a few Messianics discrediting Hebrews, based on what appear to be contradictions, when there appear to be even more serious problems in Genesis—the veracity of which such people would never question. Thankfully, God has enabled many conservative theologians, both Jewish and Christian, to address what appear to be contradictions in Genesis. But just as the so-called contradictions in Genesis can be easily answered, so can the so-called contradictions in Hebrews be even more easily answered. Beware of those who might subjectively seek to discredit a text in the Apostolic Scriptures, claiming that it is “no good” or “uninspired,” using liberal tactics—while at the same time holding to a strict fundamentalist line that the Torah has been preserved perfectly letter-by-letter and stroke-by-stroke from Mount Sinai. There is something seriously wrong with this grossly uneven scale.

Our examination of the Epistle to the Hebrews is an excellent opportunity to demonstrate some theological maturity on the part of the Messianic Bible reader. We will have to employ all weapons from our theological arsenal in this study, especially including:

1.  Inductively approaching the Biblical text, considering Hebrews as a whole, and examining multiple English Bible versions.

2.  Consultation of the Greek source text that lies behind Hebrews, not only taking into consideration the definitions of various words from scholastic lexicons, but also grammatical forms (i.e., parts of speech, verb tenses). This includes examination of possible quotes from the Greek Septuagint, and the Hebrew Tanach that lies behind the LXX.

3.  An extreme consideration for the historical context that is demonstrated by the composition of Hebrews. This includes consultation with extant Jewish and Christian works such as the Mishnah, Talmud, and the writings of the Church Fathers that attest to the historicity of Hebrews, any traditions that the author refers to, and how early Hebrews was considered authoritative.

4.  Consultation of critical commentaries on Hebrews that represent a fair consensus of scholastic opinion. These commentaries, even though Christian in orientation, will often explain what appear to be difficulties or contradictions in the text with ease.

Sadly, these four hermeneutical skills have not been employed by those attempting to discredit Hebrews. The Messianic expositor has the awesome responsibility of employing these proper skills. Hebrews can be a difficult text to understand if one is armed with nothing more than an English Bible translation, likely published from the perspective that Yeshua the Messiah abolished the Torah. We have the responsibility of seeing that the message of Hebrews truly is anything but this. Can we do it with ease? I believe we can do it with ease, and we can also learn much from what the author of Hebrews is trying to tell his ancient readers about their spiritual condition. As we examine the text of Hebrews, and the author’s message for both his original audience, you are going to see how nonsensical it is to throw Hebrews out of the Bible. Hebrews is probably one of the most pro-Torah texts in the entire New Testament, when understood properly and exegeted responsibly. It is inspiring to us all to consider the superior nature of Yeshua’s sacrifice and atonement for our sin, and how high the author really considers Moses and the Tabernacle to be—to be able to be compared to God in the flesh. The author’s message is not anti-Torah by any means, but demonstrates how incomplete the Torah is without the Messiah Yeshua. Our own faith will be entirely incomplete, if we fail to place the Messiah and what He has accomplished for sinful humanity, at the very center of who we are and how we live.

J.K. McKee

Editor, TNN Online

INTRODUCTION

The text known as “Hebrews” is one of the most unique, highly spiritual, highly intellectual, multi-dimensional books in our Bible. If there is any text that the Messianic community should have a strong handle on, Hebrews should be it. It enables the expositor to employ all of the weapons of his or her hermeneutical arsenal, as Hebrews begs many questions that cannot merely be answered by simply reading the text over and over again, or for that same matter reading it over and over again in multiple English Bible versions. It requires us to examine original language texts, determine what some of the possible history necessitating its composition was, and place ourselves into the position of a First Century Jewish writer who was extremely well-educated and cultured. Perhaps most importantly, Hebrews requires us to live out the essence of the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4-6): to love God with our entire beings. However, as Yeshua (Jesus) quotes the Shema, we are to “LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND” (Matthew 22:37; cf. Mark 12:30). When examining Hebrews, we are called into a place of worship that causes us to seek our Heavenly Father with both our hearts and our minds. We are forced to come to the place where the Psalmist declares, “Examine me, HASHEM, and test me; scrutinize my intellect and my heart” (Psalm 26:2, ATS).

The Epistle to the Hebrews[1] presents Believers in Yeshua with many uplifting and spiritually edifying words. Upon an individual’s first reading of the text, you should be able to notice that Hebrews uplifts Messiah Yeshua and His completed work in a very unique way. The author defines the importance of His final sacrifice, His priestly service, and the New Covenant in very eloquent and persuasive language. Yeshua the Messiah—without any doubt—is the central focus of Hebrews.

While our Lord and Savior in all His glory is a wonderful focus to behold, Hebrews nevertheless asks its readers a very important question: How are human beings to approach the Supreme Creator? We discover that the author compares his audience to the rebellious generation of Israelites in the wilderness, who saw the actual presence of God in the Tabernacle and His manifestations to them. He urges them not to fall into these same mistakes, and certainly not to approach the Lord without a sense of reverence.

When examining Hebrews, students of the Bible are most certainly confronted with a variety of difficult questions to answer. We do not know, in spite of educated and well-informed speculation, who wrote Hebrews. We do not fully know who the audience was who originally received the letter, nor do we know where they were. We do not fully know the historical backdrop that necessitated the writing of this letter. But what we do know is that what Hebrews teaches us forms a substantial part of our Messianic faith. We are possibly told more about the great mystery of the Divinity and humanity of Yeshua the Messiah from Hebrews than any other book of the Apostolic Scriptures (New Testament). We know more about what the New Covenant actually is from Hebrews than any other text as well. And, it can definitely be said that anyone who encounters Hebrews is challenged in their spirituality, so that they might be able to grow and fully probe many of the mysteries of God.

Because we do not know for certain who wrote Hebrews, or the original audience of the letter, there can be a tendency to downplay or ignore its message among some examiners. However, A.M. Stibbs makes the important observation that “Our ignorance on such points does not, however, prevent right understanding or minimize the spiritual and theological value of a document which has from the first commended itself as authoritative by its own intrinsic worth.”[2] We are called to take many issues on faith. Yeshua said in John 20:29, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.” The biggest thing that Believers often take for granted is believing in the existence and eternal power of God. Yet, we believe that God controls the universe with great precision and skill, and keeps Planet Earth the right distance away from and close to the sun. We believe that God controls the atoms and cells in our bodies so that we do not “fall apart.” When we examine a text of Scripture like Hebrews, we do have to make some assumptions, and do our best to reconstruct what we believe the setting was that necessitated its composition, and then interpret what the text meant for its original audience.

It is an absolute fact that in the Christian world the Epistle to the Hebrews is overlooked by far too many people. Lloyd J. Ogilvie writes, “Over the years, my conversations with pastors and teachers about their expository communication of the New Testament has revealed that the Epistle to the Hebrews has been overlooked. It is one of the least appreciated and utilized books of the New Testament for comprehensive, thematic, or verse-by-verse study and preaching.”[3] Much of the Messianic community today, sadly, is actually not that far behind. While the Messianic movement has probably not overlooked Hebrews for the same reasons that much of the evangelical Church has, Messianics who are pro-Torah often have difficulty reconciling what they believe to be anti-Torah statements by the author of Hebrews. Thus, while Hebrews may not be discounted as invalid instruction, sometimes it is not always given a high priority. In a faith community where we are supposed to be quite able to “bridge the gap” between the Tanach (Old Testament) and Apostolic Writings (New Testament), this is a problem—especially given the great richness of Hebrews and its clear reliance on the Torah, Psalms, and Prophets.

The fact that Hebrews is overlooked by far too many people is evidenced in how few know what is actually being communicated by its author. Christian ministers, who often do not take into consideration Jewish resources when interpreting Scripture, often struggle with having to interpret Hebrews and how the Apostolic writers apply texts from the Tanach. Furthermore, an additional struggle ensues for many readers because we do not live in a society that practices animal sacrifice, and it is difficult for many people to place themselves in the life setting of someone from the First Century. Christian ministers who attempt to preach or exposit from Hebrews often have to fight an uphill battle, in a Christian Church today that can tend to focus more on social justice than on practical holiness. Obviously, the need for a sound, Messianic examination of Hebrews, that does take into consideration the Jewish background of the text, and the presumed historical framework from which it was written, is quite important.

The Epistle to the Hebrews has some major themes that have affected theologians’ opinions about the Bible, and perhaps more importantly, the results of Yeshua coming to die for sinners. The overwhelming theme of the Epistle to the Hebrews is the superiority of Yeshua’s sacrifice and blood atonement over the animal sacrifices of the Levitical priesthood. Yeshua’s atoning work for humankind is permanent, compared to animal sacrifices that at best could only provide a temporary covering for sin. The author of Hebrews writes, “He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises” (8:6). The ministry of the New Covenant initiated by Yeshua’s blood is better than the ministry of the Old Covenant (2 Corinthians 3:7-9), which demanded death for those who violated the Torah’s capital code, because Yeshua’s blood covers our sin and such capital penalties were absorbed by His sacrifice (cf. Colossians 2:14). Yeshua’s sacrifice on the cross at Golgotha (Calvary), and His initiation of a Heavenly, Melchizedekian priesthood, is superior to the limited, although highly valued, Earthly priesthood of Levi. However, in spite of these important truths, Hebrews is often interpreted through the theological lens of the “Old Covenant” and “New Covenant,” as opposed to the two priesthoods of Levi and Melchizedek. Many do not understand that the New Covenant is prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and that it includes the explicit promise of God to write His Torah or Law onto the hearts of His people.

One of the major issues of interpreting any Biblical text is trying to remember the text as it was originally written. This is especially true of the Epistle to the Hebrews. There is much that anyone can gain from a simple reading of the text, and careful prayer and meditation on it. Indeed, these factors are absolutely imperative to gain the proper understanding of what our author is trying to convey. However, no matter how much the Holy Spirit is blessing us via our personal reflection, we still have to develop definitive interpretations of the text. Donald Guthrie makes the important observation, “What is most important for the commentator to discover is the present message and relevance of the letter, but he can only do this when he has investigated the historical setting.”[4] How many of us fail to do this in our reading of Scripture—yet still think that it is “okay”?

Once we can determine with some accuracy what a text actually meant for its original audience, then we will be prepared to interpret and apply it in a modern setting. The biggest mistake that many Bible readers make is reading one’s modern life circumstances and prejudices, immediately into an ancient text. This is especially true of Hebrews, where we have to reconstruct many more things than we would when compared to texts like the Gospels, the Book of Acts, or the Pauline letters. As Messianic Believers, when we do this we have the awesome opportunity of incorporating many of the Jewish resources available at our disposal, that give great depth and character to the actions and traditions of Yeshua and the Apostles. Yet at the same time, in a developing Messianic movement, we also have to take responsibility for some of the teachings circulating in our midst. In our examination of Hebrews, in particular, it will be necessary to discount some urban myths that have been allowed to perpetuate in Messianic circles—things that are assumed to be, but are not true. Our goal needs to be to have as full and as practical a view of Hebrews as possible, one that properly weighs the value of exegesis, history, and incorporated tradition, with how Messianic Believers can live out the message of Hebrews in a Twenty-First Century world.

Who was the author of Hebrews?

One of the controversies surrounding the Epistle to the Hebrews is that the authorship of the text may be ultimately regarded as anonymous. The Eastern Church held to a tradition that the Apostle Paul wrote Hebrews, based on the testimony of Clement of Alexandria from the late Second Century. The Fourth Century historian Eusebius records this tradition as follows: “The epistle to the Hebrews he asserted was written by Paul to the Hebrews in the Hebrew tongue, but it was carefully translated by Luke and published among the Greeks since one finds the same character of style and of phraseology in the epistle as in Acts” (Ecclesiastical History 6.14.2).[5] Challenges to this view are the facts that Hebrews does not reflect the same writing style of Paul as demonstrated in his known epistles, Luke does not mention the composition of Hebrews in either his Gospel or Acts, and there is definitely no extant original “Hebrew text” of Hebrews to which Clement refers.

Prior to the 1600s, the text was often referred to as “the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews,” and is still reflected as such today in some editions of the King James Bible. While the Apostle Paul has historically been a popular candidate for Hebrews’ authorship, it has been recognized by most scholars since the Reformation, that Paul could not be the author. Today, virtually no one in the evangelical Christian community favors Pauline authorship for Hebrews. In the text of Hebrews itself, the author identifies himself as hearing second-hand about Yeshua. He writes that the good news of salvation “was first announced by the Lord,” and “was [then] confirmed to us by those who heard him” (2:3, NIV). This disqualifies Hebrews as having been written by any of the Twelve Disciples or the Apostle Paul, who was given a revelation of Yeshua on the road to Damascus (Acts 9). It can, however, be deduced that the author was likely in the inner circle of Paul, as he attests to know Timothy (13:23). Theologically, this would account for streams of thought in the Epistle to the Hebrews that are Pauline in character, but not Pauline in composition.

Pauline authorship can also be discounted because of theological and linguistic studies that compare the writing style and vocabulary of Paul’s known letters to Hebrews. Origen of Alexandria was forced to observe in the Third Century, “The style of the Epistle with the title, ‘To the Hebrews,’ has not that vulgarity of diction which belongs to the apostle, who confesses that he is but common in speech, that is in his phraseology” (Ecclesiastical History 11.25.11).[6] It is often argued that whoever wrote Hebrews was an expert in oratory or rhetoric, and composed Hebrews to originally be read as a sermon in the congregations or fellowships to which it would be delivered. The author of Hebrews is very to the point in his writing style, and as Guthrie indicates, “He does not, as Paul sometimes does, go off on a tangent.”[7] Whereas Paul might go on diatribes for entire chapters of his letters to exhort his audience, the author of Hebrews may pause momentarily to do so, but does not get lost in his train of thought.

The author of Hebrews is much more organized in his writing style than Paul is, and his terms are somewhat more complex. Louis H. Evans summarizes how, “Where Paul will use one word, such as ‘law’ in Romans 7, to mean several different types of law, our writer will use several different words for the same thing, showing an immense vocabulary that continues to build all through this epistle.”[8] Furthermore, Pauline authorship can be discounted because of the author’s extensive use of the Greek Septuagint for Tanach (Old Testament) quotations, whereas Paul often fluctuates between the LXX and using his own Greek translation of the Hebrew text. F.F. Bruce makes the observation, “The author was a second-generation Christian, well versed in the study of the Septuagint, which he interpreted according to a creative exegetical principle.”[9] Studies into Hebrews, as we will examine further, demonstrate that the author was very familiar with First Century Rabbinical forms of argumentation, but could present them in ways appealing to a broad Diaspora Jewish audience, and perhaps also to Greeks and Romans.

Theologically speaking, the author of Hebrews has a different focus than much of the Apostle Paul’s works. Whereas themes such as Believers’ justification and their relationship to the Torah, the proper place of circumcision, and the relationship of Jews and non-Jews in the Body of Messiah feature prominently in Paul’s works—these themes are not readily addressed in Hebrews. Paul, for example, says nothing about the priesthood of the Messiah in his letters, comparing and contrasting it to the Levitical priesthood, a theme that predominates much of Hebrews. It is safe to say in the final analysis that while the author probably knew Paul, and was influenced by him in his theology, his writing style is not Paul’s. While there are many similarities between what the author of Hebrews writes in his letter to Paul’s letters, the style is not the same. As Pauline authorship for Hebrews is largely discounted today, there have been many proposals made throughout history suggesting different authors. They are largely pieced together from the various extant traditions from Church history, and educated guesses made from clues in the Scriptures.

Tertullian of Carthage suggested Barnabas for the authorship of Hebrews. He wrote in the late Second Century, “For there is extant withal an Epistle to the Hebrews under the name of Barnabas—a man sufficiently accredited by God, as being one whom Paul has stationed next to himself in the uninterrupted observance of abstinence” (On Modesty 20).[10] Of course, whether or not Paul and Barnabas remained unmarried during their lives will remain a mystery, but there is much to suggest that Barnabas could be the author of Hebrews. Guthrie notes that “it may possibly be the oldest [view] attested.”[11]

In support of Barnabas being the author of Hebrews, he is said to have been a Levite (Acts 4:26-37), which would have made him familiar with the Levitical priesthood and order of worship that is demonstrated throughout Hebrews. Barnabas was known to Timothy (Acts 16:1-3) from Paul and Barnabas’ first missionary journey, and was considered to be an apostle (Acts 14:4, 14), meaning that his words carried authority. Barnabas had direct contact with those who heard and saw Yeshua firsthand (Hebrews 2:3), even though he had not witnessed Him firsthand. Barnabas, being in the inner circle of Paul, would have reflected many of Paul’s opinions and points of view in his writing style. Barnabas was from Cyprus (Acts 4:36) and was a member of Diaspora Judaism. A few evangelical examiners today, and likewise a few in the Messianic community, are inclined to think that Barnabas wrote Hebrews.

After Barnabas, the next frequently proposed author of Hebrews is Apollos, a Jewish man from Alexandria who is described as being “well versed in the scriptures” (Acts 18:24, RSV), or having “a thorough knowledge of the Tanakh” (CJB). Apollos was an acquaintance of Paul (1 Corinthians 16:22), and was tutored by Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18:26). Apollos’ potential authorship of Hebrews was first proposed by Martin Luther during the Reformation, and as Guthrie states, “has been strongly supported by those wishing to retain some Pauline connection to the epistle.”[12] Many scholars are of the opinion that the author of Hebrews employs an allegorical method of interpretation similar to that of Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher who attempted to make the Hebrew Scriptures palatable to Greeks in philosophical form. NIDB indicates that “The vocabulary, figures of speech, and manner of argument show an Alexandrian and Philonic influence” on Hebrews.[13]

In 1 Corinthians 16:12 the Apostle Paul speaks highly of Apollos, writing, “But concerning Apollos our brother, I encouraged him greatly to come to you with the brethren; and it was not at all his desire to come now, but he will come when he has opportunity.” Based on this verse, there is an intriguing theory that suggests that Hebrews was written by Apollos just prior to Paul’s composition of 1 Corinthians. Robert H. Gundry summarizes this theory in his textbook A Survey of the New Testament:

“H. Montefiore has proposed that Apollos wrote Hebrews in A.D. 52-54 at Ephesus and sent it to the church in Corinth, especially to its Jewish Christian members. He draws many parallels between Hebrews and Paul’s Corinthian correspondence. In his view, ‘those from Italy’ (13:24) are Priscilla and Aquila, who originally moved to Corinth from Rome but subsequently accompanied Paul from Corinth to Ephesus.”[14]

The challenge to believing that Apollos was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews is that there is no extant tradition to substantiate it, except speculation based on internal Biblical evidence. Apollos is a very popular choice for Hebrews’ authorship in evangelical circles, but not as much in the Messianic community because of him being a Hellenistic Jew.

Other candidates for the authorship of Hebrews include Luke, Silas, Philip the Deacon (Acts 6:5), and Clement of Rome. There are various factors that disqualify each of these from being the author. Some actually think that Priscilla wrote Hebrews, but others discount this by the fact that the author uses a masculine participle in Hebrews 11:32, diēgoumenon (“recounting,” YLT).[15] One possibility, though never having been really proposed by anyone, is that there were two or three from the Pauline inner circle who wrote Hebrews. But aside from all of the speculation as to Hebrews’ authorship, even Origin of Alexandria was forced to say in the Third Century, “who it was that really wrote this epistle, God only knows” (Ecclesiastical History 6.25.14).[16] This conclusion is our best option for now. However, a wide number of conservative theologians favor Hebrews having been written by either Barnabas or Apollos, and we will agree that the likely author was either one of these two. In my opinion, any Messianic exegesis of Hebrews should be focused around the author being a Diaspora Jew.

There are many things that can be inferred from the writing style of Hebrews and the allusions that our author makes in his composition. The writer of Hebrews demonstrates a style that is consistent more with First Century Diaspora Judaism, than with the Judean Judaism of the time. There are many references that the author makes which are consistent with the Hellenistic Judaism of the Mediterranean basin, as opposed to that of the Land of Israel.

The most significant evidence in favor of our author being a Diaspora Jew is the fact that Hebrews, more than any other book of the Apostolic Scriptures, has over thirty direct quotations from the Septuagint, and many indirect allusions. The LXX was the authoritative Scripture for Greek-speaking Jews of the Diaspora, and is employed many times by the Apostolic writers. IDB explains, “There is a constant rhythm between theology and moral appeal, which reminds one somewhat of passages in IV Maccabees and Philo.”[17] Bruce further indicates, “That the writer was acquainted with Alexandrian Jewish literature, like Wisdom, IV Maccabees, and Philo’s works, becomes increasingly probable” (IDBSup).[18]

Hellenistic Jewry of the First Century did embrace a somewhat philosophical approach to examining the Tanach. This was largely forced upon it because of the wide spectrum of people and ideologies Jews in the Diaspora had to confront in their daily lives, as opposed to those who lived in the Land of Israel among a more homogenous population. Hellenistic Jewry of the Diaspora did encourage philosophical speculation, and one of a kind that we may see in the Epistle to the Hebrews. William L. Lane, for example, suggests that “The writer was evidently well educated by hellenistic standards. It is reasonable to assume a similar educational background to that enjoyed by Philo.”[19]

Historically, many scholars examining Hebrews have often only been exposed to the possible Hellenistic Jewish background surrounding this text. This has primarily been the case because up until the past century-and-a-half, the ability to examine Jewish literature such as the Mishnah or Talmud has been very limited. As modern Judaism has liberalized and let Christian scholars have access to their works, new approaches to the Epistle to the Hebrews have been considered. While the letter does have a significant Hellenistic Jewish influence on it, traditions from the Oral Torah are interweaved throughout our author’s oration. More contemporary scholarship in Hebrews reveals a more consistent balance between approaches to various issues seen in Hellenistic Jewish sources, which are well known, and more traditional Jewish sources as evidenced by works like the Mishnah or Talmud. Paul Ellingworth remarks, “Some of the similarities, including particular exegetical methods such as the argument from the silence of scripture and the very widespread a fortiori/qal wahomer argument, can be traced to common Jewish exegetical tradition; other similarities to hellenistic Jewish, or more specifically to Alexandrian tradition.”[20]

What we know for certain is that the author of Hebrews knew the needs of his audience very well. He concludes his work with the comments, “And I urge you all the more to do this, so that I may be restored to you the sooner…Take notice that our brother Timothy has been released, with whom, if he comes soon, I will see you” (Hebrews 13:19, 23). Our author is personally acquainted with those to whom he is writing, and he is concerned for their spiritual well being.

Where was the author of Hebrews when he wrote the text?

Consistent with the fact that we cannot determine with accuracy who the author of Hebrews was, we likewise cannot determine where the author was when he composed the text. The one important clue regarding a geographical place appears in Hebrews 13:24, where our author says, “Those from Italy greet you.” There are two distinct points of view regarding how to interpret hoi apo tēs Italias. The first is that the author was in Italy or in the vicinity of Rome, and the reference to “Those from Italy send you their greetings” (NIV) is a reference to an assembly of Believers in Italy. The second point of view, as explained by Warren A. Quanbeck, is that this was “a message sent home by Italians who were with the author and thus as evidence that the book is a letter written from a place outside Italy and addressed to a group inside Italy.”[21] This interpretation is reflected in the RSV rendering of “Those who come from Italy send you greetings.”

While we cannot know for certain where the author was when he wrote this document, we can assume that he was most likely in the Diaspora. Possible places of composition that are proposed among examiners, assuming that the letter was not written from Italy, include: Ephesus, Corinth, Alexandria, and Cyprus. Concurrent with this is the view that Apollos was the author of Hebrews, and that “They of Italy” (American Standard Version) is a reference to Priscilla and Aquila, who were Jews from Rome and who mentored him (Acts 18:2, 24-26).

When was Hebrews written?

It is actually much easier to deduce when Hebrews was written, as opposed to who wrote it and where the author was when this work was composed. It is widely agreed among both conservative and liberal examiners that Hebrews was written sometime near the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 C.E. Logically, we would assume that if the Temple had already been destroyed prior to its composition, that the author of Hebrews would have mentioned it. The author does consider the sacrificial system to still be in operation as he makes statements like, “there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law” (8:4), “whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear” (8:13), and “in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year” (10:3). However, in spite of these present references, some are not convinced that Hebrews was written before 70 C.E. because some works that post-date 70 C.E. reflect the opinion that the Temple and sacrificial system are “still operating,” even though they were not. ABD comments, “authors writing after 70 C.E., such as Josephus, Clement of Rome, and the compilers of the Mishnah, often refer to the temple as a present reality.”[22]

There are some who favor Hebrews’ composition just prior to the Temple’s destruction in either 68-69 C.E., with its impending fall in the mind of the author, who writes with this as a backdrop. However, the majority of those who favor a pre-70 C.E. composition date will generally favor a dating of pre-65 C.E., because no reference is given to the major persecutions that started after that year. Bruce thinks, however, “that the epistle was written before, but not long before, the outbreak of persecution in Rome in A.D. 65.”[23] This is partially based on our author’s remarks in Hebrews 12:6-7 to being disciplined by the Lord, as being a vague reference to coming persecution:

“‘FOR THOSE WHOM THE LORD LOVES HE DISCIPLINES, AND HE SCOURGES EVERY SON WHOM HE RECEIVES’ [Deuteronomy 8:5]. It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline?”

There are some conservatives who favor a composition date sometime after the Temple’s destruction, in the late 70s to early 80s C.E. And, even liberals have to admit that Hebrews was written “Within the broad range of the years 60-95 C.E.” (ABD).[24] One of the major factors that places Hebrews’ composition before 95 C.E. is that it is quoted by Clement of Rome in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, composed in the late First Century. The letter to the Hebrews was known in early Christianity and is quoted as early as 95 C.E., demonstrating that it was written well before the end of the First Century. There are various parallels between Hebrews and 1 Clement. The following are two of the more direct references:

HEBREWS

1 CLEMENT

By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith (Hebrews 11:7).

Noah, being found faithful, preached regeneration to the world through his ministry; and the Lord saved by him the animals which, with one accord, entered into the ark (1 Clement 9:4).[25]

And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high (Hebrews 1:3).

This is the way, beloved, in which we find our Savior, even Jesus Christ, the High Priest of all our offerings, the defender and helper of our infirmity. By Him we look up to the heights of heaven (1 Clement 36:1).[26]

There are some liberals who have tried to argue that the author of Hebrews may have been borrowing from 1 Clement, but this has been discredited by most reputable theologians. Guthrie makes the candid statement, “Suggestions that trace both to a common source or suppose that the author of Hebrews was acquainted with 1 Clement cannot be seriously maintained.”[27]

There are also possible references to Hebrews in the early Second Century work, Shepherd of Hermas, indicating that its author was likewise familiar with it, and considered Hebrews authoritative:

HEBREWS

SHEPHERD OF HERMAS

Take care, brethren, that there not be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God (Hebrews 3:12)

But you are saved, because you did not depart from the living God, and on account of your simplicity and great self-control (Shepherd of Hermas, Vision 2.3.2).[28]

But those which fell into the fire and were burned? are those who have departed for ever from the living God; nor does the thought of repentance ever come into their hearts, on account of their devotion to their lusts and to the crimes which they committed (Shepherd of Hermas, Vision 3.7.2).[29]

These comparative quotations have been provided so we can all understand that Hebrews was known and employed in the theology of the Second Century Believers, indeed indicating that it was compiled in the mid-to-late-First Century. Interestingly enough, in many of the ancient Greek codices Hebrews is placed between 2 Thessalonians and 1 Timothy. Guthrie details how “In the Chester Beatty papyrus (P^46), the epistle appears among the Pauline epistles, being placed after Romans.”[30] P^46 dates from “about 200,” placing it in the late Second Century.[31] But Guthrie also says that this placement “represents the position not later than the mid-third century.”[32] These may be reflections on the priority that some early Christian communities gave to the Epistle to the Hebrews. With the composition of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, the more standard position of Hebrews after Philemon, and before James, became secure. In some commentaries Hebrews is considered to be one of the General Epistles, but much of the time it is rather considered to be an adjunct onto the Pauline Epistles, having been written by an associate of Paul.

As we consider the contents of Hebrews, we will follow the standard conservative opinion favoring a composition date in the mid-to-late 60s C.E., immediately prior to the destruction of the Temple, but likely with the Jewish Revolt in the Land of Israel getting started. We will assume that the author’s audience is aware of events going on in Israel, and such events necessitated much of Hebrews’ composition.

Who was the target audience of Hebrews?

The specific target audience of the Epistle to the Hebrews can be a bit of a challenge to deduce, especially by those who do not consider the varied sectors of the First Century Jewish community that existed in the times of the Apostles. The Biblical text itself does not indicate who the audience is, but the oldest Greek manuscripts include the title pros Hebraious. Ellingworth notes, “There is no evidence that the writing was ever known by any other name.”[33] While there are certain things we can assume about the intended audience of Hebrews, we have to be very careful that we maintain some level of fluidity as well.

One question that we must ask ourselves is whether or not the author has, at least in the back of his mind, a theme in his letter concurrent with the meaning of the word Ivrim, Hebrew for “Hebrews.” The Biblical Patriarchs are called “Hebrews” all throughout the narrative text of Genesis. Abraham was called the first Hebrew in Genesis 14:3: “Then a fugitive came and told Abram the Hebrew.”

B.J. Beitzel notes in ISBE, “It is suggested that ‘ibrî derives from the root ‘br, ‘cross over, go beyond.’”[34] BDB says that the word Ivri comes from the root word ever, meaning “one from beyond, from the other side,” “used to distinguish Isr[aelites] from foreigners,” or “from beyond the Jordan,”[35] which has generally come to mean “one who has crossed over.” Abraham is considered to be the first Hebrew in the Bible, as God called him to leave his own country, Ur, with his family. He had the faith to depart and cross over the Jordan River into the land of Canaan. In the life of Abraham, we see that he first had to venture out spiritually and follow a God whom he had never seen, abandoning the life of polytheism that his father Terah had followed (Joshua 24:2). He then had to cross over physically into the Promised Land that God promised to give both him and his descendants after him.

When we consider the Epistle to the Hebrews, does our author have any of these ideas in mind? As Abraham had to cross over boundaries and new frontiers, sojourning in a new land, does our author appropriate this and apply it to his audience? To an extent, he does. The author of Hebrews writes, “By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going” (11:8). In a way, because of tumultuous circumstances, like the impending destruction of the Temple in view, the audience of Hebrews was going to have the faith of going to a place where no other generation of people had gone before: a Messianic faith with no operating Temple or operating hub in Jerusalem. This necessitated our author focusing on Yeshua and His completed work, its superiority over the animal sacrifices of the Torah, and the Messiah reigning from Heaven. For many First Century Jews, having no operating Temple in their religious world would have been a major trauma.

Because of this, many different suggestions have been made concerning which specific segment of the broad First Century Jewish community he may be directing his letter to. A common suggestion made throughout history is that the author of Hebrews was writing to the Judaizers or the Influencers, who led many unsuspecting non-Jewish Believers astray in Galatia. Another common suggestion that is made is that our author was addressing priests, and possibly even priests who had already come to faith in Yeshua, but were wavering in that faith in some way. In recent days with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, some scholars have extended the inclusion of priests to the Qumran community. However, Guthrie validly remarks that “The theory begins with the initial disadvantage that no mention is made anywhere in the New Testament of Essenes.”[36] Of course, there is the possibility that our author is addressing such a broad range of people, that he has all of these various groups in mind.

What we can know from the Biblical text for sure is that the author of Hebrews was writing to a group of second-generation Believers. He writes that the gospel message “was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him” (2:3, RSV). Both the author of Hebrews and his audience did not have firsthand contact with Yeshua, but heard it from the Apostles and other eyewitnesses. We can also infer that the audience of Hebrews had been Believers in Yeshua for a sufficient time. Our author writes, “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food” (5:12). Apparently, they had known the good news and had been trained up in the faith long enough that they should be teachers. Our author likewise reflects on the fact that these Believers had experienced some persecution, saying, “remember the former days, when, after being enlightened, you endured a great conflict of sufferings” (10:32).

One of the dangers that many in the Messianic community face today when interpreting Hebrews is failing to recognize the reality that the majority of First Century Jews did not live in the Land of Israel. The bulk of First Century Jewry, perhaps as high as two-thirds of the Jewish population, lived in the Diaspora. Bruce indicates that there were major Jewish communities established “from the territories of the ‘Parthians and Medes and Elamites’ in the east to Rome in the west, with Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, Crete, Arabia, Egypt and Cyrene receiving special mention between these limits.”[37] While some of these Jewish communities, notably in the East, had been remnants from the Babylonian Diaspora, many others were birthed out of Jewish merchants moving to these areas for economic opportunities, as well other reasons. The bulk of Diaspora Jewry that we get a glimpse of in the Apostolic Scriptures is Hellenistic Jewry, primarily constrained to the Eastern Mediterranean basin with centers in Northern Egypt, Asia Minor, Corinth, and Rome. It grew rapidly because of the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, and was very successful in making proselytes. Its expansion paved the way for the spread of the gospel.

It is also important for us to understand that the audience of Hebrews was probably not exclusively Jewish. In fact, some examiners think that Hebrews was not written to Jewish Believers at all, even though this is widely discounted. We have to accept the possibility that there were many non-Jews in the audience to which Hebrews was written, as it was written to be read aloud as an oration in an assembly of people. Sadly, David H. Stern calls the Epistle to the Hebrews “Messianic Jews” in his Jewish New Testament/Complete Jewish Bible, giving the impression that only a Jewish audience is addressed. Not even modern Hebrew translations of the New Testament make this faux paux, instead employing the correct Ivrim for the title of the text.

Can we assume that there were substantial numbers of non-Jewish Believers also addressed in the Epistle to the Hebrews? Perhaps the primary audience was Jewish Believers, who needed to be instructed on what to do with the impending fall of the Temple, Levitical priesthood, and sacrificial system at hand. But this by no means discludes the fact that many non-Jewish Believers would have taken instruction from the letter as well. Some may argue that the extensive use of Tanach quotations in Hebrews presupposes an entirely Jewish audience, but David A. deSilva, in his unique commentary Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews” disagrees. He writes,

“Gentile Christians—especially those who have been attached to the Christian community for some time, as it seems likely that these have—would also be familiar with those texts and keenly interested in their interpretation. Since they were instructed to read them by Jewish Christians like Paul and his team, we should consider the likelihood that Gentile Christians would have been exposed, at least inductively, to rules of interpretation such as gezera shawa…or qal wahomer…in the course of this instruction.”[38]

If exposed to the Tanach and its instructions in a Jewish setting long enough—as by becoming followers of Israel’s Messiah, they were to be decisively cut off from their old pagan spheres of social and religious influence (cf. Acts 15:20, 29)—these non-Jewish Believers would be familiar, at least in passing, with some forms of Rabbinical interpretation, perhaps like those we see in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The Rabbinical employment of qal v’chomer or “light and heavy,” employed frequently throughout Hebrews, is noted by deSilva to have parallels in Greco-Roman society. He comments, “The argument ‘from the lesser to the greater’ was a mainstay of Greco-Roman argumentation as well (a minore ad maius). The author of Hebrews makes frequent use of this principle in his exhortation.”[39] We may safely assume that our author is aware of the needs of a diverse audience, primarily made up of Jewish Believers, but not excluded to non-Jewish Believers.

The comments made in Hebrews 13:14 seem to suggest a rather urban audience for the contents of our author’s message. He writes, “For here we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come.” There have been many proposed locations for what city in which the initial audience who received Hebrews resided. Suggestions that are made is that the Epistle to the Hebrews was sent to a congregation in Asia Minor, Cyprus, Corinth, Cyrene in North Africa, Antioch in Syria, or even Spain and the extreme West. Some think that the primary target audience was in the Land of Israel, but this seems unlikely when many Jews in Israel had encountered Yeshua firsthand, and the letter is written by those and to those who had not encountered Him firsthand, and only learned of Yeshua from the Apostles and other eyewitnesses. It is very possible that they had the good news proclaimed to them by Diaspora Jews who had been in Jerusalem at Shavuot/Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was poured out who then returned to their home city.

The contents and writing style of Hebrews, as previously mentioned, would appeal more to members of Diaspora Judaism than to Judean Judaism. Lane indicates, “The roots of this...assembly are in a Diaspora Judaism that has been significantly influenced by the hellenistic synagogue both in theological conception and vocabulary.”[40] Consequently, the most popular locations among examiners for where the target audience of Hebrews was, include Rome and Alexandria.

Those who favor Rome being the location where Hebrews was written note that the epistle of 1 Clement, written from Rome in 95 C.E., demonstrates the first major encounter with the letter. It is logical, then, to assume that Believers in Rome did have early contact with Hebrews. Biblical history does substantiate the fact that there was a huge Jewish population in Rome. Bruce writes,

“[T]he Jews had established diplomatic relations [with Rome] in the days of Judas Maccabaeus, the Jewish colony there was greatly augmented after Pompey’s conquest of Judaea in 63 B.C., and by 59 B.C., according to Cicero, it formed an influential element in Roman society. It is estimated that by the beginning of the Christian era the Jews of Rome numbered between 40,000 and 60,000.”[41]

In the Messianic community today, it is very easy, with some of the rhetoric spoken against “Rome” by many, to forget the fact that there was a sizeable Jewish community in Rome of the First Century. Lane makes the important remark that “Roman Christianity was originally Jewish, and apparently Jewish in a sectarian sense….The oldest congregation of Jewish Christians in Rome was the household in which Aquila and Priscilla functioned as hosts and patrons.”[42] We cannot discount the Jewish Believers in Rome as being one of the primary audiences of the Epistle to the Hebrews—especially if the Jewish population was as high as 60,000.

Alexandria is also favored by various examiners as the initial target audience for receiving Hebrews, primarily because the Epistle to the Hebrews demonstrates many theological traits common to Alexandrian Judaism. Those who favor Alexandria also often favor Apollos being the author of Hebrews, as he was a native of this city.

One factor that is often not considered is the fact that the early Believers in Yeshua, and certainly many members of the Jewish community, were highly mobile by First Century standards. deSilva states that the early Believers “could copy and share much poignant and helpful texts as Hebrews with sister churches around the Mediterranean.”[43] While many commentators today favor Jewish Believers in Rome as being the primary target audience of Hebrews, this does not mean that the letter could not have quickly spread throughout the Messianic Jewish communities of the Diaspora, and touched significant quarters such as Alexandria, Corinth, Ephesus, Cyprus, and Antioch.

There are, however, some important factors that do not favor Hebrews being originally written to the Jewish community of the Land of Israel. The extensive usage of quotations from the Greek Septuagint, the canonical Scriptures of Diaspora Jewry, does not suggest a large readership in Judea. Furthermore, the author of Hebrews demonstrates that both he and his audience have a distanced connection to the sacrificial system of the Torah, which came from reading the Scriptures, not firsthand encounters of it as would be the case if our audience was living in the Land of Israel. Bruce concurs with these conclusions:

“We may infer from the epistle that they were Hellenists; they knew the Old Testament in the Greek version. It is implied, too, that their knowledge of the ancient sacrificial ritual of Israel was derived from the reading of the Old Testament and not from firsthand contact with the temple services in Jerusalem.”[44]

In examining Hebrews, it is certainly possible that the text eventually “made it” to the Land of Israel. However, if Hebrews was written during the Jewish Revolt of 66-70 C.E., with the Jewish people in Israel under military siege from the Romans, than a Diaspora Jew who believed in Yeshua, writing to his fellow Diaspora Jewish Believers, seems more likely. In our analysis of Hebrews, we will assume that the main audience of Hebrews was located in the Eastern Mediterranean Diaspora, in mixed communities of Jewish and non-Jewish Believers from Rome to Alexandria to Asia Minor.

These historical facts are important things to understand because it is not uncommon in the Messianic movement to hear a claim that “Hebrews was written to Hebrews who spoke Hebrew.” This is a claim that is extremely simplistic, especially in light of the reality that the Jewish community was spread all over the First Century world. Even Messianic Jewish theologians like David H. Stern flirt with the idea that Hebrews was written in Hebrew, for a Jewish audience in the Land of Israel, when the history of the times bears anything but this.[45] Some, perhaps not as insistent that the Epistle to the Hebrews be written “in Hebrew,” may suggest that “two texts” were written by the same author under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit: one in Hebrew and one in Greek.[46] What is notable more than anything else is that the Epistle to the Hebrews has some of the most advanced Greek composition in the Apostolic Scripture—if not the highest. It bears absolutely no signs of being a translation from Hebrew.

While many in the Messianic community would believe that of all the books of the Apostolic Scriptures, Hebrews would have been written in Hebrew, the fact that there is no extant copy of a “Hebrew Hebrews” speaks for itself. Furthermore, Guthrie attests that the author of Hebrews “writes Greek with a purity of style and vocabulary to which the writings of Luke alone in the NT can be compared” (ISBE).[47] He also comments, “The writer’s method of argument generally proceeds in accordance with the rules of Greek rhetoric. He does not digress the way Paul does in most of his letters” (ISBE).[48] If the author of Hebrews was indeed a Diaspora Jew writing to his fellow Jews in the Diaspora, composing this epistle in Greek would have been expected. In fact, an argument in favor of this letter being written to Jewish Believers in Rome, as Bruce says, is that “The Roman Jews generally were Greek-speaking and bore Greek names.”[49] Even those of the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research, an organization often referenced as promoting a so-called “Hebrew New Testament,”[50] have to admit that “Contrary to what one might expect, however, the book of Hebrews is written in the purest Greek of any book in the New Testament.”[51]

These conclusions, of course, are mirrored by many in the scholastic community. Lane indicates that “The language of Hebrews constitutes the finest Greek in the NT, far superior to the Pauline standard both in vocabulary and sentence-building.”[52] Even a layperson who does not consult critical commentaries on the Bible can find similar remarks. Spiros Zodhiates, for example, makes the following statement prefacing Hebrews in the Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible: “It certainly is a superb, literary Greek masterpiece which is well-organized, logical, and comprehensive.”[53]

Our analysis of Hebrews will remain consistent with the academic consensus that the letter was written in excellent Greek, with a strong Diaspora Jewish background in mind.

What is the Theological Message of Hebrews?

What does Hebrews teach its readers that is so profound? It has been said at times that “No higher view of the Messiah is to be found anywhere in Scripture” (Stuart Sacks).[54] How is this borne out in the author’s message? How does the author appropriate themes and verses from the Tanach and apply them to the circumstances of his readers? What do we need to understand before we embark into our own examination of the text?

Yeshua the Messiah (Jesus Christ) is, without a doubt, the major theme of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The text opens up in ch. 1 with a lauded praise of the Messiah, emphasizing that all things have been given to Him and that all things are to worship Him. The author of Hebrews affirms the Divinity of Yeshua, and the fact that Yeshua is the Son of God, whereas Moses was only a servant. The author certainly does not demean Moses, indeed attesting that Moses was “faithful” (3:5), but Moses as a mortal man could never do what the Messiah has done as the Son of God. Faith is a theme of Hebrews, as the author describes the Patriarchs and Prophets as those “of whom the world was not worthy” (11:38). One of the overwhelming themes of Hebrews is the New Covenant, with the author offering extensive quotes from Jeremiah 31. While too many Christian readers have interpreted these New Covenant passages as annulling the Torah, the author of Hebrews himself plainly states, “FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS, AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS. AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE” (8:10; cf. 10:16).

The Epistle to the Hebrews lays the groundwork for the development of some very important Biblical doctrines. We likely have more concentrated information about the Divinity and the humanity of the Messiah from Hebrews than any other text of Scripture. The author of Hebrews presents Yeshua as being nothing less than God in the flesh, writing, “The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word” (1:3, NIV). Yet at the same time, the author of Hebrews also writes that Yeshua is the High Priest who can sympathize with human beings, because as a man He endured through the same Earthly trials as any human: “For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin” (4:15).

An overarching theme throughout this letter is the superiority of Yeshua over the Levitical sacrificial system. In light of Hebrews being written before the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E., it is very possible that a selection of Jewish Believers were wavering in their faith, not quite knowing what to do. As Diaspora Jews, they maintained a distanced connection to the Jerusalem Temple, and could have thought that if their belief in Yeshua proved fallacious they could always fall back on Judaism as they had known it. Now, that so-called “security blanket” or “safety net” was in the process of being removed, in addition to the fact that members of the Way were steadily no longer being protected as a legal religion in the Roman Empire. A substantial number of Jewish Believers were being disturbed in their faith, and likely considering all the options open to them. The author of Hebrews reflects on the fact that many of the Believers were not meeting together on a regular basis. He writes, “Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching” (10:25, NIV). Somehow, there had been defections away from faith in Yeshua. The author of Hebrews, in emphasizing that Yeshua the Messiah is the High Priest of the redeemed, does not try to demean the sacrificial system to his audience, but does say that Yeshua’s sacrifice is infinitely superior to the sacrifice of animals.

Hebrews, while accepted as being a letter, is not really composed as a letter. The writer of Hebrews says that his message is a “word of exhortation” (13:22). He writes his message to exhort Believers in the faith, and possibly even for it to be delivered as a riveting sermon or speech to any congregations or fellowships which may receive it. This has led many commentators to compare the text of Hebrews to First Century rhetoric, performing analyses of its persuasive speech. Lane remarks that Hebrews has a “unique literary structure…in which exhortation is interspersed with exposition.”[55]

We certainly see in Hebrews that the author is very well acquainted with the Tanach or Old Testament, even if it is in the form of the Septuagint, and he uses Rabbinical teaching methods to convey his points. The fact that the author of Hebrews communicates Rabbinical concepts in Greek should by no means subtract from the strong Hebraic value of his message, but in fact shows how knowledgeable and intelligent he is. His writing style reflects the midrash present in much of First Century Judaism, as Nehemiah 8:8 summarizes this style: “They read from the book, from the law of God, translating to give the sense so that they understood the reading.” We see much of this in Hebrews as the author gives explanation to the meaning of the text. Some think that Hebrews is a homiletic midrash on Psalm 110, and also relies extensively on Jeremiah 31. However, our author also relies on his audience to know much more of the Tanach—notably in its Septuagint form. Sometimes he will only provide partial quotes or references in his line of argumentation. When we read Hebrews, we need to be familiar with the Tanach Scriptures as our author read them.

One of the challenges that interpreters have faced when examining Hebrews is failing to see the text for what it is as a Jewish polemical masterpiece. This is because most studies—at least until the past fifty years—have too extensively focused on the Hellenistic philosophical background of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Commentators today are not lax in admitting this to be a problem. Evans points out, “Even though the language is Greek and classical, the thought form and argumentative tracks are thoroughly Hebraic…Being unfamiliar, or not as familiar, with the Hebraic, [commentators] have naturally tended to bring Hellenistic interpretation to bear on New Testament writings.”[56] Much of the need for Christian scholars to begin examining the Hebraic background behind the Epistle to the Hebrews, came out of the renewed interest in Jewish studies that began after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) in 1947.

The discovery of the DSS has led some interpreters to conclude that the audience which received Hebrews was influenced by Essene theology, or was possibly entertaining some of the ideas of Ebionism that accepted Yeshua’s Messiahship as legitimate, but not His Divinity. This is possible, but probably not as major as some would like to believe because of the lack of specific reference to the Essene sect in the Apostolic Scriptures. However, if the author was concerned about his audience falling away from faith in Yeshua, because of the Jewish Revolt against Rome, it is very possible that those receiving his exhortation were entertaining a wide variety of views. Some may have believed that it would be easier to go back to the Jewish Synagogue and no longer deal with Yeshua. Some may have entertained Essene-type beliefs whereby the Jewish Revolt would somehow succeed and Israel would be restored to independence. Still, some may have been confused and adhered to beliefs similar to those adhered to by the Influencers in Galatia, thinking that complete involvement in the Temple rituals was necessary for full inclusion in the family of God. Regardless of what is specifically addressed—and we will assume that many different factors necessitated Hebrews’ composition—our author wants to get his audience focused on Yeshua the Messiah and to know that He is supreme over all these things.

Theologically, unless we are acquainted with some of the presuppositions of the author of Hebrews, we are likely to miss some of his important points. Consider the fact that while it is agreed that he is writing his treatise in the view of the Temple being about to be destroyed, not once is the word naos or “temple” used in the text. However, skēnē or “tabernacle” appears a total of ten times.[57] This is a likely reflection on the author’s position as a member of Diaspora Jewry, exemplified in Stephen’s defense about Yeshua in Acts 7. Lane remarks that for Hellenistic Jews, who did not have regular contact with the Jerusalem Temple, the Tabernacle in the wilderness was considered to be the idyllic state for the people of Israel:

“Stephen’s speech indicates that among the Hellenists there were serious differences with the traditional Jewish understanding of Israel’s history and of the significance of the law and the Temple cultus. In all stages of its history, Israel had refused to obey the commandments of God, rejecting both the living oracles delivered by Moses and the deliverers raised up by God…For Stephen, the most meaningful time in Israel’s past was the pilgrimage in the wilderness, typified by the portability and the transitory nature of the tabernacle…”[58]

We must also be aware of the author’s usage of the term “New Covenant” (Grk. diathēkēn kainēn). Too many readers over the centuries have believed that “New Covenant” is a replacement for the “Old Covenant,” which is supposed to be the Hebrew Tanach. Yet, when defining what the New Covenant actually is in Hebrews 8:7-13, the author of Hebrews appropriates a lengthy quotation from Jeremiah 31:31-34. He again repeats a shorter quotation of the same prophecy, in Hebrews 10:14-18. Any analysis of what the New Covenant is from the Apostolic Scriptures must be firmly rooted in the expectation of Jeremiah 31:31-34, lest we give a definition to the “New Covenant” that is extra-Biblical, or even non-Biblical. The promise of the Lord as delivered by Jeremiah is that He will write His Law onto the hearts of His people:

“‘Behold, days are coming,’ declares the LORD, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,’ declares the LORD. ‘But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,’ declares the LORD, ‘I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people’” (Jeremiah 31:31-33).

These are the verses that the author of Hebrews quotes in his section about the New Covenant, appropriating the Jeremianic promise of the b’rit chadashah. Yet, it is notable that the Greek word diathēkē only appears in the source text of Hebrews seventeen times,[59] but in a literal-free translation like the New American Standard, the English word “covenant” appears twenty-one times, appearing in italics four times,[60] meaning that it has been added by English translators. (These references are notably not indicated by italics in versions like the RSV, NEB, NIV, NRSV, HCSB, ESV, or even CJB.) Obviously, some of these usages of “covenant” are only in reference to “the ark of the covenant,” although for others, the translation of diathēkē as “covenant” is debated as being the best rendering. This can present a challenge to the expositor, and certainly to the average lay reader.

In some instances where “covenant” has been inserted by English translators, the reference being made may actually be to the first and second priesthoods, as the author is comparing and contrasting the universal priesthood of Melchizedek to the limited priesthood of Levi, and/or to the Tabernacle service and ministry. The author of Hebrews, seeing that the destruction of the Temple was imminent, does write his letter to reassure his fellow Jews, whose faith was connected to Jerusalem, that the sacrifice of Yeshua is superior to the animal sacrifices. He writes “there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness” (7:18). This is because the animal sacrifices are unnecessary to atone for the sin of human beings in light of Yeshua’s single, permanent sacrifice.

Interestingly, our author does not say that the animal sacrifices have been totally abolished, only that “The former regulation is set aside” (NIV). This is because animal sacrifices will be restored to the Millennial Temple when the Messiah reigns on Earth, per the prophecies of Ezekiel chs. 40-44. The Levitical priesthood could only minister to the people of Israel in the Tabernacle and Temple. With the Temple soon to be gone, the Believers needed to see themselves as connected to the priesthood of Melchizedek, a definitive universal priesthood where the Messiah is able to minister to all of humanity from Heaven.

How does Hebrews relate to Messianic Believers today?

The Epistle to the Hebrews is extremely important for us to understand today, but presents many challenges for a Messianic movement that is still developing in (too) many areas of its theology. One who is unarmed with an understanding of the likely background surrounding Hebrews’ composition is likely to misinterpret important parts of what this composition has to say. Likewise, if one falls prey to the paradigm of Hebrews being about “the Old Covenant vs. the New Covenant,” meaning that the Torah and Tanach are no longer important, its message is going to be totally missed. We cannot, in a similar vein, succumb to Messianic urban myths that say all First Century Jews were living in Israel and speaking Hebrew as their native language. By studying Hebrews properly, with the right tools, information, and presuppositions, Messianic Believers have a profound opportunity not only to grow spiritually, but also to refine their handle on contemporary Biblical Studies.

Hebrews, when interpreted and examined properly, is actually one of the strongest pro-Torah texts in the Apostolic Scriptures. Sadly, however, your average Christian will often misconstrue Hebrews’ message as presenting Christianity superior to Judaism, the Old Testament Law abolished, and Believers now secure in their faith in Christ without any need to know why He came. But this is not how the original audience of Hebrews understood the message. They lived in a society, even if in the Jewish Diaspora, that was involved in animal sacrifice. They knew more about Hebrews than we do. Ellingworth remarks on something very important when he says, “The suggestion that [pros Hebraious] means ‘against the Hebrews’ is a priori unlikely…One would have expected ‘Against the Jews’ rather than ‘Against the Hebrews’ as the title of a writing understood as anti-Semitic.”[61] Lane points out the problem that anti-Jewish views of Hebrews, and other New Testament texts, came generations later by those who were totally detached from the events:

“The importance of referring to the history of interpretation lies in the problematic nature of the term ‘anti-Judaism’ when it is used to characterize NT texts and themes that are pejorative in reference to Jews and Judaism. The problematic nature of the term becomes evident as soon as one realizes that early Christians considered themselves to a large extent part of Judaism. For that reason NT statements critical of Judaism have to be interpreted within the context of intramural conflicts among Jews in the first century. These conflicts were rooted in divergent attitudes toward the Torah and halakhah, with Christians formulating their positions in the light of their convictions about Jesus. It is appropriate to talk about Christian anti-Judaism only at a later period when statements from the NT were detached from their context and were misinterpreted as anti-Judaic.”[62]

The challenge with this, clearly, is enabling modern readers to understand the Apostolic Scriptures from the perspective of the Jewish Apostles and early Believers themselves. Hebrews, aside from how later generations would interpret it, is not a polemic against Judaism. deSilva is absolutely right when he states that all of us are “colored and contoured by our own experience, our religious and ideological commitments, our social location, and the like.”[63] If we are to properly understand Hebrews, we have to put these things aside and go back to the First Century. We have to remember that the author of Hebrews is much closer to the events than we are. Unfortunately, understanding these things is not just a challenge for the evangelical Christian community, but also for some today in the Messianic community who think they are looking at the Apostolic Scriptures from a First Century viewpoint, but may not really be able to do this.

A major challenge that Hebrews presents, for many people within the broad Messianic movement, is the fact that while the author of Hebrews quotes from the Tanach (Old Testament) in many places, his Bible is the Greek Septuagint (LXX). deSilva poignantly indicates, “Recognizing that the author of Hebrews used a LXX version is significant, since the LXX frequently differs from the MT.”[64] Many of these quotations are shorthand quotations, and there are some differences between his quotation of the Greek LXX and what one would find in the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT). Some of these differences are minor, but some are significant. In various places the LXX reflects on being a translation of an older, non-extant text of the Hebrew Scriptures, and is thus quite important for leaders and teachers to be familiar with. Sadly, in significant sectors of the Messianic community today, Hebrew studies can predominate one’s thinking so much to the extent that the Greek language is often never studied when examining the Apostolic Scriptures, and the thought of employing the Septuagint in one’s studies often never enters into one’s mind. This can only be remedied by time, and the Lord raising up able teachers and leaders who are trained in both of the Biblical languages.

Furthermore, our interpretation of Hebrews is complicated by some in the Messianic community today, who may tend to de-emphasize the final atonement of Yeshua, and thus have difficulty understanding the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is absolutely true that Hebrews must be understood in the context of the Tanach, and the continual references and allusions made to it. The author of Hebrews had a strong command of the Tanach, and was quite familiar with the operating Temple system in Jerusalem and the wilderness Tabernacle which preceded it. He also saw that the fall of that system, which occurred in 70 C.E., was going to take place. Jewish Believers in the First Century needed assurance that their salvation was not in jeopardy, and they could continue on in their faith without the Levitical priesthood and sacrificial system. While the author of Hebrews lauds the Temple service and Moses, he does emphasize the superiority of Yeshua as the Son of God and His work. But he does not make disparaging comments about Moses. This is even recognized by Christian commentators such as Lane, who notes, “Although the writer is concerned to demonstrate that Jesus is worthy of greater honor than Moses, there is no denigration of Moses in Hebrews.”[65]

When examining the Epistle to the Hebrews, a person is confronted by the reality that Hebrews is both a highly spiritual and intellectual text. On the one hand, readers are confronted continually with how highly lauded and praised Yeshua is, uplifted at the right hand of the Father in Heaven in glory. One’s heart leaps with exhilaration, exhortation, and possibly even tears at the thoughts that the author records of our Lord and Savior. But on the other hand, when we see the author’s arguments in favor of Yeshua’s work, we are forced to engage our minds and pray for Divine wisdom and insight so that we can fully understand his line of reasoning. We are forced to place ourselves back in another world and time that is foreign to us. We indeed find that we are required to live out the essence of the Shema: worshipping God with our entire beings. When we examine Hebrews, we have to worship the Lord with both our hearts and our heads.

As with all texts in the Bible, Hebrews requires us to accurately determine what its message meant for its original audience. Once we can do this, then we can adequately apply it to our own situation(s) today. Unfortunately, many do the exact reverse with Hebrews and many other Biblical books—and that is where we have problems. Hebrews asks questions of the Messianic community today that many of us do not understand because we think they are Twenty-First Century questions, when, in fact, they are First Century questions. When examining Hebrews, the Twenty-First Century questions that we are, in fact, presented, we may not be prepared to answer. These questions largely relate to how our broad, Messianic faith community is to interpret Scripture, and some of the spiritual and intellectual areas in which we are lacking. The Epistle to the Hebrews presents many challenges to us that will need to be resolved in the future, if we are to surely achieve our grand potential for the mission of God.

On the technical side as you prepare to read this commentary on Hebrews, note that I have purposefully refrained from overly using Hebraic terminology, other than the name “Yeshua the Messiah” for Jesus Christ, and on occasion “Torah” instead of Law, for the familiarity of most readers, and those who can be easily confused by unfamiliar words. The 1995 New American Standard, Updated Edition is the base English translation used in these studies, because of its literalness and widespread usage among many conservative evangelical Christians. Other major English versions I consult include the Revised Standard Version and New International Version.

References to the Greek Apostolic Scriptures are from United Bible Societies’ 1998 Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition, the same basic text as the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Gracae, 27th Edition. If you have any competency in Greek, an excellent resource to employ in examining our text is the Nestle-Aland Greek-English New Testament, which includes the 27th Edition GNT and a parallel RSV.

ABBREVIATED OUTLINE OF HEBREWS

I.   The Superiority of Yeshua the Messiah (1:1-10:18)

a.  Superiority to the older revelation (1:1-3)

b.  The Messiah’s superiority to the angels (1:4-2:18)

c.  The Messiah’s superiority to Moses (3:1-19)

d.  The Messiah’s superiority to Joshua (4:1-13)

e.  The Messiah’s superior priesthood (4:14-7:28)

f.  The Messiah’s superior priestly work (8:1-10:18)

II.    Exhortations Based on the Preceding Argument (10:19-13:17)

a.  The superior method of approach should be used (10:19-25)

b.  The dangers of apostasy must be noted (10:26-31)

c.  Yet memory of past days is cause for encouragement (10:32-39)

d.  Examples of historic endurance are cited to illustrate the triumph of faith (11:1-40)

e.  The greatest example of all is Yeshua the Messiah (12:1-11)

f.  Moral inconsistencies must be avoided (12:12-17)

g.  The superiority of the New Covenant realities (12:18-29)

h.  Practical results must follow from these considerations (13:1-17)

III. Conclusion (13:18-25)[66]

BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR INTRODUCTION TO THE PASTORAL EPISTLES

Attridge, Harold W. “Hebrews, Epistle to the,” in ABD, 3:97-105.

Bruce, F.F. “Hebrews, Letter to the,” in IDBSup, pp 394-395.

_________. “Introduction,” in NICNT: Hebrews, pp 3-34.

deSilva, David A. “Introduction,” in Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews,” pp 1-80.

Dinkler, E. “Hebrews, Letter to the,” in IDB, 2:571-575.

Ellingworth, Paul. “Introduction,” in NIGTC: Hebrews, PP 3-85.

Evans, Jr., Louis H. “Introduction,” in PreachC: Hebrews, 33:13-31.

Gundry, Robert. “Hebrews: Jesus as Priest,” in A Survey of the New Testament, pp 421-430.

Guthrie, Donald. “Hebrews, Epistle to the,” in ISBE, 2:663-670.

______________. “Introduction,” in TNTC: Hebrews, 15:15-57.

______________. “The Epistle to the Hebrews,” in New Testament Introduction, pp 668-721.

Hagner, Donald A. “The Letter to the Hebrews,” in New Interpreter’s Study Bible, pp 2151-2170.

Hegg, Tim. “Hebrews—Introduction,” in Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, pp 1-7.

Hodges, Zane C. “Hebrews,” in BKCNT, pp 777-813.

Lane, William L. “Introduction,” in WBC: Hebrews, 47a:xlvii-clvii.

Mickleson, A. Berkley. “Hebrews, Letter to the,” in NIDB, pp 427-429.

Morris, Leon. “Hebrews,” in EXP, 12:3-158.

Quanbeck, Warren A. “The Letter to the Hebrews,” in The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, pp 897-915.

Sacks, Stuart. Hebrews Through a Hebrew’s Eyes, pp 1-5.

Stern, David H. Jewish New Testament Commentary, pp 660-724.

Stibbs, A.M. “Hebrews,” in NBCR, pp 1191-1221.

ENDNOTES FOR Introduction

[1] Please note that in spite of the common reference to Hebrews as “the Book of Hebrews,” I am going to purposefully refer to the text as either the Epistle to the Hebrews or the letter to the Hebrews, and not use this reference. By failing to forget that this text is a letter written to a specific audience in a specific setting, we can make the common error of thinking that this was a text written directly to us. Our goal as responsible interpreters is to try to reconstruct what this letter meant to its original audience first, before applying its message in a modern-day setting.

[2] A.M. Stibbs, “Hebrews,” in D. Guthrie., et. al., The New Bible Commentary: Revised (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 1191.

[3] Lloyd J. Ogilvie, “Editor’s Preface,” in Louis H. Evans, Jr., The Preacher’s Commentary: Hebrews, Vol 33 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985), 9.

[4] Donald Guthrie, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: The Letter to the Hebrews, Vol 15 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 15.

[5] Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, trans. C.F. Cruse (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998), 204.

[6] Ibid., 215.

[7] Guthrie, Hebrews, 20.

[8] Evans, 19.

[9] F.F. Bruce, New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 20.

[10] The Ante-Nicene Fathers, P. Schaff, ed.; Libronix Digital Library System 1.0d: Church History Collection. MS Windows XP. Garland, TX: Galaxie Software. 2002.

[11] Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), 674.

[12] Guthrie, Hebrews, 21.

[13] A. Berkley Mickleson, “Hebrews, Letter to the,” in Merril C. Tenney, ed., The New International Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 427.

[14] Robert H. Gundry, A Survey of the New Testament, third edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 424.

[15] A more detailed analysis of the potential authors of Hebrews is addressed by Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, pp 671-682.

[16] Ecclesiastical History, 216.

[17] E. Dinkler, “Hebrews, Letter to the,” in George Buttrick, ed. at. al., The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 4 vols. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), 2:571.

[18] F.F. Bruce, “Hebrews, Letter to the,” in Keith Crim, ed., Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume (Nashville: Abingdon, 1976), 394.

[19] William L. Lane, Word Biblical Commentary: Hebrews 1-8, Vol. 47a (Nashville: Nelson Reference and Electronic, 1991), l.

[20] Paul Ellingworth, New International Greek Testament Commentary: The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 47.

[21] Warren A. Quanbeck, “Hebrews,” in Charles M. Laymon, ed., The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 1971), 897.

[22] Harold W. Attridge, “Hebrews, Epistle to the,” in David Noel Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 3:97.

[23] Bruce, Hebrews, 21.

[24] Attridge, “Hebrews, Epistle to the,” in ABD, 3:97.

[25] The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Libronix Digital Library System 1.0d: Church History Collection.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 668.

[28] The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Libronix Digital Library System 1.0d: Church History Collection.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 670.

[31] Kurt Aland, et. al., eds., The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition (Stuttgart: Deutche Bibelgesellschaft/United Bible Societies, 1998), 8.

[32] Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 670.

[33] Ellingworth, 21.

[34] B.J. Beitzel, “Hebrew (people),” in Geoffrey W. Bromiley, ed. et. al., International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 2:657.

[35] Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), 720.

[36] Guthrie, Hebrews, 24.

[37] F.F. Bruce, New Testament History (New York: Doubleday, 1969), 135.

[38] David A. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), pp 4-5.

[39] Ibid., 34.

[40] Lane, 47a:liv.

[41] Bruce, New Testament History, 137.

[42] Lane, 47a:lix.

[43] deSilva, 22.

[44] Bruce, Hebrews, 9.

[45] David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary (Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1995), pp 660-661.

[46] Tim Hegg, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Author, n.d.), 2 suggests this possibility: “It is even possible that the author wrote two letters, one in Hebrew (or Aramaic) and the other in Greek, in order to accommodate both Hellenistic Jews (who would be fluent in Greek but possibly not Hebrew) and Jerusalemites who may have received a letter in Greek with much suspicion.” However, even Hegg is forced to say, “remember, no physical evidence has yet been found to support the idea of a Hebrew original.”

[47] Donald Guthrie, “Hebrews, Epistle to the,” in ISBE, 2:666.

[48] Ibid, 2:664.

[49] Bruce, New Testament History, 137.

[50] We do not believe that the Apostolic Scriptures were originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, in spite of some of the insistent, and often fanciful, rhetoric posed by some in the Messianic community. Consult the author’s workbook A Survey of the Apostolic Scriptures for the Practical Messianic.

[51] David Biven. A Gospel Written in Hebrew?. Jerusalem Perspective Online. Retrieved 03 August, 2004, from <http://articles.jerusalemperspective.com/>.

[52] Lane, 47a:xlix.

[53] Spiros Zodhiates, ed., Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, NASB (Chattanooga: AMG Publishers, 1994), 1618.

[54] Stuart Sacks, Hebrews Through a Hebrew’s Eyes (Baltimore: Lederer, 1995), 4.

[55] Lane, 47a:xcix.

[56] Evans, pp 22-23.

[57] Hebrews 8:2, 5; 9:2, 3, 6, 8, 11, 21; 11:9; 13:10.

[58] Lane, 47a:cxlvii.

[59] Hebrews 7:22; 8:6, 8, 9 (2x), 10; 9:4 (2x), 15 (2x), 16, 17, 20; 10:16, 29; 12:24; 13:20.

[60] Hebrews 8:7, 13; 9:1, 18.

[61] Ellingworth, pp 21-22.

[62] Lane, 47a:cxxvi.

[63] deSilva, xiii.

[64] Ibid, 33.

[65] Lane, 47a:cxviii.

[66] Adapted from Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, pp 717-721.

HEBREWS 1

COMMENTARY

[1] God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, [2] in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.

1:1 The opening lines of the Epistle to the Hebrews are very interesting, and present some important concepts that the author is trying to convey to his audience. He opens his message with the words, “In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets” (RSV). The author writes about the revelation of God to humanity and how He has done this in various stages in time, through the Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and through the Prophets of Israel. David A. deSilva indicates that “The purpose of an exordium was to gain the attention and goodwill of the hearers, to establish oneself as an expert and honorable speaker (i.e., make initial appeals to ethos), and to introduce the leading ideas that will be developed in the speech itself.”[1] Consequently, appeals made to the Patriarchs and Prophets of Ancient Israel are exactly what we see throughout the entire text of Hebrews. Our author will appeal to his audience’s knowledge of their sayings, writings, and extant traditions to convey important points about Yeshua the Messiah.

We are told that God has revealed Himself in polumerōs kai polutropōs, which is invariably rendered as “in many portions and in many ways” (NASU), “at many times and in various ways” (NIV), or “in fragmentary and varied fashion” (NEB). These are admittedly some difficult concepts that examiners have debated over many centuries. The author of Hebrews suggests that God did not reveal Himself to humankind all at once, but gradually over time has given people the information that they need to know concerning His existence, His plans and intentions, and consequently also their redemption. Donald Guthrie remarks, “Anyone acquainted with the Old Testament would at once be able to fill in the details—the different modes (visions, angelic revelations, prophetic words and events) and the different occasions (stretching across the whole vista of Old Testament history).”[2] Both the author and his audience understand that God has always been in the process of revealing more of Himself to men and women since the Creation, and has done so especially through the history of Israel. In Hebrews ch. 1, the author makes many quotations and allusions to the Tanach that he expects his hearers to be intimately familiar with.

In today’s theological world, the concept of progressive revelation can be difficult for some people to grasp. On one side of the spectrum, dispensationalists argue that God has acted toward humankind in various ages, i.e., the Age of Law, the Age of Grace, the Church Age, the future Messianic Age, etc. This explanation has developed from the errant presupposition that Israel and “the Church” are separate entities or groups of elect.[3] On the other side of the spectrum there are those who believe that God revealed everything all at once to His people on Mount Sinai, with the giving of the Torah to Moses. Many in the Messianic community fall into this category, thinking that the Torah is principal to all of the rest of Scripture—and if something does not “line up” with the Torah, meaning that it is not specifically mentioned in the Torah, it should be treated as extremely suspect. This line of thinking has caused various individuals you may encounter in the Messianic movement from time to time, to deny critical admonitions of the Prophets, the Writings, and most notably, Yeshua and the Apostles. Certainly while none of us should disregard God’s Instruction in the Torah or Pentateuch, it is rather incomplete without the Prophets, Writings, and Apostolic Scriptures to also consider.

1:2 The author of Hebrews does not consider God’s revelation to be really complete until Yeshua the Messiah entered the scene of world history. He says that God has now “spoken to us in His Son.” The Patriarchs and Prophets of Israel are part of a succession of godly persons whom the Lord used to reveal His will to humanity, which is consummated in the coming of the Messiah Himself. The theme of the Epistle to the Hebrews is overwhelmingly Yeshua. Yeshua, in the author’s mind, is the overwhelming climax and fulfillment of everything which preceded His arrival, in the Father’s previous revelation through the Patriarchs and Prophets.

The Prophets of Israel foretold the coming of the Messiah, and the Messiah in turn has been designated by the Father to perform various functions and salvation-related tasks “in these last days.” Our author uses an important Greek phrase, ep’ eschatou tōn hēmerōn toutōn, a Septuagintism reflecting the Hebraic meaning of b’acharit ha’yamim, appearing in many important prophecies of the Tanach.[4] William L. Lane is keen to note, “This idiom is the first indication that the writer’s expression is profoundly colored by the language of the LXX.”[5] But, the usage of the term “last days” begs the question of exactly what the author of Hebrews meant. The Apostle Peter uses similar terminology in his sermon at Shavuot/Pentecost, saying, “And in the last days it shall be” (Acts 2:17, RSV), quoting from Joel 2. This has led some to think that the First Century Believers expected the totality of end-time prophecy to come upon them in their lives. But from God’s perspective, looking down at things outside of mortal time, and following the course of history not day-by-day, but millennia-by-millennia, the last 2,000 years have technically been “the Last Days.”

In opening his treatise, we also see that the author of Hebrews has a highly developed sense of the Messiahship of Yeshua. Donald Hagner says that “The high Christology of these verses is determinative for the whole book.”[6] Yeshua the Messiah is the One who has been “appointed Heir and lawful Owner of all things” (Amplified Bible). However, while Yeshua is indeed superior to all previous mediators, our author does not by any means demean previous mediators such as Abraham, Moses, or David. On the contrary to what some might think, our author demonstrates a strong continuity between the Tanach or the Scriptures of Israel, and the Messiah. The fact that these mediators could even be compared to God in the flesh shows how highly the author of Hebrews regards them. And, we do have to consider the fact that Yeshua would fulfill in person what the Prophets only prophesied.

The author of Hebrews writes that this has all come en huiō, “in Son.” Yeshua, in relationship to the Father as His Son, is the only One who can fully and truly convey the Father’s will to mortals—whereas anyone who preceded Yeshua in human history was definitely limited because of his or her humanity. Furthermore, when our author says that the Father has “appointed” Yeshua, he uses the verb form ethēken, appearing in the aorist active indicative tense, implying some sense of timelessness. Paul used  similar terminology to describe his appointment as an apostle by God, indicating that it carried major authority (1 Timothy 2:7; 2 Timothy 1:11).

Of course, we do see some parallels between Paul and the opening remarks in Hebrews. The author of Hebrews says that Yeshua is “the heir of all things.” Paul, in Romans 8:17, says that we are “heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Messiah, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.” Certainly, if the initial target audience of Hebrews was the community of Jewish Believers in Rome, then they could have already seen this in Paul’s letter to the Romans. It is interesting that Paul says that if the redeemed are heirs with Yeshua, they must suffer with Him. Is this something that the author of Hebrews may likewise be referring to? It likely is if the impending destruction of the Temple is in view. Most important, to be sure, is that in order to actually be an heir along with Yeshua the Messiah—every Believer has to keep his or her spiritual attention focused upon Him and His work!

V. 2 ends with the important statement that through Yeshua, God “made the universe” (NIV). There are certainly parallels between this statement and what we see elsewhere in the Apostolic Scriptures:

“All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being” (John 1:3).

“[Y]et for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Yeshua the Messiah, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him” (1 Corinthians 8:6).

“For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him” (Colossians 1:16).

The Greek of this verse ends with something extremely important that cannot be overlooked. The author says that Yeshua created tous aiōnas, employing the word aiōn for “world,” rather than the more common kosmos. TDNT explains, “the word is used for the duration of the world…[and] the same term can signify both God’s eternity and the world’s duration.”[7] Both aiōn and kosmos are used in the LXX to communicate the Hebraic concept of olam, which TWOT notes has a wide variety of possible meanings: “forever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world, etc.”[8] A notable usage of where the author of Hebrews may be appropriating this idea appears in the Mishnah. While the Mishnah was compiled after Hebrews, the traditions that it represents were present in the Jewish community of the First Century:

“Precious are Israelites, to whom was given the precious thing. It was an act of still greater love that it was made known to them that to them was given that precious thing with which the world [olam] was made” (m.Avot 3:14).[9]

In Hebrews 1:2, aiōnas is probably best translated as “ages” (YLT/LITV), rather than “world” (cf. 11:3). Guthrie observes, “The reason is that the word ‘ages’ is more comprehensive, including within it the periods of time through which the created order exists.”[10] In other words, not only is Yeshua responsible for just creating the universe, but He is responsible for creating every single second of every person’s life that exists in that universe. Everything that makes the universe operate properly, Yeshua is personally responsible for. While Yeshua as the Son is the mediator between humankind and the Father, Yeshua is also credited with being the Creator.

Some have also speculated as whether or not our author is appropriating themes consistent with the description of the figure Wisdom in ancient Jewish literature. Consider the parallels between Proverbs 8:27-31 and Wisdom 9:1-2:

PROVERBS 8:27-31

WISDOM 9:1-2

When He established the heavens, I was there, when He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep, when He made firm the skies above, when the springs of the deep became fixed, when He set for the sea its boundary so that the water would not transgress His command, when He marked out the foundations of the earth; then I was beside Him, as a master workman; and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him, rejoicing in the world, His earth, and having my delight in the sons of men.

O God of my fathers and Lord of mercy, who hast made all things by thy word, and by thy wisdom hast formed man, to have dominion over the creatures thou hast made.

Second Temple Judaism often identified God’s Word with His Wisdom, and Yeshua is often considered to be the Word of God by the Apostles, notably seen in John ch. 1. The themes of God’s Word and Wisdom were particularly important in Hellenistic Judaism. Lane comments that the statements in v. 2, and what “immediately follow belong to a class of statements descriptive of divine Wisdom in the theology of Alexandrian Judaism…Reflection on the Wisdom of God in Alexandrian theology provided [our author] with categories and vocabulary with which to interpret the person and work of Christ.”[11]

However, in spite of possible parallels that exist between Yeshua, the Word of God, and Wisdom, Paul Ellingworth must state, “Despite allusions to Wis. 7, Hebrews does not identify Christ with wisdom…and indeed avoids the term [sophia].”[12] It is however, interesting, that while Wisdom was considered to be a companion with the Almighty, Yeshua is likewise portrayed as being a companion with the Father in Scripture. Revelation 3:14 describes Him as “The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God.” As Hebrews begins, our author may not totally see Yeshua as God’s “Wisdom,” but there are likely parallels that suggest theological motifs appropriated from Diaspora Jewry. These themes are all used to uplift Yeshua as Lord, Redeemer, and Creator. Notably, though, it is not in the areas where Yeshua is similar to the figure of Wisdom that are important for readers to consider—but where Yeshua is decisively different (cf. Colossians 1:15-20). The figure of Wisdom is a virtue often used to describe God’s power and immanence; Yeshua the Messiah is an actual person, to whom all of Creation must give an account and bow down before in worship (cf. Philippians 2:10-11).

[3] And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high [Psalm 110:1], [4] having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.

1:3 Vs. 3-4 summarize who the author of Hebrews considers Yeshua the Son to be, in relation to His Father, before he substantiates his thoughts with some sizeable quotations from the Tanach. He describes Yeshua first as the “radiance” or “brightness” (KJV) of God. Used in the context of God’s glory, BDAG defines apaugasma as “radiance, effulgence, in the sense of brightness from a source.”[13] Yeshua the Messiah obviously originates from the Eternal Father.

Our author further says that the Messiah is “the exact imprint of God's very being” (NRSV). He employs the word charaktēr, meaning “characteristic trait or manner, distinctive mark” and “an impression that is made, outward aspect, outward appearance, form” (BDAG).[14] Yeshua, as the Son of God, bears everything that His Father is. This is a much clearer term to use than the more common eikōn, which LS simply defines as “a likeness, image, portrait.”[15] The closest Hebrew equivalent for charaktēr is probably temunah, “likeness, representation” (BDB).[16] Moses was able to see the temunah of the Lord, and was able to speak with Him in close proximity:

“With him I speak mouth to mouth, even openly, and not in dark sayings, and he beholds the form [temunah] of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid to speak against My servant, against Moses?” (Numbers 12:8).

The Septuagint translators may have been at a loss with how to translate temunah, and instead simply rendered it as doxa, or “the glory of the Lord” (LXE). “In the LXX charactēr denotes a ‘scar’ in Lev 13:28.” However, in later texts it indicates “the ‘likeness’ impressed by parents on children in 4 Macc. 15:4” (TDNT).[17] 4 Maccabees 15:4 states, “In what manner might I express the emotions of parents who love their children? We impress upon the character [charactēr] of a small child a wondrous likeness both of mind and of form. Especially is this true of mothers, who because of their birthpangs have a deeper sympathy toward their offspring than do the fathers.”

Yeshua’s personal attributes, ethics, morality, and grand compassion, may be regarded as being the exact same as His Father. This will surely be manifested in Yeshua’s obedience to His Father to die for sinful humanity, and the service He offers people in providing them with eternal redemption.

The stamp of the Father’s complete nature upon the Son is a strong indication of Yeshua’s Divinity. The author testifies to the fact that Yeshua is “sustaining all things by his powerful word” (NIV). He employs the participle pherōn, best translated as “bearing up” (YLT). It appears in the present tense indicating that Yeshua is presently the One who is “upholding” (RSV) the Creation—meaning that He is presently running the universe. It is notable that while many may conclude that the “word” referred to is Yeshua, the term logos, which John uses in his Gospel to refer to Yeshua, is not employed here. The author of Hebrews uses rhēma, meaning “that which is said or spoken, a word, saying” (LS).[18] The idea that appears to be communicated is not only how Yeshua is the Creator, and that the ages are being presently upheld by His spoken word—but that all He had to do was proclaim, “‘Let there be light’; and there was light” (Genesis 1:3).

Lane indicates that “The writer may have become familiar with the terms like [apaugasma] and [charaktēr] from an Alexandrian education, but he has brought this distinctive vocabulary into the service of Christian confession.”[19] Apparently, these were terms commonly used in the Jewry of Alexandria, and our author appropriates and reapplies them to the Messianic faith, amplifying them from their original meaning.

V. 3 also tells us something very important about what Yeshua has done in the world, which sets the tone for the remainder of the epistle. Our author writes, “After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high” (ESV). Describing the act of redemption, he uses the term katharismos, a later form of katharos, meaning “clear of dirt, clean, spotless, unsoiled” (LS).[20] This latter term is used in the LXX to describe the defilements of sin in association with the altar and the purification that is provided for the people (Exodus 29:37; 30:19; Leviticus 16:19). Its verb form, katharizō, is used to translate the Hebrew verb taher, defined as “make or declare ceremonially clean” (BDB).[21] One notable example appears in Leviticus 16:30, in reference to Yom Kippur:

“[F]or it is on this day that atonement shall be made for you to cleanse [MT: taher; LXX: katharizō] you; you will be clean from all your sins before the LORD.”

Consequently, a major theme of Hebrews is how Yeshua has fulfilled the requirements of the Tabernacle service as delivered to Ancient Israel by Moses. The author says that Yeshua—as the perfect sacrifice for sins—has provided the atonement and purification that the Torah requires. With this in mind he can confidently say that “he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven” (NIV). Using terms such as the “Majesty on high” or “HaG'dulah BaM'romim” (CJB) is a very Jewish way of referring to God. But even more important is the fact that the author of Hebrews is making an indirect reference to Psalm 110:1, perhaps one of the most frequently quoted Tanach texts in the Apostolic Scriptures:

“A Psalm of David. The LORD says to my Lord: ‘Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.’”

This verse is important, of course, because it is used by the Apostles to affirm that Yeshua is not only seated at the right hand of His Father in Heaven, but also to affirm His Divinity. The Hebrew text has ne’um YHWH l’Adonai, which some Jewish examiners have said only speaks of God speaking to a human master. But the Greek LXX text, quoted in the Apostolic Scriptures, says eipen ho Kurios tō Kuriō: “The Lord said to my Lord” (LXE)—indeed indicating that God is having a conversation with Himself. Of the eleven quotes or direct references to Psalm 110:1 in the Apostolic Scriptures, four of them are in Hebrews (1:13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2).[22] Even though this is not the only theme of Hebrews, Ellingworth is keen to note, “The importance of Ps. 110 for Hebrews cannot be questioned.”[23]

1:4 The author’s opening thoughts end with a statement that is somewhat perplexing, as Yeshua is “much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.” Why does the author of Hebrews even make a reference to angels, and Yeshua’s exaltedness over them? Speculation abounds as to what this may have been referring to. The mainstream Pharisaical Judaism of the period did not have a strongly developed angelology, when compared to that of the Qumran sect. In the Torah and Tanach, we certainly see angels, and the Apostolic testimony was that they were present at Mount Sinai (Acts 7:53; Galatians 3:19). We also know that angels are created beings, who are simply called out to perform God’s tasks. The most neutral meaning for the Hebrew malak and the Greek angelos, is probably “messenger,” and the terms are used in the Bible to refer to human messengers every bit as much as spiritual messengers. So why does our author make the point of saying that Yeshua has been given a far better position than the angels? EJ summarizes some of the Jewish angelology of the First Century:

“The doctrine of angels was not evenly spread among the various parts of the Jewish people. The apocalyptic wisdom teachers imparted the knowledge that they had secretly acquired through their contact with angels, only to a narrow circle of the specially initiated. Consequently, the doctrine of angels found its widest distribution among the secret societies of the Essenes. The latter (Jos., Wars, 2:142) carefully guarded the secret list of angels' names. The Qumran scrolls testify to an organized system of angelology, in which the ‘Prince of Light’ and other heavenly princes were expected to fight alongside the Sons of Light on the ‘last day,’ and they thought them present at meetings of the Qumran sect. A certain dualism is seen in the struggle for power between the forces of evil (Belial) and those of goodness over the sons of man (lQM 13:11). The Pharisees, on the other hand, showed little interest in these problems. The Sadducees, who were opposed to any kind of mysticism, are described by the Acts of the Apostles (23:8) as denying the very existence of angels; this however, was undoubtedly a false assumption, derived from the Sadducees' rejection of apocalyptic teachings. Among Jewish magicians and sorcerers, the concept of angels was particularly confused, influenced as they were by the pagan literature on the subject, where the angels usually appear in the company of pagan gods, to combat disease.”[24]

This entry offers some of the possible reasons why someone, like the author of Hebrews, might make a point that Yeshua is superior to the angels. Ellingworth indicates, “There was intense speculation about angels in the intertestimental period…at Qumran, and in later Jewish and gnostic circles…Other strands of NT tradition…suggest that a cultus involving angels competed seriously with faith in Christ.”[25] Is it possible that some in the Jewish audience receiving this message were falling prey to angel worship? We do know that angel worship was a problem for some at Colossae, which the Apostle Paul rebukes them about:

“Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind” (Colossians 2:18).

In spite of the possibility that some in Hebrews’ audience were worshipping angels, Ellingworth concludes, “There is no evidence of this danger in Hebrews, which is generally nonpolemical in tone.”[26] It is absolutely true that angel worship is not called out by name in the Epistle to the Hebrews. However, this does not rule out the possibility that many Jewish Believers were entertaining the idea that Yeshua was just an angel or a messenger sent from God, or some kind of highly exalted supernatural being—rather than God Himself. Lane notes the distinct possibility, “It has been argued that the writer found it necessary to combat a heretical form of christology that confused Christ with the highest angel in Judaism.”[27] When we see the author’s remarks about Yeshua the Messiah’s superiority over the angels, it should be with this in mind. The author of Hebrews does not consider Yeshua to be an “angel,” and goes to great lengths in Hebrews ch. 1 to describe why this is not the case.

Hebrews ch. 1, detailing some of the major themes that our author will be focusing on, provide some of the main support for the Divinity of Yeshua witnessed in the Apostolic Scriptures, along with: John 1:1-18; Philippians 2:5-11; and Colossians 1:15-20. The concepts of God’s complete revelation in Messiah Yeshua, Yeshua’s Kingship over the universe and complete superiority, His eternality and humanity, and also His redemption of sinners, are the concepts that are explained throughout the entire treatise. Lane summarizes it all quite well when he states, “The writer’s perspective is distinctly theocentric; he confronts his readers immediately with the God who intervened in human history with his sovereign word addressed to humankind. His ultimate word, however, was spoken through one who is distinguished from others by reason of the unique relationship he sustains to God.”[28]

[5] For to which of the angels did He ever say, “YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU” [Psalm 2:7]? And again, “I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM AND SHE SHALL BE A SON TO ME” [2 Samuel 7:14; 1 Chronicles 17:13]?

1:5 The remainder of Hebrews ch. 1 includes strong reasoning for why Yeshua the Messiah is superior to the angels. The exact situation that required the author to write about this, has sometimes been thought to be angel worship among his audience. More likely is the fact that some believed that Yeshua was nothing more than some kind of high supernatural agent of God, though ultimately a created being. The author of Hebrews proves that this is not the case, relying on his audience’s knowledge of both the Tanach and the actions of Yeshua. He proceeds to define who Yeshua is, arguing that He is a Son to God, and God is a Father to Him, a relationship that God does not have with any of the angels. This makes Yeshua’s purpose for coming to Earth and intervening in the lives of mortals on behalf of their salvation, one that is superior to the angels.

He opens up his argument, stating, “For God never said to any angel what he said to Jesus” (NLT). He then quotes from Psalm 2, a text rife with Messianic references. This psalm opens up with rhetorical questions:

“Why are the nations in an uproar and the peoples devising a vain thing? The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers take counsel together against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying, ‘Let us tear their fetters apart and cast away their cords from us!’” (Psalm 2:1-3).

The Psalmist asks how the nations of the Earth can even dream of setting themselves against the Almighty God of the Universe and against His Mashiach or Messiah. The author of Hebrews sees this clearly as a reference to Yeshua, who the Psalmist indicates is to come into the world, receive the world as a Divine inheritance, and break all the enemies of His Father. The elongated text, that our author makes only a short reference to, reads as follows:

“But as for Me, I have installed My King upon Zion, My holy mountain. I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, today I have begotten You [Hebrews 1:5]. Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance, and the very ends of the earth as Your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron, You shall shatter them like earthenware” (Psalm 2:6-9).

This same text is quoted by the Apostle Paul when preaching the good news to a synagogue at Pisidian Antioch, and Paul makes the important point that this psalm speaks of Yeshua—and not King David:

“And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers, that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Yeshua, as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU’ [Psalm 2:7]. As for the fact that He raised Him up from the dead, no longer to return to decay, He has spoken in this way: ‘I WILL GIVE YOU THE HOLY and SURE blessings OF DAVID’ [Isaiah 55:3]. Therefore He also says in another Psalm, ‘YOU WILL NOT ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY’ [Psalm 16:10]. For David, after he had served the purpose of God in his own generation, fell asleep, and was laid among his fathers and underwent decay; but He whom God raised did not undergo decay” (Acts 13:32-37).

Yeshua is a decisively different Son to the Father, than the relationship that King David had to Him. The fact that Yeshua is this Son is readily attested to us in the Gospels, by the voice of the Father Himself:

“Then a cloud formed, overshadowing them, and a voice came out of the cloud, ‘This is My beloved Son, listen to Him!’” (Mark 9:7).

“He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David” (Luke 1:32).

Upon establishing that Yeshua is the Son prophesied about in Psalm 2, our author makes a unique quotation from 2 Samuel 7, in Nathan’s prophecy to King David about One coming after him who would have a throne established forever. As Warren A. Quanbeck explains it, “Here David is treated as a prophetic figure who finds his true place as a preparation for the great King, ‘great David’s greater Son.’”[29] While it was initially spoken concerning Solomon, it was considered to have major Messianic significance. The elongated prophecy specifically says,

“When your days are complete and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men, but My lovingkindness shall not depart from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever” (2 Samuel 7:12-16).[30]

The expectation that the Messiah was going to be a son of David, is, of course, realized in other prophecies in the Tanach (Isaiah 9:6; Zechariah 9:9). Some have tried to claim that Psalm 2 was not a prophecy about Yeshua, but only about David and his son Solomon, and that the emerging Christian Church of the late First Century only “invented it” to apply to Jesus Christ. But, this prophecy was considered to be messianic in nature by some Jews of the First Century. The most notable extra-Biblical application of 2 Samuel 7 in a Messianic context appears in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in the Qumran community’s text Midrash on the Last Days:

“The Lord declares to you that He will build you a House (2 Sam. vii, 11c) I will raise up your seed after you (2 Sam. vii, 12). I will establish the throne of his kingdom [for ever] (2 Sam. vii, 13). [I will be] his father and he shall be my son (2 Sam. vii, 14). He is the Branch of David who shall arise with the Interpreter of the Law [to rule] in Zion [at the end] of time. As it is written, I will raise up the tent of David that is fallen (Amos ix, 11). That is to say, the fallen tent of David is he who shall arise to save Israel” (4Q174 10:10-11).[31]

This should confirm for us that the author of Hebrews is not necessarily “inventing” a new interpretation of Nathan’s prophecy, but that it did exist in the milieu of some in the First Century Jewish community, and was likely more widespread than just the Essenes. We might not totally agree with the Essenes’ ultimate conclusions regarding these prophecies, but they are interpreted as being references to the Messiah to come, and the author of Hebrews has not fidgeted with the Tanach Scriptures.

It is also important to note that the Hebrew phrase v’haqimoti et’-zaraka in 2 Samuel 7:12, was rendered as kai anastēsō to sperma sou meta in the Greek Septuagint: “I will raise up thy seed after thee” (LXE). This is a theme appropriated by John in his Gospel, when people are asking, “Has not the Scripture said that the Messiah comes from the descendants [spermatos] of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was?” (John 7:42).

The author of Hebrews begins to make some major arguments describing the superiority of Yeshua over the angels. He argues that Yeshua is the Son of God, and justifies this claim with some major Messianic words from the Tanach. Following this, our author then discusses how this Son of God is to be worshipped, a definite sign that he considered Yeshua Divine, although as One to be distinguished from the Father.

[6] And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, “AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM [Deuteronomy 32:43, LXX; Psalm 97:7].”

1:6 Yeshua is described by the author of Hebrews as being the “firstborn.” While some might choose to view “firstborn” as a reference to the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem, being “firstborn” is a designation of the first status or first rank as seen in the Tanach Scriptures (Exodus 4:22; Psalm 89:27; Jeremiah 31:9). With Yeshua coming into the world, the angels are commanded by the Father to worship Him. The author writes, “And all God's angels must worship Him” (HCSB). Why does he do this? Again, it is to emphasize the superiority of Yeshua over angels—and angels are beings which are decisively not to be worshipped. And, the Messiah being superior to angels was a very strong First Century Jewish concept. Louis H. Evans is keen to note, “That angels should worship the messianic Son is a rabbinic concept with which the Jews were quite familiar. When the messianic Son comes He shall be above Abraham, above Moses, and greater than the ministering angels.”[32] This “firtborn” Yeshua was brought into the world at Bethlehem. Some may need to remember, though, how Yeshua possessed glory and was worshipped in Heaven (cf. John 17:5)—but that the Incarnation of the Son of God, did not all of a sudden mean that such worship was to be abandoned by the Heavenly host subsequent to His entry into the world. For, even in His lowest estate, incarnated as a mortal, He still deserved worship by the Heavenly host.

What is important for us to determine is exactly what text our author quotes from to support the premise that Yeshua is to be worshipped. One text that is thought to be alluded to is Psalm 97:7, which says “Let all those be ashamed who serve graven images, who boast themselves of idols; worship Him, all you gods.” The appeal that is made by the Psalmist is that any false gods or idols are to bow down and worship the Lord, the One True God. This is a reverent action that is to be directed toward Yeshua the Messiah, and would be regarded as idolatrous if Yeshua Himself were not God. The MT says hishtachavu-lo kol elohim, “worship Him, all you gods,” rendered in the LXX as proskunēsate autō pantes hoi angeloi, “worship him, all ye his angels” (LXE). Here, elohim, the Hebrew word typically meaning “God,” is understood to be “divine beings” or “powers,” which the Septuagint translators understood to mean “angels” (Grk. sing. angelos). While the theme of Psalm 97:7 is being appropriated by the author of Hebrews, v. 6 probably includes more.

Another possible text being referenced by our author is Deuteronomy 32:43, in its Septuagint version. While most differences between the Hebrew MT and Greek LXX are nominal at best, this verse is an exception. When applied to Messiah Yeshua, the admonition is clearly presented that the angels—and consequently human beings as well—are to worship Him. This is especially because of the great power of God demonstrated in acts of vengeance against the enemies of His people. Note the major differences between the MT and LXX versions of this verse:

DEUTERONOMY 32:43 (MT)

DEUTERONOMY 32:43 (LXX)

Rejoice, O nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries and will forgive his land, and his people (Jerusalem Bible-Koren).

Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him; rejoice ye Gentiles, with his people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him; for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and he will render vengeance, and recompense justice to his enemies, and will reward them that hate him; and the Lord shall purge the land of his people (LXE).

har’ninu goyim amo ki dam-avdayv yiqqom v’naqam yashiv l’tzarayv v’kipper admato amo

euphranthēte ouranoi hama autō kai proskunēsatōsan autō pantes huoi Theou euphranthēte ethnē meta tou laou autou kai enischusatōsan autō pantes angeloi Theou hoti to haima tōn huiōn autou ekdikatai kai ekdikēsei kai antapodōsei dikēn tois echthrois kai tois misousin antapodōsei kai ekkathariei Kurios tēn gēn tou laou autou

The key phrase that is obviously missing from Deuteronomy 32:43 in the MT is “you heavens, with Him, and let all the angels of God worship Him” (Apostle’s Bible), as the principal actors in the Heavens are God’s angels. The Greek phrase that appears in LXX(a), is kai proskunēsatōsan autō pantes huoi Theou, literally meaning “and worship Him all sons of God.” In Jewish theology, “the sons of God” are often viewed as being His angels. LXX(b), which may be a source the author of Hebrews is working from, reads with angeloi Theou.[33] The Greek of Hebrews 1:6 uses this second reading.

This phrase appears in a song that lauds the Lord’s ultimate victory over His enemies, and may be what is alluded to in the Book of Revelation as being sung by those who overcome the antimessiah (Revelation 15:3).[34] Why does this phrase not appear in the Masoretic Text? The argument could be made that since the Septuagint is not a literal word-for-word translation, this is an extrapolation of what Deuteronomy 32:43 means, and thus merely an expansion upon it. However, this same phrase appears among the Dead Sea Scrolls, which specifically included thirty-three copies of Deuteronomy, with thirty of them at Qumran.[35] As Deuteronomy 32:43 reads from The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, “Rejoice, O heavens, together with him; and bow down to him all you gods.”[36] The Hebrew behind this reads with elohim, which here can be interpreted as a reference to angels.

[7] And of the angels He says, “WHO MAKES HIS ANGELS WINDS, AND HIS MINISTERS A FLAME OF FIRE” [Psalm 104:4]. [8] But of the Son He says, “YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINDGOM. [9] YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS; THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS [Psalm 45:6-7].”

1:7 After stating that the angels were to worship Yeshua, the author of Hebrews quotes Psalm 104:4, describing one of the functions that God has for His angels. Psalm 104:4 says, “He makes the winds His messengers [Heb. malachav], flaming fire His ministers.” He specifically quotes from the LXX, which reads, “Who makes his angels spirits [Grk. pneumata], and his ministers a flaming fire.” This includes some subtle, but non-substantial differences. This may reflect on the developing angelology of Second Temple Judaism, as some may have believed that God’s angels were composed of fire and wind. Alas, though, this would mean that the angels were regarded as being composed of temporal elements—or at least elements not directly emanating from God Himself.

1:8-9 Vs. 8-9 have the Father addressing His Son, as our author quotes from Psalm 45:6-7, which say in their entirety,

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of joy above Your fellows” (Psalm 45:6-7).

What is imperative to understand about these verses is that Yeshua is directly addressed with the title of “God.” The Psalmist first says, “Your throne, God, will last forever and ever; you rule your kingdom with a scepter of equity” (Psalm 45:6, CJB). But then comes the ever-important Hebrew phrase, al-ken meshachakha Elohim Elohekha, “Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You” (Psalm 45:7). In this text that the author of Hebrews applies to Yeshua, the Psalmist identifies the recipient of these praises as “God” (Psalm 45:6). Speaking about God, the Psalmist says that “God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy” (NIV). This means that God has done something to God, or Himself. God has set Himself on the Eternal Throne over all His Creation.

Understood in a Messianic context, which would affirm a plural Godhead, it means that the Father has set the Son on His Throne. This is plainly understood by the Hebrew verb mashach, appearing in the Qal stem (simple action, active voice) meaning to “anoint a person” (CHALOT).[37] It is not any coincidence that the Hebrew Mashiach or “Messiah” is derived from this verb. The author of Hebrews is reflecting on the great mystery of the Godhead, and the relationship that the Father and Son have as co-members.

Yeshua the Son is the One who has been anointed by His Father to rule from His Throne. Yeshua is directly identified as God by the author of Hebrews. Also important to note is a possible theme of Divine punishment on evil that is realized when we think of Yeshua ruling and reigning. The Psalmist writes, “You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness.” An inference to be possibly seen could be how the only way people can be delivered from the consequences of lawless activities, is to recognize Yeshua as the Supreme King over all.

[10] And, “YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS; [11] THEY WILL PERISH, BUT YOU REMAIN; AND THEY ALL WILL BECOME OLD LIKE A GARMENT, [12] AND LIKE A MANTLE YOU WILL ROLL THEM UP; LIKE A GARMENT THEY WILL ALSO BE CHANGED. BUT YOU ARE THE SAME, AND YOUR YEARS WILL NOT COME TO AN END [Psalm 102:25-27].”

1:10-12 Additional amplification of Yeshua’s Divinity is realized in vs. 10-12, as actions that the Lord God performs, actually involve the Son as the One who performs them. The author of Hebrews quotes from Psalm 102:25-27, which attest to God’s eternality as the Creator of the universe. God is portrayed by the Psalmist as having Divinely fashioned the Heavens and the Earth, and is one who will remain, even when the Creation becomes old and worn out like clothing:

“Of old You founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. Even they will perish, but You endure; and all of them will wear out like a garment; like clothing You will change them and they will be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will not come to an end” (Psalm 102:25-27).

God is portrayed as being the One who has the power to “change” the Creation—an action that involves Yeshua the Messiah accomplishing it—similar to how Believers will be changed at the Messiah’s Second Coming. The verb allassō is used in both Hebrews 1:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:51-52:

“[L]ike a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed [allassō]. But you are the same, and your years will have no end” (Hebrews 1:12, ESV).

“Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed [allassō], in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed” (1 Corinthians 15:51-52).

The quotation ends by emphasizing the fact that God’s reign—Yeshua’s reign—will not end in the linear time of this universe, but will continue beyond the end of time. This is in distinct contrast to the views of the world that were adhered to in Greco-Roman philosophy. Guthrie remarks, “There was a widespread belief in the Graeco-Roman world that the world, and indeed the universe, was indestructible. The…view expressed here would be in stark contrast.”[38] This may be a reflection on the author’s additional statement, “Yeshua the Messiah is the same yesterday, today and forever” (13:8, CJB).

While we see that the characteristics of God the Creator are applied to Yeshua—indeed indicating that Yeshua is God and is the Creator, with the Son integrated into the Divine Identity—there is a notable difference between the Hebrew text of Psalm 102 and the Greek Septuagint version that our author is working from. The LXX says, “In the beginning thou, O Lord, didst lay the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands” (Psalm 102:25, LXE). The Greek adds the title Kurios or “Lord,” where the Hebrew text only implies that this is speaking about the Lord. TDNT notes that “The LXX uses kyrios for the divine name Yahweh in an effort to bring out its meaning…The title corresponds to the divine nature. God is Lord of the land and people, but also of all things (Mic. 4:13). In replacement of the divine name, or in addition to it, the term implies the divine majesty (cf. Is. 6:11; Ezek. 2:4, etc.).”[39]

Hebrews was written during a time when speaking the Divine Name of YHWH was not practiced, and was only spoken by the high priest on Yom Kippur (m.Yoma 6:2). The most common term used in substitution for the Divine Name was the Hebrew Adonai, the Greek equivalent of which was Kurios, used in the LXX to refer to the God of Israel. These are the terms that we see Yeshua and the Disciples refer to God the Father as in the Greek Apostolic Scriptures. The author of Hebrews quotes a psalm that refers to God as Kurios, and applies it to Yeshua. He is, without any doubt, referring to Yeshua as YHWH. This definitely makes Yeshua more than just some sort of “angel” or other supernatural agent, as some in Hebrews’ original audience may have errantly believed.

[13] But to which of the angels has He ever said, “SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET [Psalm 110:1]”? [14] Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?

1:13 The author of Hebrews concludes the beginning of his treatise by asking his audience some very important rhetorical questions. He is trying to emphasize, more than anything else, that Yeshua the Messiah is superior to angels because He is Divine, seen in the references to Him as both “God” (v. 8) and “Lord” (v. 10). He asks his audience a critical question by quoting Psalm 110:1, “The LORD says to my Lord: ‘Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.’” The Apostle Peter quotes this exact same text speaking of Yeshua in his sermon at Shavuot/Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit is poured out:

“For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says: ‘THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, “SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET”’” (Acts 2:34-35).

The importance of understanding what is communicated by Psalm 110:1 is most critical. Yeshua’s reign over His enemies is total and complete. The Apostle Paul appropriates these same things, indicating that Yeshua not only has complete authority over the world, but over life and death themselves:

“For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death” (1 Corinthians 15:25-26).

1:14 Yeshua the Messiah ruling and reigning from the right hand of the Father is not a position that has ever been given to any of God’s angels. Instead, the author of Hebrews validly asks his audience, “Are not all angels spirits in the divine service, sent to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?” (NRSV).

The angels are defined as being leitorugika pneumata, “spirits of service” (YLT). They are designated for diakonia, or “attendance on a duty, ministration” (LS).[40] Guthrie validly states how “The writer is certainly not wishing to belittle the function of angels,”[41] but he almost likens their job to being field medics in military service. And, Yeshua the Messiah is certainly more than a medic. Yeshua reigns over the angels who are sent to serve God’s people, and be about God’s Divine tasks. Ellingworth offers a valid paraphrase of v. 14, with added thoughts to consider:

“All these angels, as we have been showing from scripture, are subordinate to God and therefore to Christ as Son. They live to worship God in heaven, and serve him by being sent...on earthly missions for the benefit of those to whom God is to give salvation.”[42]

Many can struggle with what our author means by saying, “those who will inherit salvation.” Is salvation only a reference here to personal salvation and forgiveness of sins? Or, is it—in an expanded sense—a reference to all who will participate in the Messiah’s glorious appearing and establishment of His Eternal Kingdom? The verb klēronomein appears in the present active infinitive, indicating that it is an action that is presently taking place. The verb klēronomeō means “to receive a share of an inheritance, to inherit a portion of property” (LS),[43] and may indicate a “both/and” sense of the concept of salvation. On the one hand, it is clearly emphasized that the angels are meant to serve men and women who have received the personal salvation available in Yeshua. But on the other hand, they are likewise sent to serve the redeemed who will receive an inheritance and rewards in Yeshua’s Kingdom to come on Earth. This latter concept is consistent with the author’s theme of Yeshua being uplifted and exalted as ruler of the universe.

Hebrews ch. 1 lays forth a very important message that we all need to understand. The author of Hebrews, in no uncertain terms, believes that Yeshua the Messiah is God Himself made manifest in human form. The Son has been sacrificed for us, providing the atonement and purification that all human beings need to be forgiven of their sins. The Son has been exalted on high, and presently sustains the universe in all its intricacies. The Son is to be glorified, magnified, and worshipped by all, being superior to the angels. As Evans concludes, “Nowhere else in the New Testament is there such an array of Messianic literature brought to bear as argument for the glorification of Christ.”[44] The author of Hebrews issues forth great Spirit-inspired words that bring tears to one’s eyes and warm a person’s heart, but also engage the spirit and the mind in a masterfully crafted apology uplifting the Messiah.[45]

ENDNOTES FOR Commentary on Hebrews 1

[1] deSilva, pp 84-86.

[2] Guthrie, Hebrews, 62.

[3] Our Heavenly Father never intended the Messiah to come and establish a separate group of chosen ones called “the Church”; the prophecies of the Tanach all point to the Messiah coming to restore Israel. Consult the author’s article “When Did ‘the Church’ Begin?”

[4] Genesis 49:1; Numbers 24:14; Deuteronomy 4:30; 31:29; Isaiah 2:2; Jeremiah 23:20; 30:24; 48:27; 49:39; Ezekiel 38:16; Daniel 10:14; Hosea 3:5; Micah 4:1.

[5] Lane, 47a:5.

[6] Donald Hagner, “Hebrews,” in Walter J. Harrelson, ed., et. al. New Interpreter’s Study Bible, NRSV (Nashville: Abingdon, 2003), 2154.

[7] H. Sasse, “aiōn,” in Geoffrey W. Bromiley, ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, abrid. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 1164.

[8] Allan A. MacRae, “olam,” in R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, eds., Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 2 vols. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), 2:672.

[9] Jacob Neusner, trans., The Mishnah: A New Translation (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1988), 680.

[10] Guthrie, Hebrews, 65.

[11] Lane, 47a:12.

[12] Ellingworth, 99.

[13] Frederick William Danker, ed., et. al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, third edition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 99.

[14] Ibid., 1078.

[15] LS, 228.

[16] BDB, 568.

[17] G. Kelber, “charactēr,” in TDNT, 1308.

[18] LS, 717.

[19] Lane, 47a:13.

[20] LS, 388.

[21] BDB, 372.

[22] The other references are: Matthew 26:64; Acts 2:23; 5:34; Romans 8:34; Ephesians 1:20; Colossians 3:1; 1 Peter 3:22.

[23] Ellingworth, 90.

[24] Alexander Altmann, “Angels and Angelology,” in Enyclopaedia Judaica. MS Windows 9x. Brooklyn: Judaica Multimedia (Israel) Ltd, 1997.

[25] Ellingworth, 103.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Lane, 47a:8.

[28] Lane, 47a:9.

[29] Quanbeck, in The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, 900.

[30] This same basic admonition is repeated in 1 Chronicles 17:13: “I will be his father and he shall be My son; and I will not take My lovingkindness away from him, as I took it from him who was before you.”

[31] Geza Vermes, trans., The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (London: Penguin Books, 1997), 494.

[32] Evans, 55.

[33] Alfred Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979), 350.

[34] The other major option available for the Song of Moses, is the Exodus 12 Song of the Sea.

[35] Martin Abegg, Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich, trans., The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible (New York: HarperCollins, 1999), 145.

[36] Ibid., 193.

[37] CHALOT, 218.

[38] Guthrie, Hebrews, 78.

[39] G. Quell, “Lord, lord,” in TDNT, pp 488-489.

[40] LS, 189.

[41] Guthrie, Hebrews, 79.

[42] Ellingworth, 133.

[43] LS, 436.

[44] Evans, 62.

[45] A more detailed and expanded examination of the material in Hebrews ch. 1 will be included, along with many other passages, in the author’s book Salvation on the Line, Volume I (forthcoming).

HEBREWS 2

COMMENTARY

[1] For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it.

2:1 Hebrews 2:1 is the first imperative warning encountered in our author’s treatise. He admonishes his audience, “we must listen very carefully to the truth we have heard” (NLT). No subject break is intended between chs. 1 and 2, as the author builds upon his previous words about the Divine Kingship that is held by Yeshua. He urges his readers to hear what he is saying and to act upon it. His admonition of “hearing” echoes Deuteronomy 4:9, where Moses tells the Ancient Israelites, “give heed to yourself and keep your soul diligently, so that you do not forget the things which your eyes have seen and they do not depart from your heart all the days of your life.” The concepts that the writer expounds upon are realized in the Hebrew verb shama, which generally means “listen to s.thg,” “heed (a request),” and “hear=understand” (CHALOT).[1] It is used numerous times in the Torah to refer to Israel’s need to hear and act upon God’s instructions to them.[2] The Septuagint frequently renders shama as akouō, used here in v. 1.

The author of Hebrews appropriates this theme and applies it to the gospel message. He adds the important phrase, “We must pay more careful attention” (NIV), employing the verb prosechō, frequently used in secular Greek “to bring a ship near a place, bring it to port” (LS).[3] The writer is concerned that his audience has lost sight of Messiah Yeshua and who He is, and that they have failed to act upon His words delivered to them in the form of the good news. As Leon Morris indicates, “The verb prosechein means not only to turn the mind to a thing but also to act upon what one perceives.”[4] Our author is concerned about both his audience’s intellectual and spiritual well being, and is urging them to not forget Yeshua.

Our writer certainly wants to prevent the Believers he is writing to from slipping away from the faith. Some have thought that he is thinking about their faith as though it were an untied boat slipping out of a harbor. Yet, the verb pararreō is used more frequently to refer to “imagery of flowing water” (BDAG).[5] The word appears only here in the Apostolic Scriptures. What might be more likely, or at least more immediately in view, is that our author employs pararreō the same way it is employed in the LXX in Proverbs 3:21: “My son, let them not pass [pararreō] from you, but keep my counsel and understanding” (Apostle’s Bible).

Here, the admonishment to observe the Instruction of God and not slip away from it is clear. The author of Hebrews treats the gospel message as the Instruction of God required to be obeyed if one is to receive salvation. David A. deSilva explains that the pairing of these important Greek verbs is used by the writer to make the point, “Failure to remain fixed in that word results in ‘drifting away,’ being borne along with the tides and waves, losing one’s way.”[6]

Making these statements, the author of Hebrews says that there is a severe judgment for those who fall away from the message declared about Yeshua and the salvation He provides. It is interesting that in v. 1 he includes himself among the “we,” indicating that even if he is not careful, he too might fall from the faith as well. Of course, this begs many questions, the foremost of which is how members of his audience were in danger of falling away in the first place.

We too have to ask ourselves if there are any in the Messianic community today who are in danger of falling away. The sin that we must avoid at all costs is discounting the good news of salvation in Messiah Yeshua, and we must treat it as Divine, authoritative instruction on an equal level every bit as much as the Torah and Tanach. That is what the author of Hebrews is definitely communicating to his audience. Sadly, even in the modern Messianic movement—where the Torah can, at times, be uplifted over Yeshua—the author of Hebrews might have a bit of an offensive message.

[2] For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty, [3] how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, [4] God also testifying with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will.

2:2 The author of Hebrews makes an important point to his audience that is deeply rooted in Second Temple Judaism. V. 2 makes a reference to “the message declared by angels” (RSV). This continues the motif from ch. 1 about the superiority of Yeshua over angels, and is a reference to angels mediating the giving of the Torah to Moses. This reflects back on our author’s reliance on the Septuagint as his primary Scriptures, as the reference to angels being involved in the giving of the Torah does not specifically appear in the Masoretic Text edition of Deuteronomy 33:2, but does appear in the LXX:

DEUTERONOMY 33:2 (MT)

DEUTERONOMY 33:2 (LXX)

And he said, The LORD came from Sinay, and rose up from Se’ir to them; he shone forth from mount Paran, and he came from holy multitudes: from his right hand went a fiery law for them (Jerusalem Bible-Koren).

And he said, The Lord is come from Sina, and has appeared from Seir to us, and has hasted out of the mount of Pharan, with the ten thousands of Cades; on his right hand were his angels with him (LXE).

V’yomar ADONAI m’Sinay ba v’zarach m’Sei’ir l’mo hophi’ya m’har Paran v’atah meiriv’vot qodesh m’mino (eishdat) [eish] [dat] l’mo

kai eipen Kurios ek Sina ēkei kai epephanen ek Sēir hēmin kai katespeusen ex orous Pharan sun muriasin Kadēs ek dexiōn autou angeloi met’ autou

The view that autou angeloi met autou, “his angels were with him” (LXE), is a concept we see reflected in Psalm 68:17: “The chariots of God are myriads, thousands upon thousands; the Lord is among them as at Sinai, in holiness.” The LXX translators from the Third-Second Centuries B.C.E. are obviously reflecting on a standing Jewish opinion that the Torah was delivered by God to Ancient Israel via angels. We see this view also reflected in the extra-Biblical Book of Jubilees, composed during the Maccabean era:

“And he said to the angel of the presence, Write for Moses the account from the beginning of creation…And the angel of the presence spoke to Moses in accordance with the Lord’s command” (Jubilees 1:27; 2:1).[7]

We likewise see this same view adhered to by the First Century historian Josephus:

“And for ourselves, we have learned from God the most excellent of our doctrines, and the most holy part of our law, by angels or ambassadors…” (Antiquities of the Jews 15.136).[8]

The view that angels were used by God to deliver the Torah to Moses is one seen in the statements of the Apostles. The martyr Stephen attests in Acts 7:38, 53, “This is the one [Moses] who was in the congregation in the wilderness together with the angel who was speaking to him on Mount Sinai, and who was with our fathers; and he received living oracles to pass on to you…you who received the law as ordained by angels, and yet did not keep it.” The Apostle Paul likewise writes in Galatians 3:19 that the Torah was “ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator.”

The understanding being emphasized by Hebrews’ author is that the Torah was not given by human beings to other human beings; the Torah was delivered through angels. The penalty for disobeying the high crimes of the Torah was frequently death, as exemplified in Numbers 15:30: “But the person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from among his people.” If the principal penalty for violating such high crimes in the Torah is death, how much more is the penalty for those who disregard the gospel message of Yeshua?

The term that our author employs for “disobedience” is parakoē, either meaning “to hear incorrectly” or “to disregard” (TDNT).[9] In writing about the importance of obeying the gospel, he wants to make it perfectly clear to his audience not to mishear him. While in English his words appear as “every violation and disobedience received its just punishment” (NIV), the Greek uses three words that begin with the letter pi. William L. Lane comments, “Alliteration, a standard device in oratory, particular with the letter [pi], occurs in v 2, where the phrase [pasa parabasis kai parakoē], ‘every infringement and disobedience,’ provides a sonorous formulation.”[10] The author of Hebrews with masterful speech has clearly thought through what he wants his readers to understand.

While the author of Hebrews considers disobedience to the gospel to be more severe than disobedience to the Torah, he nevertheless has a very high regard for the Torah. He describes the Torah with the word bebaios, “pert. to being high on a scale of reliability, certainly, truly, reliably” (BDAG).[11] This is invariably translated as “unalterable,” “binding” (NIV), “valid” (RSV), “reliable” (ESV), and even “force” (REB). F.F. Bruce makes the important statement, “In this epistle…the law is not a principle set in opposition to grace manifested in Christ’s saving work, but rather an anticipatory sketch of that saving work.”[12] By no means is the Torah viewed by the author of Hebrews as being antithetical or in opposition to the salvation of Yeshua.

2:3 In v. 3 we see a definitive appeal to a qal v’chomer argument, which was frequently employed by the Rabbis: “how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard.” This is a “‘how much more’ argument: if the lesser point applies, then how much more does the greater point apply” (IVPBBC).[13] The author of Hebrews in no uncertain terms states that disobeying the gospel message brings a penalty worse than disobeying the Torah. Tim Hegg makes the ever-important observation, “if the Law, which was administered by angels…is seen to be unalterable in the way it deals with sin, how much more would this be the case with the revelation of the truth by Yeshua!”[14] Bruce offers a good paraphrase of this in his commentary:

“It was through angels that Moses’ law was communicated, and its sanctions were severe enough; how much more perilous must it be to ignore the saving message brought by no angel, but by Jesus, the Son of God!”[15]

The author of Hebrews is concerned that his audience has strayed from or was neglecting the gospel message of Yeshua, and he is making important appeals to their understanding of Ancient Israel. He writes about the awesome scene of angels delivering the Torah to Moses, but also writes that the coming of Yeshua and His salvation is more awesome. Lane comments, “The experience of Israel demonstrated that a reckless disregard for the tradition and the commitment to which it summoned the community of faith could only expose the people of God to divine judgment. It is this peril that the writer seeks to address.”[16] By extension, could he also be communicating to a few in the Messianic community today? Are there not Messianic people today who ignore or neglect the gospel message of salvation and place more importance on the Torah? The author of Hebrews demonstrates a high regard for both, but recognizes that in the end, the gospel message of salvation in Yeshua is more important.

V. 3 ends with an important factual note about the authorship of the text. Our author writes, “This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him” (NIV). We see parallels with these comments in Luke’s Gospel, which opens with, “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word” (Luke 1:1-2). It is clear from these testimonies that neither Luke nor the author of Hebrews were eyewitnesses of Yeshua. However, they did know and encounter eyewitnesses who had firsthand testimony of seeing the Messiah in person. This discounts one of the original Disciples, who knew Yeshua first hand, and the Apostle Paul, whom Yeshua revealed Himself to on the road to Damascus, as being the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. But our writer considers the Apostles’ testimony to be a sure and trustworthy word. Paul Ellingworth indicates that at this time in the mid-First Century the gospel message primarily existed in “a chain of oral tradition stretching from Jesus to the author and his readers; yet it would be quite anachronistic to set this in opposition to any written record.”[17] With the possible exception of the Gospel of Mark, Hebrews was most likely written before the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John.

2:4 Our author states that he can believe in the message of the gospel because he has seen God bear witness to it “by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit.” We see a slight parallel to this from the teachings of Paul, who writes, “But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills” (1 Corinthians 12:11). This is another indication that the author of Hebrews is well-acquainted with Paul. The accompanying of signs or miracles with the proclamation of the gospel was very important to the First Century ekklēsia, and is a precedent that comes directly from the teachings of Yeshua:

“And He answered and said to them, ‘Go and report to John what you have seen and heard: the BLIND RECEIVE SIGHT [Isaiah 35:5], the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the POOR HAVE THE GOSPEL PREACHED TO THEM [Isaiah 61:1]” (Luke 7:22; cf. Matthew 11:4-5).

The author of Hebrews uses a very specific term in v. 4, sunepimarturountos, a present active participle. For our writer, it means that God is presently and actively bearing witness or testifying of the gospel. NEB tries to capture all of these concepts by rendering it as, “God added his testimony by signs, by miracles, by manifold works of power, and by distributing the gifts of the Holy Spirit.”

At this point, the author of Hebrews hits modern readers with some stark realities. Rejecting the Torah that angels delivered to Moses comes with a severe consequence: capital punishment. Rejecting the gospel message of salvation in Yeshua must then bring with it an even worse consequence: eternal punishment. He asks his First Century audience how one can reject the Messiah, when God is presently testifying that Yeshua is the Savior by sending great miracles and works to them. Do we ever run the risk of falling into similar traps as the Messianic community today? Let us hope not, and heed the good words here.

[5] For He did not subject to angels the world to come, concerning which we are speaking. [6] But one has testified somewhere, saying, “WHAT IS MAN, THAT YOU REMEMBER HIM? OR THE SON OF MAN, THAT YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT HIM? [7] YOU HAVE MADE HIM FOR A LITTLE WHILE LOWER THAN THE ANGELS; YOU HAVE CROWNED HIM WITH GLORY AND HONOR, AND HAVE APPOINTED HIM OVER THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS; [8] YOU HAVE PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET.” [Psalm 8:4-6, LXX] For in subjecting all things to him, He left nothing that is not subject to him. But now we do not yet see all things subjected to him.

2:5 After emphasizing the Divine Kingship of Yeshua in ch. 1, and the severity of rejecting the gospel message in vs. 1-4, the author of Hebrews describes the mystery of Yeshua’s humanity. It might be difficult for our mortal brains to entirely comprehend it, but the Apostles did affirm Yeshua the Messiah to be both God and man—and all at the same time. They do not try to sort out all the details, but recognize that because only God can redeem people from sin, Yeshua must be Divine, and likewise Yeshua having come as a man can redeem sinful humankind. As Donald Hagner adequately explains, “Jesus’ humanity, which would seem to make him inferior to the angels, is indispensable to God’s purpose of redemption. The Son had to become human in order to die, but following death came his exaltation.”[18] It is notable, however, that even though we need to understand the humanity of Yeshua, as emphasized in the following verses, our author places His Deity over His humanity by mentioning it first (ch. 1).

The writer of Hebrews wanted his readers to see the human elements of the Messiah’s ministry, and how they could identify with Him and what He has accomplished. By coming as a man, Yeshua is able to redeem people and restore them to the position that God originally intended for humanity. Our author states quite poignantly, “the future world we are talking about will not be controlled by angels” (NLT), and then goes into explaining how redeemed humanity will rule over the Earth second only to God Himself. We might need to remember Paul’s word of 1 Corinthians 6:3 here: “Do you not know that we will judge angels?”

2:6 By employing the phrase, “But there is a place where someone has testified” (NIV), our author was “expressing confidence that the important issue was that God had inspired the words” (IVPBBC).[19] The author of Hebrews quotes Psalm 8:4-7 and uses a Jewish hermeneutic referred to as gezerah shavah, linking key words and phrases to make an important theological case. In this instance, the key terms are “man” and “Son of Man.” It is also important that we note some obvious differences from the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Septuagint text from which our author is working:

PSALM 8:4-7 (MT)

PSALM 8:4-7 (LXX)

what is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that thou dost care for him? Yet thou hast made him little less than God, and dost crown him with glory and honor. Thou hast given him dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet (RSV).

What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little less than angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honour; and thou hast set him over the works of thy hands: thou hast put all things under his feet: (LXE).

ma-enosh ki-tizkerennu u’ben-adam ki tif’qedennu. v’techas’reihu m’mat m’Elohim v’kavod v’hadar te’at’reihu. tam’shi’leihu b’ma’asei yade’kha kol sha’tah tachat-rag’layv. tzoneh v’alafin kulam v’gam bahamot sadai

ti estin anthrōpos hoti mimnēskē autou ē huios anthrōpou hoti episkeptē auton. ēlattōsas auton brachu ti par’ angelous doxē kai timē estephanōsas auton. kai katestēsas auton epi ta erga tōn cheirōn sou panta hupetaxas hupokatō tōn podōn autou

When the Psalmist proclaims these words, he is in awe and wonder at why God would make man lower than Himself, yet still give him dominion over His Creation. He uses the terminology ma-enosh, “what is man,” and ben-adam or “son of man.” In the LXX this is streamlined to anthrōpos, “man,” and huios anthrōpou, “son of man.” The author of Hebrews appropriates this imagery and associates it with Yeshua (v. 9) using a unique way of connecting the term anthrōpos, likely using First Century Jewish hermeneutics via a Greek text.

Of course, one of the major terms that Yeshua uses in the Gospels to refer to Himself as is “Son of Man” (most probably with Danielic influence, i.e., “and behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming” in Daniel 7:13). Our author wants to surely convey that Yeshua is the “Ultimate Man,” by whom emulating all of humankind can fulfill the destiny that God originally intended for it. As Ellingworth explains, “the ‘world to come,’” which redeemed humanity will have dominion over, “is something which it is already possible for believers, not only to ‘speak’ about, but to some extent to experience.”[20] This experience comes only through obedience to the gospel and in knowing Yeshua.

The author of Hebrews opens up his quotation by asking his readers, “What is man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you care for him?” (ESV). There is considerable debate over the “Son of Man” terminology employed in the Bible. Numbers 23:9, for example, is a verse that can be confusing for some:

“God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent; has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?”

Jewish anti-missionaries who deny the Messiahship of Yeshua often use this text by selectively quoting from it by saying, “God is not a man…nor a son of man,” and then say that Yeshua cannot be God. However, the context of the verse in the Torah is clear as it is talking about the characteristics of God, which are perfect and Divine, and not worldly and fallen. The Messiah, as God, does not possess the fallen traits of mortals. The inclusive language of the NRSV offers a much clearer understanding of Numbers 23:9, rendering the verse with “God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortal, that he should change his mind.”

Much discussion still remains as to how humankind is being talked about in vs. 5-8, and how Yeshua as the Son of Man is perhaps being echoed in some way, from Psalm 8. Lane offers a good explanation of these concepts and what the author of Hebrews is trying to convey to his audience:

“He cites Ps 8:5 because he wishes to emphasize that Jesus in a representative sense fulfilled the vocation intended for humankind…He understood that the parallel expressions [anthrōpos], ‘man,’ ‘humankind,’ and [huios anthrōpou], ‘son of man,’ ‘mortal,’ were perfectly synonymous and were to be interpreted in terms of that fact…The quotation of Ps 8 may readily be applied to Jesus without finding in the vocabulary an implied reference to the Son of Man christology of the Gospels.”[21]

Here, we see an excellent application of gezerah shavah, as our author is making word and concept plays on “man” on “mankind/humanity,” comparing them to Yeshua, the “Ultimate Man.” There might be some echoes of “Son of Man” teaching from Yeshua in the Gospels, but it should not be pushed too far in one’s reading of vs. 6-8. The most anyone can say is that Yeshua in His humanity—His supreme love, obedience, and ethics—represents that high standard to which His followers are to all strive to demonstrate, the very standard of conduct that human beings were originally created for.

2:7 Continuing, the author says, concerning humankind, “YOU HAVE MADE HIM FOR A LITTLE WHILE LOWER THAN THE ANGELS; YOU HAVE CROWNED HIM WITH GLORY AND HONOR, AND HAVE APPOINTED HIM OVER THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS.” His quotation of Psalm 8:5 differs from the Hebrew, which reads with elohim or “God” (NASU, RSV, NRSV), which in the LXX was rendered as angelous or “angels.” (We have already discussed how elohim is frequently translated as angelos in the LXX.) Many, with “son of man” terminology appearing immediately prior in v. 6, can automatically conclude that this quotation is a direct reference to Yeshua, but it is not. In actuality, what is being spoken about is the human race. Yet, whether human beings are attested to be made a little lower than God or the angels, the assertion issued is that the lot of humanity is cast with the Heavenly host. The verb used to communicate this in v. 7 (used later in v. 9), is elattoō, “to cause to be lower in status” (BDAG).[22] The Scriptures do not teach, for example, that human beings were made “just a little higher than the animals.”

The main issue here, regarding the future of humanity, is that people have been appointed lower than the angels for just a limited time, as angels will be subjected to redeemed humanity in the eschaton. Finishing his quotation with Psalm 8:6, he reflects on the state of humankind that the redeemed who receive Yeshua into their lives will experience: “You make him to rule over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet.” While the understanding of having all things in subjection is likewise a characteristic of Yeshua, the author of Hebrews makes a point of referencing redeemed humanity’s rule from Psalm 8. Yeshua as King over Creation is always emphasized from Psalm 110:1, “Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”

2:8 Our author remains optimistic by his comments in v. 8 that all things will be subjected to humankind in the redeemed state. He writes, “For in subjecting everything to him, He left nothing not subject to him. As it is, we do not yet see everything subjected to him” (HCSB). The author of Hebrews is clear that his readers must know Yeshua and obey the gospel message. One of the definite rewards of receiving Yeshua is not only eternal salvation, but also rule alongside of the Creator God over the redeemed Creation. He is very keen to note, however, “But in fact we do not yet see all things in subjection to man” (NEB). The curse upon Creation (Genesis 3:18) has yet to be lifted.

When we contemplate who Yeshua is and our salvation experience, do we ever consider what God originally intended for each and every one of us? Do we forget that by being restored to the Father that His intention is for us to rule second only to Him in eternity? The author of Hebrews considers this a very important part of his argument against people downplaying or neglecting the Messiah. In writing about redeemed humankind—and the necessity of knowing Yeshua to experience Creation’s full redemption—our writer is almost asking his audience, “Do you really want to give this all up?” Likewise, if you know anyone in the Messianic community who is wavering in his or her faith in Yeshua, or downplays who He is, ask the person if he or she wants to really give up ruling over the redeemed Creation. As our author states in his opening remarks in ch. 2: to give up the Torah is really bad, and brings severe consequences; to give up the Messiah brings even worse consequences.

[9] But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Yeshua, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.

2:9 After commenting about what the state of redeemed humankind will be, ruling with God, the author of Hebrews makes a comparison to the Incarnation of Messiah Yeshua and His humanity. Yeshua, as the “Ultimate Man,” was “made lower than the angels for a short time” (HCSB). The Apostle Paul attests in Philippians 2:7 that Yeshua the Messiah “made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness” (NIV). Yeshua, as the Son of God, willfully left His exalted state, emptying Himself of His glory, and entered into the world as a man and thus in that sense was “for a short while was made lower than the angels” (NEB). But it is notable that this state was never to be permanent. It was only temporary during Yeshua’s Earthly ministry. Ellingworth makes the critical observation,

“There is no reference, in this passage or elsewhere, to the incarnate Son being ‘only a little’ lower than angels, and it is therefore difficult to see why the author should repeat the expression in a spatial sense. If it is understood temporally, it has the function of distinguishing the short period of humiliation from the uncompleted period of Christ’s exaltation to his final triumph.”[23]

Because of Yeshua’s humbling Himself to the state of a lowly human man for a season, and “because of the suffering of the death” (YLT), He is “now crowned with glory and honor” (NIV, NRSV). Yeshua, by suffering death on the cross for human sins, took away the death penalty for every human being—past, present, and future. Because Yeshua has experienced the death penalty that each one of us should suffer for our sins, we can now have complete access to the Father—assuming that we receive the redemption that He offers!

[10] For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings.

2:10 The author of Hebrews has just emphasized how Yeshua temporarily accepted mortality, in order to be exalted by the Father. He explains that Yeshua had to come to die in order to bring “many sons to glory,” meaning to provide them with eternal redemption. We also see some similarities between v. 10 and the Apostle Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 8:6, “yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Yeshua the Messiah, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.” 1 Corinthians 8:6 has been notably viewed as a sort of Messianic Shema, as the Father is identified as God and the son is identified as Lord, both being a part of the Divine Identity. It is very possible that the writer to the Hebrews, having been in the inner circle of Paul, is expanding a bit, upon the themes explained in 1 Corinthians 8:6. Lane observes that “2:10-18 assumes the form of homiletical midrash. The exposition turns on the citation and development of three biblical quotations”[24] that are used to support the premise that his audience can identify with Yeshua as a man sent by the Father, every bit as much as recognizing Him as the Divine King.

Bruce makes the important connection that the one “for whom and by whom all things exist” (RSV) “must here be God the Father, of whose perfecting work the Son is object,”[25] even though the Son has been previously attested to have this same status (1:2). The Son is the archēgos, rendered in a variety of different ways, including: “author,” “pioneer” (RSV), “leader” (NEB), “founder” (ESV), “source” (HCSB), and “champion” (WBC).[26] Archēgos was often used to refer to “The ‘hero’ of a city, its founder or guardian” (TDNT).[27] It is used in Acts 5:31 to refer to Yeshua: “He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince [archēgos] and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.” As TDNT indicates, Yeshua is “the archēgós of our faith both as its founder and as the first example when in his death he practiced his faith in God’s love and its overcoming of the barrier of human sin.”[28]

When our author writes that the Father had “to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings,” he is speaking in terms of the salvation-historical goals that had to be fulfilled by the entry of His Son into the world. He employs the verb teleioō, meaning, “to make perfect, complete” (LS),[29] meaning bring to total completion the work that He was intended to do, and make its significance be truly realized. Our author will later state, “And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation” (5:9). Yeshua suffered on Earth so that an entire host of people may now come to the Father for reconciliation via Him. Paul elaborates on this concept, writing, “God was in Messiah reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation” (2 Corinthians 5:19).

It is also important to note that Yeshua, being the Author and Originator of our salvation—and thus our example to emulate—suffered and died for us. Suffering for the faith is a constant theme of Apostolic teaching:

“Now if we have died with Messiah, we believe that we shall also live with Him” (Romans 6:8).

“It is a trustworthy statement: For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him; if we endure, we will also reign with Him; if we deny Him, He also will deny us” (2 Timothy 2:11-12).

[11] For both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one Father; for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren, [12] saying, “I WILL PROCLAIM YOUR NAME TO BY BRETHREN, IN THE MIDST OF THE CONGREGATION I WILL SING YOUR PRAISE.” [Psalm 22:22] [13] And again, “I WILL PUT MY TRUST IN HIM.” [Isaiah 8:17, LXX; 2 Samuel 22:3, LXX] And again, “BEHOLD, I AND THE CHILDREN WHOM GOD HAS GIVEN ME.” [Isaiah 8:18]

2:11 Emphasizing the humanity of Yeshua, and the close relationship that His followers are to have to Him, the author of Hebrews remarks, “For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified have all one origin” (RSV). This is a reflection on the fact that the Son originates from the Father, and human beings originate from the Father as God’s image bearers (Genesis 1:26; James 3:9). The Son, sent by the Father, is of the job of making others holy. The verb hagiazō  is often used to “set someth. or make it suitable for ritual purposes, consecrate, dedicate” (BDAG).[30] Lane comments, “The vocabulary appears to be used in its OT significance, in which the people of Israel were sanctified or consecrated to God and his service in order to be admitted into his precedence.”[31] Yeshua and those whom He sanctifies are all a part of the community of Israel. The Messiah is King over Israel, and the redeemed in Him are His subjects, who in turn are to rule over Creation.

The Messiah gives saved human beings full access to the Father via His sacrifice—and our author emphasizes these things as present realities. Ellingworth indicates, “[hagiazōn] and [hagiazomenoi]…are timeless present participles used as nouns.”[32] It is with this idea in mind that the writer quotes some critical Tanach Scriptures, applying them to Yeshua as proclaiming these statements before the Father in Heaven. In this regard, Yeshua is portrayed as the proper mediator for humankind, having taken part in the human experience and now exalted. Messianic Jewish theologian David H. Stern sums it well, “As man, Yeshua had to suffer like us in order to fully identify with us. This is what uniquely qualifies him to be our mediator. By being identified fully with God and with us he bridges the gap (Isaiah 59:1-2) and creates for us the unity with God that he himself has.”[33]

2:12-13 The first Tanach passage the author portrays the Messiah speaking out is Psalm 22:22: “I will tell of Your name to my brethren; in the midst of the assembly I will praise You.” This, of course, is applied to the Son speaking of the Father’s greatness to the people. It is important to note that in the Hebrew source text, the word qahal is used for “assembly” (NASU) or “congregation” (RSV, NIV, NJPS, et. al.). The LXX renders this as ekklēsia. Hebrews 2:12 in the KJV is actually translated as “in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.” Morris is keen to note that “it is…used of the congregation of ancient Israel.”[34] Here, the author of Hebrews identifies Yeshua speaking on behalf of not only His people—but the community of Israel. The author of Hebrews does not portray Yeshua as speaking on behalf of “the Church,” some entity of elect separate from Israel, but he is firmly upholding the understanding that Believers are all a part of the community of Israel, in a text clearly involving Israel from Psalms.

The second part of our author’s portrayal of Yeshua comes by Him proclaiming Isaiah 8:17-18, which was actually an original word issued by the Prophet Isaiah to King Ahaz. Take important note of the fact that his quotation is directly from the Greek Septuagint, which slightly deviates from the Hebrew:

ISAIAH 8:17-18 (MT)

ISAIAH 8:17-18 (LXX)

And I will wait for the LORD who is hiding His face from the house of Jacob; I will even look eagerly for Him. Behold, I and the children whom the LORD has given me are for signs and wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion (NASU).

And one shall say, I will wait for God, who has turned away his face from the house of Jacob, and I will trust in him. Behold I and the children which God has given me: and they shall be for signs and wonders in the house of Israel from the Lord of hosts, who dwells in mount Sion. (LXE).

v’chikiti l’ADONAI ha’mastir panayv m’beit Ya’akov v’qiv’veti-lo. hinnei anokhi v’ha’yeladim asher natan-li ADONAI l’otot u’l’mofetim b’Yisrael m’im ADONAI Tzavot ha’sheiken b’har Tzion

kai erei menō ton Theon ton apostrepsanta to prosōpon autou apo tou oikou Iakōb kai pepoithōs esomai ep’ autō idou egō kai ta paidia ha moi edōken ho Theos kai estai eis sēmeia kai terata en tō oikō Israēl para Kuriou sabaōth hos katoikei en tō orei Siōn

The major difference in the quotation is that the Hebrew of Isaiah says “I will even look eagerly for Him” (NASU) or “I will hope in him” (RSV), as the verb qavah, appearing in the Piel stem (intensive action, active voice) means “wait, or look eagerly, for” (BDB).[35] The LXX obviously reflects an interpretation of “waiting for” God to be “put[ting] My trust in Him” (Apostle’s Bible). Qavah was rendered as the verb peithō, actually defined as “to prevail upon, win over, persuade” (LS).[36] This could be rendered as “I will prevail through Him,” but “trust” has been the term that many English translators have chosen to use. This is all an example of some slight variances in the text of Isaiah 8:17-18 that are a result of interpretations, but nothing so significant so as to at all alter the overall meaning. Just as the children of the Prophet Isaiah were to serve as signs to King Ahaz and confirmation of God’s activity (Isaiah 7:15-16; 8:17-18), so might those who follow Yeshua be considered, to a degree, His children who bear witness to the Father’s redemptive work.

There might also be a secondary reference to 2 Samuel 22:3 detectable in vs. 12-13. Again, there are some slight differences between the MT and LXX:

2 SAMUEL 22:3 (MT)

2 SAMUEL 22:3 (LXX)

My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, My shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold and my refuge; My savior, You save me from violence (NASU).

my God; he shall be to me my guard, I will trust in him: he is my protector, and the horn of my salvation, my helper, and my sure refuge; thou shalt save me from the unjust man (LXE).

Elohei tzuri echeseh-bo magini v’qeren yis’i misgabi u’menusi moshi’i m’chamas toshi’eini

Theos mou phulax estai mou pepoithōs esomai ep’ autō huperaspistēs mou kai keras sōtērias mou antilēmptōr mou kai kataphugē mou sōtērias mou ex adikou sōseis me

Obviously, the only major difference between these versions of 2 Samuel 22:3 is that the LXX adds the phrase “I will trust in Him” (Apostle’s Bible). This does not alter the basic meaning of the text, delivered in David’s song of deliverance, where he appeals to God for His support.

[14] Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, [15] and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.

2:14 The humanity of Yeshua is necessary if He is the rightful Savior and Redeemer of men and women. The author reflects upon the reality that He “became flesh and blood by being born in human form” (NLT). Just as the bronze serpent was to be lifted up in the wilderness, and was a likeness of what was killing the Ancient Israelites (Numbers 21), so Yeshua not only had to be lifted up (John 3:14), but He had to be lifted up in human form. The Apostle Paul reflects on this more fully in Philippians 2:5-8:

“Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross” (NRSV).

Here, Paul speaks about how Yeshua—who notably had legitimate equality with the Father—emptied Himself of His exalted state to be sacrificed as a human being for the sins of others. The author of Hebrews may be regarded as reflecting much of this same motif, but he uses some specific terminology that often goes unobserved in our English translations. While most versions read “flesh and blood,” the Greek order is haimatos kai sarkos, literally “blood and flesh.” Ellingworth indicates that “The expression [haima kai sarx] is rabbinic…but not found in the OT. The order is usually [sarx kai haima].”[37] This indicates that our author is well-acquainted with First Century Jewish terminology. Donald Guthrie observes, “It has been suggested that ‘blood’ alludes to Christ’s shedding of blood, which is then given as the reason for his becoming flesh, i.e. the atonement required the incarnation.”[38]

The important issue to note throughout chs. 1 and 2 is that Yeshua is superior to angels, He is surely to be worshipped, He also shared in human nature via the Incarnation—meaning that He is not totally out of reach for people to relate to, in what He endured to accomplish redemption. However, our author considers the Divine Sonship of Yeshua to be primary to His identification with humanity. Guthrie continues, remarking, “There can never be a wholly satisfactory explanation of these two facets of his nature, because man has no suitable frame of reference in which to consider it.”[39]

Yeshua has come into the world “so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil” (NIV). While most versions render this passage with “destroy,” the NASU has the best translation with “render powerless.” The Greek verb katargeō means “to make of none effect” (LS)[40] or “to cause someth. to lose its power or effectiveness, invalidate, make powerless” (BDAG).[41] The author of Hebrews does not say that Satan will cease to exist, but rather his power and hold over the world will be eliminated. The power that Satan wields is the power of death because he entices people to sin. 1 John 3:8 further elaborates, “the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.” Those who practice the works of Satan and do not repent are subject to eternal punishment.

2:15 Yeshua the Messiah has come to “free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.” It can be suggested that the author of Hebrews develops upon the theme that is seen in Luke 11:21-22, where Yeshua teaches, “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed. But when someone stronger than he attacks him and overpowers him, he takes away from him all his armor on which he had relied and distributes his plunder.” Lane supports this premise, remarking, “The writer to the Hebrews develops this strand of the gospel tradition into a significant pastoral response to the crisis facing his hearers. Although God intended that his people should participate in his glory, they experienced bondage through the fear of death…The writer to the Hebrews affirms that the Son of God assumed humanity in order to become their champion and to secure their release.”[42] This should indicate that the “death” in view is not solely intended to be physical, but that it also involves spiritual dynamics resultant from human sin. People on Earth who live lives where their transgressions and offenses against the Creator go unresolved, live in a condition of death long before their physical life processes expire.

The death that the Lord redeems people from is widely a result of their own doing—as they have fallen for the temptations of Satan—and the author of Hebrews is likely reflecting upon this reality. Wisdom 1:13 says that “God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living,” and Wisdom 2:23 further says, “God created man for incorruption, and made him in the image of his own eternity.” These concepts are present in Hebrews 2, because God sent humanity His Son to die for men and women so that they would not have to be separated from Him, and that in Yeshua they could testify to His glory, and ultimately in the world to come be ruling second only to Him. While Yeshua’s resurrection from the dead has decisively rendered the force of physical death as a defeated foe, and assures us of a future resurrection to come, Believers in Him can experience a deliverance from the conditions of death—by having new life in Him—long before the general resurrection. The slavery that all men and women are subject to, which if not rectified will ultimately result in death and subsequent eternal separation from God, is sin. Yeshua came to free people from the dastardly influence and consequences of sin, and offer people full reconciliation with the Father.

[16] For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham.

2:16 In his closing remarks about the superiority of Yeshua over angels, the author of Hebrews is candid by saying, “For it is clear that he did not come to help angels” (NRSV), or “it is clear that He does not reach out to help angels” (HCSB). If Yeshua came to redeem angels, then surely He would have been incarnated as an angel. But Yeshua was incarnated as a man to redeem humanity. The verb epilambanomai means “to make the motion of grasping or taking hold of someth., take hold of, grasp, catch” (BDAG),[43] which most Bibles render as “give help to” or some close equivalent. LITV renders this as “For indeed He does not take hold of angels.” deSilva remarks, “‘Laying hold’ here speaks of Jesus’ role as rescuer, deliverer, and protector of his clients in the new exodus from the shakable realm and entrance into the ‘rest’ of God.”[44] We see this elaborated further throughout the writer’s treatise. Some may make comparisons between personified Wisdom in the Apocryphal literature to Yeshua, because this is a characteristic of Wisdom: “Wisdom exalts her sons and gives help [epilambanomai] to those who seek her” (Sirach 4:11). The author of Hebrews may be appropriating similar terms from his Hellenistic Jewish background. Yet, the figure Wisdom granting help is more in the since of offering moral or ethical direction; what Yeshua offers is eternal salvation.

What Yeshua came to lay hold of or redeem is listed here as being the spermatos Abraam, or “the offspring of Abraham” (ESV). Yeshua came to redeem Abraham’s descendants—meaning those who have the faith of Abraham and believe in God the same way that Abraham believed in Him—all of the recipients of the Abrahamic promise. This is fully realized when one examines the basic passages on God’s blessing upon Abraham’s seed and how Believers are of that “seed”:

“And I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great; and so you shall be a blessing; and I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed” (Genesis 12:2-3).

“[A]nd he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them…For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all…That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants” (Romans 4:11, 16; 9:8).

“And if you belong to Messiah, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise” (Galatians 3:29).

There are actually many ways that one can be of the “seed of Abraham,” beyond that of being physically born from his lineage. While Abraham was promised by God that His seed would spread abroad, one is by no means required to be of that physical ancestry to be redeemed. Yeshua Himself said, “If you are Abraham's children, do the deeds of Abraham” (John 8:39), meaning that Abraham’s true “seed” lives as he did. The Messiah’s death was for all people, who in some way can claim to be “of Abraham.” Ellingworth notes, “The author’s choice of words is influenced by the historical fact that Jesus was of Israelite, and therefore of Abrahamite, descent.”[45] In fact, the Rabbis of the Talmud say, “Abram the same is Abraham. At first he became a father to Aram [Ab-Aram] only, but in the end he became a father to the whole world” (b.Berachot 13a).[46]

[17] Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. [18] For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.

2:17 In his comparison of Yeshua with the rest of humanity, the author of Hebrews says that in order “to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people” (NRSV), He had “to be in every respect like us” (NLT). In order for Yeshua to deliver an acceptable sacrifice to God, He had to come to Earth in human form. In particular, our author says that Yeshua had to be “a merciful and faithful cohen gadol in the service of God” (CJB), or a high priest.

To a certain degree, we see parallels between our writer’s words here, and some of the Messianic expectations of the Qumran community. deSilva indicates, “The inhabitants of the settlement at Qumran…looked forward to a priestly leader whose offerings would be acceptable to God and whose teachings would be in line with God’s Law.”[47] Aramaic fragments from the Pseudepigraphal work Testament of Levi were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls, which attest, “He will atone for all the sons of his generation and will be sent to all the sons of his [peo]ple. His word is like a word of heaven, and his teaching is according to the will of God” (4Q541).[48]

There is, however, a critical difference between the Earthly high priest and the role of high priest as portrayed by Yeshua. Yeshua is “merciful and faithful” and is able to sympathize for the people He serves. The Earthly high priest is described by the Jewish philosopher Philo as being required to be stern and sullen and sacrosanct for his priestly duties:

“God commands the high priest neither to rend his clothes over his very nearest relations when they die, nor to take from his head the ensign of the priesthood, nor in short to depart from the holy place on any plea of mourning, that, showing proper respect to the place, and to the sacred ornaments with which he himself is crowned, he may show himself superior to pity, and pass the whole of his life exempt from all sorrow” (The Special Laws 1.115).[49]

Whether God commands this behavior of the high priest or not can be debated, but it is certainly a reflection on how the high priest would have been characterized by many in Second Temple Judaism, either living in the Land of Israel or in the Diaspora. The beforementioned Testament of Levi, appearing in the larger Pseudepigraphal work Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, was believed to record some oral traditions from the final words of Jacob’s twelve sons prior to their deaths. In its entirety, the work only survives in Greek and dates from the mid-Second Century B.C.E. It speaks of a priest who will come and remove the curse from humanity:

“In his priesthood sin shall cease and lawless men shall rest from their evil deeds, and righteous men shall find rest in him. And he shall open the gates of paradise; he shall remove the sword that has threatened since Adam, and he will grant to the saints to eat of the tree of life. The spirit of holiness shall be upon them. And Beliar shall be bound by him. And he shall grant to his children the authority to trample on wicked spirits” (Testament of Levi 18:9-12).[50]

Lane remarks that “This text, like others that represent God as the champion of Israel, preserves an apocalyptic point of view. It offers a hellenistic-Jewish paradigm for the christological perspectives developed in Heb 2:10-18.”[52] Being a major work surviving among a collection of Hellenistic Jewish texts, the reflection on Yeshua being the high priest is obviously appropriated from the author’s background of being a Diaspora Jew. In addition to being the “Ultimate Man” of Hebrews 2, Yeshua is also portrayed as fully fulfilling the role of high priest in a way the Earthly high priest could not. While like the Earthly high priest, Yeshua can enter into the Holy of Holies, unlike the Earthly high priest, Yeshua is the only One for whom “there shall be no successor for him from generation to generation forever. And in his priesthood the nations shall be multiplied in knowledge on the earth” (Testament of Levi 18:9).[52] However, the Qumran references regarding the Testament of Levi indicate that the Messiah being a “priest” was not only a Hellenistic Jewish expectation. At least two Jewish communities of the First Century expected the Messiah to function as a priest, and the author of Hebrews further expounds upon this.

The reference to “the people” in v. 17 has an undeniable connection to Israel. Lane indicates, “‘the people’ ([tou laou] has its background in the Greek Bible, where [ho laos {tou Theou}] is a technical term for Israel in its character as the nation chosen by God and separated from the other nations by covenant relationship.”[53] Yeshua is not only portrayed as the high priest able to sympathize with the sins of fallen humanity, but specifically intercedes for the sins of Israel to the Father. This intercession is necessarily something that must include people from the nations, and not only physical descendants of the Patriarchs. This may be regarded a further development of concept that all Believers are a part of the “commonwealth of Israel” (Ephesians 2:11-12; cf. Acts 15:14).

2:18 Yeshua is able to intercede for and helps men and women in a unique way, because He experienced the same things on Earth that they all experience. Unlike the Earthly high priest who would often try to detach himself from the people he served, Yeshua endured through life like any human being. Our author indicates, “Since he himself has gone through suffering and temptation, he is able to help us when we are being tempted” (NLT).[54] Ellingworth is keen to note that “it is perhaps best to take the primary meaning of [peirazō] here to be ‘test.’”[55] Yeshua can identify with us “Because he himself was tested by what he suffered” (NRSV). WBC offers an expanded rendering of v. 18: “Because he himself suffered death, having been put to the test, he is able to help those who are being tested.”[56] Yeshua is able to be our able mediator as high priest before the Father, because He partook of the human experience as we all do. The difference between Yeshua and us, is that Yeshua was able to overcome all of the worldly temptations that we fall prey to because of our fallen nature (4:15). After emphasizing Yeshua’s Divine Kingship, the author of Hebrews concludes the opening of his treatise by emphasizing Him as the “Ultimate Man,” most present in the role of high priest.[57]

ENDNOTES FOR Commentary on Hebrews 2

[1] CHALOT, 376.

[2] Cf. Genesis 4:5; 24:6; Exodus 19:12; 23:21; 34:11, 12; Deuteronomy 4:9; 6:12; 11:16; et. al.

[3] LS, 690.

[4] Leon Morris, “Hebrews,” in EXP, 12:21.

[5] BDAG, 770.

[6] deSilva, 104.

[7] R.H. Charles, rev. C. Rabin, “Jubilees,” in H.F.D. Sparks, ed., The Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), pp 13, 14.

[8] Flavius Josephus: The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged, trans. William Whiston (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987), 406.

[9] G. Kittel, “to hear, listen,” in TDNT, 35.

[10] Lane, 47a:34-35.

[11] BDAG, 173.

[12] Bruce, Hebrews, 67.

[13] Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), 653.

[14] Hegg, Hebrews, 22.

[15] Bruce, Hebrews, xix.

[16] Lane, 47a:40-41.

[17] Ellingworth, 134.

[18] Hagner, in New Interpreter’s Study Bible, 2155.

[19] Keener, 653.

[20] Ellingworth, 146.

[21] Lane, 45a:47.

[22] BDAG, 313.

[23] Ellingworth, 154.

[24] Lane, 47a:53.

[25] Bruce, Hebrews, 79.

[26] Lane, 47a:51.

[27] G. Delling, “archēgós,” in TDNT, 83.

[28] Ibid.

[29] LS, 797.

[30] BDAG, 9.

[31] Lane, 47a:58.

[32] Ellingworth, 163.

[33] Stern, 669.

[34] Morris, in EXP, 12:28.

[35] BDB, 875.

[36] LS, 615.

[37] Ellingworth, 171.

[38] Guthrie, Hebrews, pp 91-92.

[39] Ibid., 92.

[40] LS, 413.

[41] BDAG, 525.

[42] Lane, 47a:62-63.

[43] BDAG, 374.

[44] deSilva, 120.

[45] Ellingworth, 178.

[46] The Soncino Talmud. Judaic Classics Library II. MS Windows 3.1. Brooklyn: Institute for Computers in Jewish Life, 1996. CD-ROM.

[47] deSilva, 123.

[48] Vermes, 527.

[49] Philo Judeaus: The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged, trans. C.D. Yonge (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993), pp 544-545.

[50] H.C. Kee, “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” trans., in James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol 1 (New York: Doubleday, 1983), 795.

[51] Lane, 47a:65.

[52] Kee, in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol 1, 795.

[53] Lane, 47a:66.

[54] It is very true that according to James, “God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone” (1:13). Some may use Hebrews 1:18, and likewise James 1:13, to discount the Divinity of Yeshua. However, it must be noted that God Himself was tempted in the Tanach by the Ancient Israelites (Exodus 17:7; Deuteronomy 6:16), and that certainly does not make Him something less than the Supreme Creator. The difference between fallen human beings and Yeshua, is that Yeshua—as God—has the Divine nature to truly not succumb to temptation.

[55] Ellingworth, 191.

[56] Lane, 47a:51.

[57] A more detailed and expanded examination of the material in Hebrews ch. 2 will be included, along with many other passages, in the author’s book Salvation on the Line, Volume I (forthcoming).

HEBREWS 3

COMMENTARY

[1] Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider Yeshua, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession; [2] He was faithful to Him who appointed Him, as Moses also was in all His house.

3:1 Hebrews ch. 3 continues the montage of Yeshua being superior over all things, with the author now describing Yeshua’s superiority to Moses in vs. 1-6. Too frequently among Christian examiners, these verses are usually construed to mean that our author is arguing the so-called superiority of “Christianity to Judaism.” Donald A. Hagner summarizes this position well, remarking, “The superiority of Jesus to Moses, [is] obviously important for those tempted to abandon the Christian faith and return to Judaism.”[1] To an extent, this comment is accurate in that the author of Hebrews is urgently dissuading anyone considering an abandonment of faith in Yeshua. However, many have taken these verses to mean that our writer is disparaging Moses, when this is not the case at all. On the contrary, while holding Yeshua to be superior over all, our writer has a very high regard for the Teacher of Israel and the Torah. In his eloquent communication style, he is able to maintain the high regard that First Century Judaism had for Moses, while preserving the focus of Messiah Yeshua for an individual’s salvation. By comparing Moses to Yeshua, we see that the author of Hebrews holds Moses with the utmost respect—by comparing a mere human to God in the flesh.

The author begins his comments by reminding his audience that they are holy because of their faith in Yeshua. This is the only place in the Apostolic Scriptures where the term adelphoi hagioi or “holy brothers” (NIV) is used, even though the concept of sanctification or holiness is affluent all throughout the Bible. We see a parallel to v. 1 in 1 Corinthians 1:2, where the Apostle Paul writes, “To the [assembly] of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Messiah Yeshua, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah, their Lord and ours.” The author of Hebrews, perhaps having been in the inner circle of Paul, adapts this terminology for his own unique purpose. “Holy brethren,” used only here in this form, speaks to the need for Believers to be holy to God and members of a true community of faith in union with Messiah Yeshua, “brothers in the family of God” (NEB).

Upon emphasizing the relationship that Believers are to be striving for with one another, members of God’s family and hopefully holding one another accountable for our spiritual behavior, our author asks his audience to “consider,” “think about” (NLT), or “fix your thoughts on” (NIV) Yeshua. He uses a very specific Greek verb in this directive, katanoeō, meaning “to observe well, to understand” (LS).[2] This term invokes many specific actions in regard to pondering who Yeshua is, and what He has accomplished. TDNT remarks “it means ‘to immerse oneself in.’ This may be in the field of sensory perception, but critical examination is also denoted, and in literary Greek the idea is that of apprehension by pondering or studying.”[3]

As he explains Yeshua’s faithfulness to the Father in Hebrews ch. 3, our writer is urging His audience to consider the Messiah’s example so that His followers might emulate Him in the world. He writes that those who know Yeshua “share in a heavenly call” (RSV). Donald Guthrie notes that klēsis “is specially characteristic of the Apostle Paul who uses it nine times.”[4] This is additional evidence that our author is influenced by Paul, who himself says, “the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Romans 11:29). If the author of Hebrews is writing to the same audience in Rome, as many expositors think, he is reemphasizing many concepts that they have already heard from Paul. If any of them were in the process of losing sight of Yeshua in their lives, then they would need to make the conscious effort of truly considering what He has done.

Yeshua the Messiah is depicted as having two distinct roles in His relationship to humanity. The first role He is listed as having is that of Apostle or “emissary” (CJB). Apostolos simply means “a messenger, ambassador, envoy” (LS),[5] or one who is sent to do specific tasks by an authority. Yeshua the Messiah, being the One who has been sent, is seen throughout each of the four Gospels:

“He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me” (Matthew 10:40).

“Whoever receives one child like this in My name receives Me; and whoever receives Me does not receive Me, but Him who sent Me” (Mark 9:37).

“[A]nd [He] said to them, ‘Whoever receives this child in My name receives Me, and whoever receives Me receives Him who sent Me; for the one who is least among all of you, this is the one who is great” (Luke 9:48).

“Yeshua said to them, ‘My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work’” (John 4:34).[6]

The author of Hebrews is obviously relying on his audience’s knowledge of knowing that Yeshua was the One who was sent by His Father to do His work, principally the work of redemption. Another major element of Yeshua’s being sent by God was the prediction that Moses made of a Prophet coming who would be greater than he. The Apostle Peter identifies this Prophet as Yeshua in his message delivered at Shavuot/Pentecost: “Moses said, ‘THE LORD GOD WILL RAISE UP FOR YOU A PROPHET LIKE ME FROM YOUR BRETHREN; TO HIM YOU SHALL GIVE HEED to everything He says to you’” (Acts 3:22; cf. Deuteronomy 18:18-19). Yeshua has been sent as that Prophet from God, and to not heed His words brings great consequences—because they carry more weight than the words of Moses.

Yeshua is next identified as the “high priest whom we confess” (NIV). Yeshua, functioning in the role of High Priest, intercedes for humanity as the mediator for men and women before the Father. For the author of Hebrews, Yeshua functions in a very important dual role, as His Messiahship integrates the offices of Apostle and High Priest. A.M. Stibbs summarizes it well, “As God, He has been ‘sent forth’ to reveal God to men; as Man, He has become High Priest to reconcile men to God.”[7] Yeshua performs functions as the Sent One, the ultimate Apostle, and now as the High Priest who is uniquely able, as the Son of God, to continually intercede for people when they pray and petition the Lord for help. What is important to also consider is that not only does Yeshua function in a role that no human being, including Moses, could ever function, but as F.F. Bruce observes, He is “the one in whom God has revealed himself finally and completely, [and] also [is] the perfect embodiment of humanity’s obedient response to God.”[8]

The identification of Yeshua as High Priest should immediately connect readers to the events of Yom Kippur or the Day of Atonement, where the high priest is a representative of God before the people, interceding for the people. The high priest would function as God’s shaliach, used in Rabbinical literature to denote a “deputy, agent” (Jastrow).[9] The following are a collection of references from the Talmud which detail the role of priests as God’s agents or messengers:

“If so, when R. Huna son of R. Joshua said: These priests are agents of the All-Merciful One, for should you think they are ours, is there aught which we ourselves may not do while they may do [it on our behalf]?—is there not?” (b.Kiddushin 23b).[10]

“The scholars propounded: Are the priests [in sacrificing] our agents or agents of the All-Merciful? What is the practical difference?—In respect of one who is forbidden to benefit [from a priest]: if you say that they are our agents, surely he [the priest] benefits him [by offering up his sacrifices]; hence it is prohibited. But if you say that they are the agents of the All-Merciful, it is permitted” (b.Nedarim 35b).[11]

“THEY SAID TO HIM: SIR HIGH PRIEST etc. Shall we say that this will be a refutation of R. Huna, the son of R. Joshua, for R. Huna, the son of R. Joshua said: These priests are messengers of the All Merciful God. For if you were to say they are our own messengers, is there anything that we ourselves are unable to perform and our messengers can perform?—Rather this is what they said to him: We adjure you according to our mind and in the mind of the Beth din” (b.Yoma 19a-b).[12]

The author of Hebrews likely has these sorts of ideas in mind in referring to Yeshua not only as High Priest, but also Apostle. The priest, being a shaliach of the Lord in the cultic worship and intercessor for the people in the Holy of Holies, is the role that Yeshua performs before the Father in Heaven. William L. Lane confirms that “Jewish sources indicate that the high priest was regarded as the fully accredited representative of God before the people…The translation of [shaliach] into Greek would be [apostolos]. The coordinated phrase ‘the apostle and high priest’ in Heb. 3:1 reflects this traditional understanding.”[13] The “profession” (KJV) or confession may not only include the profession of people recognizing Yeshua the Sent One sacrificed for human transgressions—but may also be thought to include the incumbent praise and thanksgiving that are to naturally go along with recognizing the Messiah as Redeemer.

3:2 The author of Hebrews says that Yeshua was “stedfast to Him who did appoint him” (YLT). The Greek verb that he uses is poieō, generally meaning, “to make, produce, create” (LS).[14] Various persons throughout religious history have taken this to mean Yeshua was a created being, and was not Divine. However, the verb is often used in a variety of distinct connotations, much wider than just “make” or “create.” Mark 3:14, for example, speaks of Yeshua “making” His Apostles: “And He appointed [poieō] twelve, so that they would be with Him and that He could send them out to preach.” The KJV renders this as “ordained,” and Vine indicates that poieō can mean “to render or ‘make’ one or oneself anything, or cause a person or thing to become something.”[15] The author of Hebrews makes it clear from his opening words that Yeshua was not “created,” but He was certainly appointed or ordained by His Father, for the assignment of both Apostle and High Priest.

In describing the Father’s appointment of Yeshua as Apostle and High Priest, our author compares Him to Moses. He writes, “For he was faithful to God, who appointed him, just as Moses served faithfully and was entrusted with God's entire house” (NLT). A likely allusion is made to Numbers 12:7: “with My servant Moses, He is faithful in all My household.” This is proof of how highly the author regards Moses. Paul Ellingworth further indicates that “Nu. 12:7 is also quoted in 1 Clem. 17:5; 43:1, probably under the influence of Hebrews.”[16] Written in the late First Century, allusions to Hebrews in 1 Clement—connected to Numbers—indicate how important this text was for many Believers:

NUMBERS 12:7

1 CLEMENT

Not so, with My servant Moses, He is faithful in all My household;

Moses was called faithful in all God’s house; and through his instrumentality, God punished Egypt with plagues and tortures. Yet he, though thus greatly honored, did not adopt lofty language, but said, when the divine oracle came to him out of the bush, “Who am I, that Thou sendest me? I am a man of a feeble voice and a slow tongue.” And again he said, “I am but as the smoke of a pot” (17:5).[17]

And what wonder is it if those in Christ who were entrusted with such a duty by God, appointed those [ministers] before mentioned, when the blessed Moses also, “a faithful servant in all his house,” noted down in the sacred books all the injunctions which were given him, and when the other prophets also followed him, bearing witness with one consent to the ordinances which he had appointed? (43:1).[18]

HEBREWS 3:2

He was faithful to Him who appointed Him, as Moses also was in all His house.

While some have preferred to adopt the view that by comparing Yeshua and Moses, the author of Hebrews is trying to denigrate Moses, no such thing is true. Leon Morris validly states, “the writer makes no criticism of the man held in such honor by the Jews. He prefers to accept Moses as ‘faithful.’”[19] The very fact that Moses would be described as faithful, in spite of some isolated incidents where he deviated from God’s commands to him in the wilderness, demonstrates that while believing Yeshua to be superior, our writer still thought enough of him to give Moses high regard. Moses’ life prefigures many of the functions that Yeshua would perform in His ministry. Moses functioned as an apostle for Israel and as their representative before God. While his brother Aaron performed the role of high priest, it was Moses who had to intervene on Israel’s behalf. Moses was faithful in the message that God gave him to deliver, as Exodus 40:16 plainly tells us, “Thus Moses did; according to all that the LORD had commanded him, so he did.” Moses strived to obey God, even in times of extremity (Exodus 14), and remained on duty until he was relieved and Joshua could then lead the people into the Promised Land.

It is important to understand that in spite of the high opinion our author has for Moses, many in First Century Judaism gave Moses a higher position than they probably should have. This opinion is partially reflected in Sirach 45:1-3 in the Apocrypha, where Moses is attested to having been exalted to a position equal to that of the angels:

“From his descendants the Lord brought forth a man of mercy, who found favor in the sight of all flesh and was beloved by God and man, Moses, whose memory is blessed. He made him equal in glory to the holy ones, and made him great in the fears of his enemies. By his words he caused signs to cease; the Lord glorified him in the presence of kings. He gave him commands for his people, and showed him part of his glory.”

Josephus simply writes, “They [the Israelites] were also in admiration how Moses was honored by God” (Antiquities of the Jews 3.38).[20] The philosopher Philo praises Moses, writing, “And the most excellent of all, having taken the post of leader as if in a chorus, is piety and righteousness, which Moses, the interpreter of the will of God, possessed in a most eminent degree” (On Rewards and Punishments 53).[21] He also calls him “the chief priest Moses” (Who Is the Heir of Divine Things? 182).[22] And, an entire mini-treatise is given praising Moses by Philo in his work Life of Moses (2.66-186).[23] Without any doubt, many of these high acclamations are well-deserved of Moses, but they should not be given to subtract who God Himself is in the life of Israel. This is why Numbers 12:3 says, “Now the man Moses was very humble, more than any man who was on the face of the earth.”[24]

Yeshua is appointed to His role as High Priest just like Aaron was appointed. In fact, the same verb, poieō, used by the author of Hebrews, is employed in the Septuagint rendering of 1 Samuel 12:6: “And Samuel spoke to the people, saying, The Lord who appointed [poieō] Moses and Aaron is witness, who brought our fathers up out of Egypt” (LXE). Our writer urges his audience to consider Yeshua not only as the Apostle and High Priest, but having a much higher and greater position than Moses. This comes after he emphasizes that Yeshua is greater than angels. The work of Moses and Aaron foreshadows the present work of Messiah Yeshua, intervening for people, and the author of Hebrews wants to glorify Yeshua for who He is, while still maintaining a high regard for Moses.

[3] For He has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, by just so much as the builder of the house has more honor than the house. [4] For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God.

3:3 The author of Hebrews writes that “Yeshua deserves more honor than Moshe” (CJB), indeed indicating that Moses is worthy of “honor.” Yeshua is worthy of this honor because “the builder of a house has greater honor than the house itself” (NIV). But even though true, our writer is not at all denigrating Moses. Yeshua deserves greater honor because the role He has performed and the calling He has been given by the Father is higher than the role and calling Moses performed. Ellingworth writes, “Jesus’ faithfulness is more highly honoured than that of Moses, not because Moses’ faithfulness was in any way defective, but because that of Jesus was displayed in a higher office.”[25] Tim Hegg makes the poignant remark that if Moses and his work is worthy of some glory—yet the Torah and its ordinances are “bad”—why would a comparison to Yeshua ever be made? He says,

“If, as some have argued, the administration of Moses was fraught with the negative burden of the Law, one would hardly make a comparison to Yeshua! Rather, the very comparison shows that the Law is considered good and holy, and to show Yeshua’s glory as surpassing that of Moses is only to show that Yeshua is the builder of the kingdom of which Moses was a building block.”[26]

3:4 Yeshua the Messiah, in no uncertain terms, is associated along with the Builder of the house (v. 3b), whereas Moses was just a part of the house. Moses was a critical part of the house, and indeed worthy of much honor and respect—but Moses was also a victim of his own humanity and did not lead the Israelites into the Promised Land (Numbers 20:11-12). Yeshua on the other hand, being associated with the Builder of the house, definitely sits on the Divine side of things. Our writer says, “Every house has its founder; and the founder of all is God” (REB). Yeshua, the One who would come to establish His assembly (Matthew 16:18), may be regarded, along with His Father, as the “builder”—being compared and contrasted to Moses—and is One who is truly worthy of greater glory than Moses.

But when the author of Hebrews says that God has built a house, what did He build, specifically? Ellingworth, interestingly enough, details how “There is no suggestion, as one might expect, of two separate communities, a house of Moses and a house of Jesus, Israel and the Church…On the contrary, both Moses and Jesus are related, though in different ways, to the one house or people of God.”[27] Those who partake of Yeshua’s completed work, are to be regarded as composing the “Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16).

Guthrie is keen to indicate, “There was certainly danger in some Jewish quarters of excessive respect for Moses at the expense of recognizing that God was the originator of the Law.”[28] Of course, Moses himself continually called the people of Israel to fear the Lord and obey Him. He exclaimed, “Remember the day you stood before the LORD your God at Horeb, when the LORD said to me, ‘Assemble the people to Me, that I may let them hear My words so they may learn to fear Me all the days they live on the earth, and that they may teach their children‘” (Deuteronomy 4:10). Moses was God’s messenger to Israel, but was in no way superior to God. Yeshua the Messiah was sent by His Father to provide the definitive revelation for people, not at all in contrast to Moses, but one which did bear a higher authority than Moses.

[5] Now Moses was faithful in all His house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken later; [6] but Messiah was faithful as a Son over His house—whose house we are, if we hold fast our confidence and the boast of our hope firm until the end.

3:5 Our writer attests to the fact that “Moses, then, was faithful as a servitor in God’s whole household” (NEB). This is an affirmation of Numbers 12:7, where God attests “he is trusted throughout My household” (NJPS). But where Moses served in God’s house, Yeshua is over God’s house, as God’s Son (and by implication as the Eternal Son requires a plural Godhead). Coming to Earth in human form, Yeshua was faithful to His Father unto death. As the angel told Joseph, “She [Mary] will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Yeshua, for He will save His people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). While Moses was faithful in the unique work that God had for him, the work that the Father had for Yeshua was even more unique. The example of Moses’ life and actions were given “testifying to what would be said in the future” (NIV). Yeshua came and perfectly modeled many of the actions that Moses performed, and when we receive Him into our lives we can become members of God’s household (Ephesians 2:19; 1 Peter 2:5). Yeshua thus truly saves “His people.”

Our author’s opinion of Moses is very important to recognize, so readers do not fall into the trap of thinking that he is trying to demean him. He refers to Moses specifically as a therapōn. BDAG defines this as “one who renders devoted service, esp. as an attendant in a cultic setting, attendant, aide servant.”[29] LS further indicates that it means “a waiting-man, attendant,” and “a companion in arms, though inferior in rank.”[30] This position is more important than simply being a doulos, or your standard “servant” or “slave.” Moses is portrayed as being the high servant in God’s household, which Yeshua is supreme over. Moses prefigured many of the actions and functions of Yeshua, but Yeshua is still superior to Him. The problem that the author of Hebrews was trying to counter was that many First Century Jewish Believers likely viewed Yeshua and Moses as equals, and some perhaps viewed Yeshua as being less than Moses. Bruce remarks, “In some sections of Jewish Christianity Christ’s role was envisaged as primarily that of a second Moses; here he is presented as being much more than that.”[31] Yeshua has a higher position than Moses because He is His Father’s Son. David A. deSilva elaborates on this further:

“If Moses knew God face-to-face and had access to the very presence of God such that he could see God, he still enjoyed the access of a servant. The access enjoyed by the Son would be greater, and the mediation of a Son, whose proximity to the [leader] of the household was so much greater, who shone with the reflection of the honor of the [leader] of the household since he stood so close to the Father, would be more effective and sure than that even of a faithful servant.”[32]

3:6 The author of Hebrews attests that “Christ is faithful as a son over God's house. And we are his house, if we hold on to our courage and the hope of which we boast” (NIV). The NASU provides the text “was faithful” in italics. The RSV, NEB, NRSV, ESV, and HCSB all use “was faithful” not in italics. While the idea of Yeshua the Messiah being faithful to the Father’s work is clearly implied in the text, as the comparison is being made to Moses, there is not agreement on whether it should be understood as a past action, or a present action, as it is not explicitly provided in the Greek. The NIV, NJB, and TEV all use the present tense “is faithful.” Ellingworth is inclined to believe “The present may be preferred as the more unmarked tense, and because the passage is concerned with believers’ present relationship with Christ.”[33] What makes this important is because Yeshua is presently in Heaven interceding for people, His faithful actions for human beings still an ongoing action they can rely upon.

Believers in Yeshua are told that they are members of God’s household “if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope” (ESV). They are required to remain in the Messiah if they truly intend to be considered members of God’s house. The result of maintaining one’s salvation in Yeshua is that a man or woman can have “confidence,” “courage” (NIV), or “rejoicing” (YLT). The term parrēsia is very specific as it means “freespokenness, openness, frankness” (LS).[34] deSilva remarks that this “is a term familiar from discussions in Greek political works of the democratic ideal of free speech ideally enjoyed by citizens of Greek cities. It is the mark of the ‘free’ person rather than the slave.”[35] Moses, of course, would have this status because he was God’s close attendant. The author of Hebrews wanted his audience to understand that they have a status as free men and women if they held fast to their faith in Messiah Yeshua, which should empower them to be able to speak freely of their hope in Him to the world at large. This hope is one of spiritual transformation and the promise of knowing that redeemed men and women will rule and reign with Him in the future Kingdom Age.

[7] Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says, “TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE, [8] DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS AS WHEN THEY PROVOKED ME, AS IN THE DAY OF TRIAL IN THE WILDERNESS [Exodus 17:7; Numbers 20:2-5], [9] WHERE YOUR FATHERS TRIED Me BY TESTING Me, AND SAW MY WORKS FOR FORTY YEARS. [10] THEREFORE I WAS ANGRY WITH THIS GENERATION, AND SAID, ‘THEY ALWAYS GO ASTRAY IN THEIR HEART, AND THEY DID NOT KNOW MY WAYS’; [11] AS I SWORE IN MY WRATH, ‘THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST’” [Numbers 14:21-23 (v. 11); Psalm 95:7-11 (vs. 7-11)].

3:7 In encouraging his audience to remain true to Yeshua and to hold firm to their faith in Him, the author of Hebrews makes a strong emphasis on the infidelity of the Ancient Israelites at Kadesh-Barnea, which led to their forty-year detour in the wilderness. He opens with the statement, “For this reason—as the Holy Spirit warns us” (Weymouth New Testament). This is actually a very Jewish way of introducing a Scriptural point that we see reflected in the Mishnah: “But the Holy Spirit informs them…” (m.Sota 9:6).[36] The author of Hebrews compares his audience to the rebellious Exodus/wilderness generation in a distinct midrashic exposition, employing several Tanach texts. The principal text he uses is Psalm 95:7-11, which itself pieces together statements from Exodus 17:7; Numbers 20:2-5; and Numbers 14:21-23. The following is a chart of the paralleling passages that our author employs to make his important case to his readers:

EXODUS 17:7

PSALM 95:7-11

He named the place Massah and Meribah because of the quarrel of the sons of Israel, and because they tested the LORD, saying, “Is the LORD among us, or not?”

For He is our God, and we are the people of His pasture and the sheep of His hand. Today, if you would hear His voice, do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah, as in the day of Massah in the wilderness, when your fathers tested Me, they tried Me, though they had seen My work. For forty years I loathed that generation, and said they are a people who err in their heart, and they do not know My ways. Therefore I swore in My anger, truly they shall not enter into My rest.

NUMBERS 20:2-5

There was no water for the congregation, and they assembled themselves against Moses and Aaron. The people thus contended with Moses and spoke, saying, “If only we had perished when our brothers perished before the LORD! Why then have you brought the LORD’s assembly into this wilderness, for us and our beasts to die here? Why have you made us come up from Egypt, to bring us in to this wretched place? It is not a place of grain or figs or vines or pomegranates, nor is there water to drink.”

NUMBERS 14:21-23

but indeed, as I live, all the earth will be filled with the glory of the LORD. Surely all the men who have seen My glory and My signs which I performed in Egypt and in the wilderness, yet have put Me to the test these ten times and have not listened to My voice, shall by no means see the land which I swore to their fathers, nor shall any of those who spurned Me see it.

3:8 Employing all of these passages, the author of Hebrews emphasizes the rebelliousness of Ancient Israel at Meribah and Massah. He warns his audience not to fall into the same mistakes, writing them, “do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion, during the time of testing in the desert” (RSV; cf. Numbers 20:1-13; Exodus 17:1-7). Notice that he employs the terms “rebellion” and “testing,” whereas the Hebrew texts of Exodus and Psalms use Masah and Merivah. These respective place names mean “proving and strife” (ISBE).[37] The Septuagint renders these proper names as the improper paratikrasmos and peirasmos, reflecting the interpretation of them meaning “rebellion” and “trial” (Psalm 95:8, Apostle’s Bible). The author of Hebrews, primarily working from the LXX, follows suit.

Psalm 95 is a very important reference that our author makes, as it has extreme significance in Rabbinic literature to refer to the Messiah. We see debates in the Talmud about the coming of the Messiah, and an emphasis from Psalm 95:7 about hearing His voice:

“Thereupon he [Elijah] observed, ‘He thereby assured thee and thy father of [a portion in] the world to come.’ ‘He spoke falsely to me,’ he rejoined, ‘stating that he would come to-day, but has not.’ He [Elijah] answered him, ‘This is what he said to thee, To-day, if ye will hear his voice’” (b.Sanhedrin 98a).[38]

Coupled with Numbers 14:35, “I, the LORD, have spoken, surely this I will do to all this evil congregation who are gathered together against Me. In this wilderness they shall be destroyed, and there they will die,” Psalm 95 was used in early Jewish theology to often mean that the wilderness generation would have no part in the world to come:

“‘The generation of the wilderness has no portion in the world to come and will not stand in judgment, for it is written, In this wilderness they shall be consumed and there they shall die (Nu. 14:35),’ the words of R. Aquiba” (m.Sanhedrin 10:3).[39]

“THE GENERATION OF THE WILDERNESS HATH NO PORTION IN THE WORLD TO COME etc. Our Rabbis taught: The generation of the wilderness hath no portion in the world to come, as it is written, in this wilderness they shall be consumed, and there they shall die.’ ‘they shall be consumed’, refers to this world; ‘and there they shall die’—to the world to come. And it is also said, Forty years long was I grieved with his generation [sc. of the wilderness - . . .] Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest: this is R. Akiba's view. R. Eliezer maintained: They will enter into the future world, for it is written, Gather my saints together unto me; those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice. How then do I interpret unto whom I sware in my wrath etc?—[Only] in my wrath I sware, but repented thereof” (b.Sanhedrin 98a).[40]

While these traditions were largely formalized after the destruction of the Second Temple, the author of Hebrews is likely relying upon similar sentiments known by his audience. The judgment upon the wilderness generation—which had been delivered by God from Egypt and had seen His miracle working power, and then complained, rebelled, and lost faith in Him—was severe. It was so severe that many Rabbis believed that the rebellious generation would quantitatively not partake of the world to come. Not surprisingly, Psalm 95 likewise has some significant importance for more modern times in the liturgical traditions of both the Jewish Synagogue and Christian Church. It is employed in the liturgy for the inauguration of the Sabbath in the Authorised Daily Prayer Book for Jewish communities in the English-speaking world, as well as in the call to worship in the Book of Common Prayer for the Anglican Church.[41] The emphasis, of course, is to praise the Lord for what He has done for His people, but likewise not to test the Lord and suffer His judgment.

3:9-11 The author of Hebrews makes an important reference to judgment lasting for forty years. He says, “your fathers put me to the test and saw my works for forty years” (RSV). This is not simply an idle quote of an historical fact, but a number that had some important significance for some sectors of the First Century Jewish community. Ellingworth indicates that “In the Qumran writings…the wilderness is assessed positively, not only as a place of sabbath rest (1QM2:8f), but as a place in which the community can be free of contamination, study the Law in peace, and prepare for a holy war.”[42] Of course, what our writer has composed speaks profoundly against this, because the wilderness is viewed as a scene of rebellion against God that must be avoided—especially by Believers in Yeshua. It is entirely possible that some of Hebrews’ audience was influenced by Essene theology, and our writer is countering it here.

It might also be said that the placement of “forty years” by the author of Hebrews, which he will repeat in v. 17, is a possible timestamp that can be used to date this composition. Morris remarks, “It may well be that at the time he wrote this epistle, the author reflected on the fact that it was the fourth decade since Jesus’ crucifixion. The Israelites had rejected God for forty years, and it was now nearly forty years since their descendants had rejected Jesus—a reason for serious concern.”[43] If we consider Yeshua’s crucifixion to have taken place in approximately 30 C.E., this could date Hebrews’ composition subsequent to 70 C.E., about forty years or so later. It is entirely possible, that the author is using this typology to warn his fellow Jewish brethren not to fall into the trap that their Ancient Israelite ancestors did in the wilderness—rejecting God. Here, the author is warning his fellow Jewish Believers—who have seen miracles performed in the Messiah’s name—who are teetering on rejecting Him. A worse fate rests for those who reject Yeshua, than for the rebellious wilderness generation which lost faith in God.

[12] Take care, brethren, that there not be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God.

3:12 The solution for not falling into the trap of the wilderness generation is certain: “See to it, brothers, that no one among you has the wicked, faithless heart of a deserter from the living God” (NEB). We are not to let evil take any root within us. In the Hebrew Tanach, the word ra is generally used for “evil,” often rendered as ponēros in the LXX, which is in turn used in the Apostolic Scriptures. In its Rabbinical usage, evil is often approached two ways. “A bad eye, heart, or companion will lead on to the bad way. God fixes what is bad, and everything bad is contrary to him. Calumniation is a tongue of evil. The evil impulse is directed to earthly, ungodly, and corruptible matters and especially to what runs contrary to the law” (TDNT).[44] A heart that opens itself to evil will also open itself to not believing God, and consequently leads to apostasy. We see some parallels to this description in 4 Esdras 3:20-22 in the Apocrypha:

“Yet thou didst not take away from them their evil heart, so that thy law might bring forth fruit in them. For the first Adam, burdened with an evil heart, transgressed and was overcome, as were also all who were descended from him. Thus the disease became permanent; the law was in the people's heart along with the evil root, but what was good departed, and the evil remained.”

The Epistle to the Hebrews was known to Hermas of Rome, who compiled a work now called the Shepherd of Hermas in the early- to mid- Second Century. Our author’s warning about apostasy from the Living God is drawn upon by Hermas in his warnings to his own audience:

HEBREWS 3:12

SHEPHERD OF HERMAS

Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God (ESV).

But you are saved, because you did not depart from the living God, and on account of your simplicity and great self-control. These have saved you, if you remain steadfast. And they will save all who act in the same manner, and walk in guilelessness and simplicity (Vision 2.3.2).[45]

But those which fell into the fire and were burned? are those who have departed for ever from the living God; nor does the thought of repentance ever come into their hearts, on account of their devotion to their lusts and to the crimes which they committed (Vision 3.7.2).[46]

The warnings against evil are given so that no person may commit apostasy against God. Yet, apostasy need not always take place via a gradual distancing of oneself from God and His ways. The verb aphistēmi can mean, “to make to revolt, move to revolt” (LS).[47] The rebellion of the Ancient Israelites at Meribah and Massah was not necessarily something drawn out—it was something that occurred out of an immediate rejection of God’s authority. Similarly, the author of Hebrews was likely experiencing a situation where individuals were allowing evil to enter into their hearts, and they were being drawn away quickly from the saving message of Yeshua. For some reason or another, some were forgetting the warnings of the Torah, and were deciding that they wanted nothing to do with Yeshua.

Traditionally, this text is often interpreted as the author’s warning against abandoning “Christianity to Judaism.” Hagner summarizes this view, stating, “If the readers abandon Christianity and return to their former Judaism, they will be turning away from the living God.”[48] Perhaps this kind of terminology used by some theologians is what has gotten people confused, because it is absolutely true that abandoning faith in Yeshua—and going back to one’s previous place prior to salvation—is tantamount to turning one’s back on God. This is not only true of First Century Jews denying Yeshua and preferring to go back to a Messiah-less Synagogue, but also true of any person who denies God today and turns toward atheism. People who let evil take over their hearts will inevitably deny God.

[13] But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called “Today,” so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. [14] For we have become partakers of Messiah, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end, [15] while it is said, “TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE, DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS, AS WHEN THEY PROVOKED ME [Psalm 95:7-8].”

3:13 To deter his audience from falling away from faith, he writes them, “You must encourage one another each day. And you must keep on while there is still a time that can be called ‘today.’ If you don't, then sin may fool some of you and make you stubborn” (Contemporary English Version). He says that these Believers must “exhort” (RSV) or “warn” (NLT) each other every day about sin that can enter into their lives. Surely, whether it is the audience of Hebrews or us today—members of the faith community are to be continually holding one another accountable, lest they fall into the traps of the enemy. Believers are to be doing this each day, so they do not become lax in their faith, and think that because they might have endured one trial or difficulty, that additional trials and difficulties will not come. The author of Hebrews is not saying anything unique, and in fact we see similar admonitions from the Rabbis of the Talmud:

“R. Eleazar asked Rab: Which man has earned [enjoyment of] the future world? Said he to him, And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it,' when, ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left. R. Hanina said: He with whom his teachers are pleased” (b.Shabbat 153a).[49]

The admonition here, of course, is that one has to know the right way in order to attain eternal life. This is absolutely true because if one does not know the right way to go—and stays on that path—then sin can enter in and he or she may be found turning away from faith. Our author uses the form sklērunthē, appearing in the aorist passive subjunctive tense, describing the sinner’s “hardened” hearts. Because the individual did not remain accountable for his or her faith, the way of sin was passively accepted. If people who have professed the Lord Yeshua are not careful, then they may find that they have hardened hearts because they did not take the warnings of God’s Word seriously enough.

3:14 People can only become partakers in Messiah Yeshua “if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end” (RSV). This is not a passive action, but an active action. Partakers in Yeshua receive the reward of being able to share in His authority and have dominion over the redeemed Creation. Yeshua significantly admonished the congregation of Thyatira in Revelation, an assembly plagued by paganism and on the verge of apostasy:

“He who overcomes, and he who keeps My deeds until the end, TO HIM I WILL GIVE AUTHORITY OVER THE NATIONS; AND HE SHALL RULE THEM WITH A ROD OF IRON, AS THE VESSELS OF THE POTTER ARE BROKEN TO PIECES [Psalm 2:8-9], as I also have received authority from My Father” (Revelation 2:26-27).

Whether it is the Thyatirans, or the audience of Hebrews—in spite of sin or negative attitudes and ideas that have been allowed to enter—there is still hope, and a chance of ruling with Yeshua the Messiah for eternity.

3:15 Emphasizing the severity of denying Yeshua, our author once again connects his audience back to Psalm 95. He repeats what he has said earlier. Psalm 95:7-8 tell us, “For He is our God, and we are the people of His pasture and the sheep of His hand. Today, if you would hear His voice, do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah, as in the day of Massah in the wilderness.” This is the call to all generations who follow the God of Israel. The faithful are all called to heed the rebellion and the testing of Meribah and Massah so that it is never repeated. Some, unfortunately, still never heed the warning—in either the First Century or even today.

[16] For who provoked Him when they had heard? Indeed, did not all those who came out of Egypt led by Moses? [17] And with whom was He angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? [18] And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient? [19] So we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief.

3:16 Hebrews ch 3 ends with the author employing some important rhetorical questions. After having discussed the rebellious nature of the Ancient Israelites, alluding to Meribah and Massah, he makes some pertinent statements to get them to consider where they are in their relationship with God.

He first asks his audience, “For who were those who heard and yet rebelled?” He answers this question by asking a question: “Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses?” (ESV). This is the generation that saw the plagues upon Egypt and commemorated the first Passover. They saw the parting of the Red Sea and the thunder and lightning of God upon Mount Sinai. Why were they rebellious when they saw all of these things? Why did they worship the golden calf? Why did they believe the bad report? These are questions that students of God’s Word often ask when reading the ancient accounts of the Exodus.

3:17 Our author follows in v. 17 with further inquiries. He asks, “And with whom was he provoked for forty years?” (ESV). Some Bible versions render the statement that follows as a question, and others as an answer to the question. Regardless of if it is another question, or an answer, the data remains the same. God was angry “With those, surely, who had sinned, whose bodies lay where they fell in the desert” (REB). He makes a direct allusion to Numbers 14:29:

“In this desert your bodies will fall—every one of you twenty years old or more who was counted in the census and who has grumbled against me” (NIV).

Notice that our author also repeats the number “forty years.” The number forty has major significance throughout the Scriptures, in many cases being used in periods of judgment, but also for periods of redemption.[50] He does not want his audience to fall into evil and consequently disbelief in Yeshua. He extends the harsh judgment that was levied against the Ancient Israelites now to Believers in Yeshua. His ultimate, unasked question, is that if the Ancient Israelites can provoke God continually in the wilderness, and not get away with it, will those provoking God and denying His Messiah get away with it? The answer is a definite no. In fact, the penalties for rejecting Yeshua are much worse. The author of Hebrews urges his audience to consider the warnings of Biblical history.

3:18 The wilderness generation that rebelled against God was not able to enter into His rest in the Promised Land. The writer asks his audience yet another rhetorical question: “And to whom was God speaking when he vowed that they would never enter his place of rest? He was speaking to those who disobeyed him” (NLT). The understood question that is not asked is that if the Ancient Israelites rebelled, and did not enter into the wonderful place that God had for them on Earth, then what will rebellion against the gospel message bring? Rebellion against the gospel message will surely bring even worse punishment, and the reward one gives up is not entering into God’s redeemed Creation in the world to come—being able to rule and reign with the Messiah.

3:19 The warning that is given about the Ancient Israelites in v. 19, is that “They never got there because they never listened, never believed” (The Message). The term that is employed for “unbelief” is apistia, and it relates to unfaithfulness—as opposed to just intellectual doubt. BDAG defines it as “unwillingness to commit oneself to another or respond positively to the other’s words or actions, lack of belief, unbelief,” and “lack of commitment to a relationship or pledge, unfaithfulness.”[51] If one is not fully committed to his or her relationship with the Father through His Son Yeshua, then one is likely to fall away. Each one who has made a profession of belief in Him has to be fully devoted in his or her walk with the Lord, able to submit to the accountability of others, and most importantly be able to heed the Biblical warnings of rebellion.

The fact that unbelief leads to sinful actions is seen in every book of the Bible. Followers of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob must occupy themselves with activities that prohibit sin from creeping in. The Mishnah says that “If there is no learning of Torah, there is no proper conduct…If there is no sustenance, there is no Torah learning. If there is no Torah learning, there is no sustenance” (m.Avot 3:17).[52] For many of the contemporaries of the author of Hebrews, the study of the Torah was viewed as the highest form of worship for God. Certainly, the study of and meditation on God’s Word, and applying it to our lives, is a form of worship. It helps transform our thoughts and our heart attitudes to those of our Heavenly Father. The challenge in the Messianic movement today is that frequently too much of our energies can be focused solely on the Torah or Pentateuch, at the expense of other Scriptures. Our understanding of who Yeshua is and His work for us, in too many instances, can be under-developed. And at times, our understanding of Joshua-2 Chronicles/Malachi, the remainder of the Tanach, can even be under-developed!

We have the challenge to study the entire Word of God with the empowerment of His Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9). We need to give all Scripture proper footing, beginning with the Torah, but also including the Prophets, Writings, and Apostolic Scriptures. If we do not, then we might run the risk of not heeding the warning that the author of Hebrews gives. He considers Yeshua to be superior to Moses, but by no means disparages Moses. Have any of us exalted Moses over Yeshua? Would Moses have exalted himself over the Messiah? These are questions and issues that our Messianic faith community will internally be dealing with until the Lord’s return.

ENDNOTES FOR Commentary on Hebrews 3

[1] Hagner, in New Interpreter’s Study Bible, 2156.

[2] LS, 411.

[3] J. Behm, “thought, insight,” in TDNT, 639.

[4] Guthrie, Hebrews, 97.

Cf. Romans 11:29; 1 Corinthians 1:26; 7:20; Ephesians 1:8; 4:1, 4; Philippians 3:14; 2 Thessalonians 1:11; 2 Timothy 1:9.

[5] LS, 107.

[6] Cf. Matthew 15:24; John 5:24, 30.

Each one of these passages employs the verb apostellō, “to send off, despatch, on some service” (Ibid.).

[7] Stibbs, in NBCR, 1197.

[8] Bruce, Hebrews, 91.

[9] Marcus Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Bavli, Talmud Yerushalmi, and Midrashic Literature (New York: Judaica Treasury, 2004), 1583.

[10] The Soncino Talmud. Judaic Classics Library II.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Lane, 47a:75.

[14] LS, 650.

[15] Vine, 387.

[16] Ellingworth, 201.

[17] The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Libronix Digital Library System 1.0d: Church History Collection.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Morris, in EXP, 12:31.

[20] The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged, 81.

[21] The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged, 669.

[22] Ibid., 291.

[23] Ibid., pp 497-507.

[24] Note that it is debated among conservative theologians as to who actually wrote this verse of the Torah. The NASU and NIV versions both include the verse in parenthesis (), indicating the opinion that it was likely inserted by a later scribe. If indeed inserted, it was done so with the intention of emphasizing the humility of Moses, and how Moses would point one to praising God before praising him.

[25] Ellingworth, 203.

[26] Hegg, Hebrews, 44.

[27] Ellingworth, 196.

[28] Guthrie, Hebrews, 101.

[29] BDAG, 453.

[30] LS, 363.

[31] Bruce, Hebrews, 93.

[32] deSilva, 138.

[33] Ellingworth, 209.

[34] LS, 611.

[35] deSilva, 139.

[36] Neusner, 463.

[37] M.A. MacLeod, “Massah and Meribah,” in ISBE, 3:277.

[38] The Soncino Talmud. Judaic Classics Library II.

[39] Neusner, 605.

[40] The Soncino Talmud. Judaic Classics Library II.

[41] Bruce, Hebrews, 97, fn# 46, 47.

[42] Ellingworth, 216.

[43] Morris, in EXP, 12:34.

[44] G. Harder, “ponērós,” in TDNT, 912.

[45] The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Libronix Digital Library System 1.0d: Church History Collection.

[46] Ibid.

[47] LS, 139.

[48] Hagner, in New Interpreter’s Study Bible, 2157.

[49] The Soncino Talmud. Judaic Classics Library II.

[50] A collection of passages that employ the number forty, and that have either a theme of judgment or salvation, include: Genesis 7:4, 17; Deuteronomy 2:7; 8:2; Joshua 14:10; Nehemiah 9:21; Amos 2:10; Jonah 3:4; Matthew 4:2; Acts 1:3; 7:30, 36.

[51] BDAG, 103.

[52] Neusner, 681.

HEBREWS 4

COMMENTARY

[1] Therefore, let us fear if, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you may seem to have come short of it.

4:1 Hebrews ch. 4, if not understood properly from a First Century Jewish perspective, can be a confusing section for many. It is a cause of considerable confusion for many in the Christian community, who often interpret it as being a diatribe against the seventh-day Sabbath. In spite of this confusion, though, Hebrews 4:1-13 is actually subtitled as “A Sabbath-Rest for the People of God” in the NIV Study Bible.[1] The reason there is considerable confusion regarding Hebrews ch. 4, and other texts in the Apostolic Scriptures regarding the Sabbath, is because the Christian Church today as a whole largely lacks a theology of “rest.” Tim Hegg summarizes this predicament quite well:

“The answer to the question of why…Christian theologians and teachers have neglected the theology of ‘rest’ may simply lie in the fact that the Church jettisoned Sabbath. With Sabbath no longer part of the Christian culture and practice, the emphasis shifted from ‘rest’ to ‘work’. In this scenario, biblical ‘rest’ becomes entirely allegorized as symbolic of eternity and therefore of no current consequence.”[2]

Not enough Christian leaders and teachers today have addressed the issue of Divine rest, especially as it should be something that each one of us partakes of on a weekly basis. If any contemporary evangelical pastors do teach about Divine rest, most will focus only on the spiritual, or eschatological aspects of rest in the Millennial Kingdom and eternity. As Messianic Believers, we have to learn to balance the current and futuristic aspects of God’s rest in our personal and corporate theology. The examples we see throughout the Tanach is that God’s rest is realized when His people are in their own Promised Land with Him present among them. This is obviously complicated today, given the dispersement of the Jewish people in the world—no different than it was in the First Century—and is something that can only be really solved subsequent to the Second Coming. Yet, God’s rest is definitely available to individuals who keep His Shabbat holy, and we are to remember how there is also the end-time hope of a rest when Yeshua the Messiah rules over Planet Earth. Yet, the rest is not superior to the One who gives it: God Himself.

Having just addressed the superiority of Yeshua to Moses in ch. 3, the author of Hebrews now describes the superiority of Yeshua to the Sabbath, not negating God’s rest, but how the Sabbath is to be fully realized in Him. This does not minimize Shabbat, but properly prioritizes it once again. God designated that the Sabbath was to be an important sign between Him and and His people:

“But as for you, speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘You shall surely observe My sabbaths; for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the LORD who sanctifies you’” (Exodus 31:13).

The keeping of the Sabbath for the First Century Jewish community was one of the important signs that one was Jewish, just as it is today. In fact, the Rabbis of the Talmud teach that if Israel keeps two Sabbaths properly, then the final redemption will come:

“R. Johanan said in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai: If Israel were to keep two Sabbaths according to the laws thereof, they would be redeemed immediately, for it is said, Thus saith the Lord of the eunuch that keep my Sabbaths, which is followed by, even them will I bring to my holy mountain, etc” (b.Shabbat 118b).[3]

These kinds of sentiments may have been believed among the large Jewish audience to whom our author is writing. He does not teach that Shabbat is something to be dispensed with—but He teaches that only Messiah Yeshua can provide true rest. The realization of that “rest” did not occur for an Ancient Israel which was to anticipate a Redeemer, and now the author of Hebrews extends that responsibility to Believers in Yeshua who know that the Redeemer has come. While this rest was originally perceived as being solely physical in early Hebraic thought, William L. Lane summarizes that “over the source of time a distinctly eschatological concept of rest developed, presumably through synagogue preaching and school debate.”[4] The rest that God’s people are to experience begins with the weekly Shabbat, but includes much more—extending to the hope of His Kingdom restored on Earth.

The author of Hebrews opens up this part of his argument with the words phobēthōmen oun, “Fear, therefore.” He warns, rather than admonishes his audience, about the promise of entering into God’s rest. This promise is given in the Torah where the Lord says, “My presence shall go with you, and I will give you rest” (Exodus 33:14), and “the LORD gives rest to your fellow countrymen as to you, and they also possess the land which the LORD your God will give them beyond the Jordan” (Deuteronomy 3:20). The urgency of understanding that a door is closing on entering into this rest is also emphasized by the writer. He says that his listeners all must fear while this promise “still stands” (NIV) or “while the promise of entering his rest is still open” (NRSV), lest “any one of you should be found to have missed his opportunity” (REB). This opportunity, of course, is that God is gracious to people to allow them to enter into His complete rest. The author of Hebrews may be indirectly referring to Numbers 14:30-32, where the Exodus generation is told that they will not enter into the Promised Land:

“Surely you shall not come into the land in which I swore to settle you, except Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun. Your children, however, whom you said would become a prey—I will bring them in, and they will know the land which you have rejected. But as for you, your corpses will fall in this wilderness.”

Here, our writer would be applying these concepts to First Century Believers who may be on the verge of denying their faith in Yeshua. Just as the Exodus generation rebelled against God and did not get to experience His full blessing, so were these people demonstrating similar attitudes. The rest that God intends for His people is seen in His covenant to Abraham, reinforced by His covenant to David, and ultimately realized in the Messiah who will return and establish His Kingdom on Earth. The Prophet Isaiah attests to this coming reality:

“For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; and the former things will not be remembered or come to mind” (Isaiah 65:17).

“‘For just as the new heavens and the new earth which I make will endure before Me,’ declares the LORD, ‘So your offspring and your name will endure’” (Isaiah 66:22).

Revelation 21:4 further indicates, “He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.”

This is the full realization of “rest” that the author of Hebrews is talking about—and one would be utterly foolish to give it up. The Greek noun that he uses for “rest” is katapausis, meaning “a putting to rest: a putting down, deposing” or “a cessation, calm” (LS).[5] Its verb form is katapauō. In the Septuagint, katapausis is used to render the Hebrew menuchah, which generally means “resting-place” or “rest, quietness” (BDB).[6] In contrast, though, the verb katapauō often renders the Hebrew verb shavat, often meaning to “cease, desist, rest” (BDB).[7] This latter verb, as opposed to the more common nuach, is used to describe the eschatological state. The verb shavat is used in Leviticus 26:34 to describe the rest of the Land of Israel: “Then the land will enjoy its sabbaths all the days of the desolation, while you are in your enemies' land; then the land will rest [shavat] and enjoy its Sabbaths.” TWOT is keen to point out that “The soteriological use forms around the theology of the sabbath.”[8] Our author is connecting God’s “rest” to the Sabbath, but specifically to the greater rest that is to occur when the Promised Land rests and when all His people are obeying Him in full communion with Him. This is a perpetual rest that only exists by remaining in the care of God.

What our writer warns is, “let us fear lest any of you be judged to have failed to reach it” (RSV). There is some debate among Bible translators as to what the correct rendering of dokeō should be, rendered in most versions as “seem,” but in the NEB and NIV as “found.” BDAG defines it as “to appear to one’s understanding, seem, be recognized as.”[9] Regardless of how it is specifically rendered in English, no one is to be so presumptuous so as to think that he or she has fully entered into God’s rest. God’s rest, while it involves the Sabbath, is by no means limited to the Sabbath, as God’s rest also involves a spiritual condition that His people are to always strive to be experiencing. Likewise, it does not involve Believers in Yeshua casting aside Shabbat as though it is unimportant. God’s rest ultimately involves dwelling among human beings in His Kingdom. The redeemed can surely partake of elements of that rest now—but if anyone gives up on Yeshua—only an eternity of “unrest” awaits.

[2] For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard.

4:2 The author of Hebrews refers to the Exodus generation, saying that “we also have had the gospel preached to us” (NIV), or “For indeed we have heard the good news, as they did” (NEB). There is debate over what this actually means. Did the Ancient Israelites actually hear the “gospel,” per se, or did they just hear some sort of “good news”? In its secular context, the verb euangelizomai means “to bring good news, announce them” (LS),[10] and may not necessarily be representative of the gospel of salvation as we know it, but rather of any kind of good news. But the Apostles teach that the “Old Testament saints,” as we often hear them referred to by many Christian people today, had the gospel proclaimed to them, even if a bit incomplete. The Apostle Paul writes, “The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: ‘All nations will be blessed through you’” (Galatians 3:8, NIV). Because Abraham “put his trust in the LORD, He reckoned it to his merit” (Genesis 15:6, NJPS). But this is not the only example we see in the Tanach.

King David says “this was insignificant in Your eyes, O Lord GOD, for You have spoken also of the house of Your servant concerning the distant future. And this is the custom of man, O Lord GOD” (2 Samuel 7:19). The Apostle Peter confirms that David foresaw the day of the Messiah (Acts 2:22-31). The author of Hebrews himself further says, perhaps clarifying his statement here, that Moses “considered reproach for the sake of the Messiah to be greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, since his attention was on the reward” (11:26, HCSB). Moses believed in the Messiah to come, and was able to serve Him even though the Deliverer had yet to come into the world. As Donald Hagner aptly explains, “They, too, had benefited from God’s saving grace.”[11] Perhaps earlier generations of God’s followers did not understand the “gospel” in such refined terms as we understand it now that Yeshua has come, but they nevertheless recognized that God would send a Redeemer, and they lived the life of faith exemplified by that belief.

The challenge is that unless someone acts upon the good news, then nothing can be achieved in the life of a person who hears it. The problem with the Exodus generation which rebelled against God was that “in them the message they heard did no good, because it met with no faith in those who heard it” (NEB). Because the good news of the Lord’s deliverance was not “united” or “mixed with faith” (KJV, YLT), it was meaningless. F.F. Bruce remarks that “The practical implication is clear: it is not the hearing of the gospel by itself that brings final salvation, but its appropriation by faith; and if that faith is a genuine faith, it will be a persistent faith.”[12]

Any person who has been truly redeemed will be striving, with God’s help, to have a consistent faith. The problem with the Ancient Israelites—that any generation since has had to take warnings from—is that they saw the mighty acts of God deliver them from the Egyptians and they still did not believe. The author of Hebrews argues that Believers in Yeshua, who have seen and experienced God’s salvation and fail to believe, face a worse fate than they. Any person who hears the message of salvation in Yeshua and does nothing with it is in dangerous territory. How many people today have heard a gospel presentation that means nothing to them? How many hear a gospel message that does not deal with the sin nature of the individual? Perhaps some responsibility rests on the person proclaiming the message, but equally so much responsibility lies with the person hearing, who fails to take appropriate action and investigate. In the Messianic community today, how often do we fail to proclaim a complete gospel message of repentance from sin, deliverance from one’s flesh, and a new, consistent life in Messiah Yeshua? How many of us, although we read the Torah, do not take its warnings as seriously as we should?

[3] For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said, “AS I SWORE IN MY WRATH, THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST” [Psalm 95:11] although His works were finished from the foundation of the world.

4:3 The author of Hebrews says that “only we who believe can enter [God’s] place of rest” (NLT). Just as in ch. 3, he once again appeals to Psalm 95, and the severity of the Ancient Israelites not having faith in the Lord. David A. deSilva indicates, “This repetitive recontextualization of Psalm 95:11 allows ‘entering God’s rest’ to saturate the hearers’ minds, replacing any contrary or competing agendas they may have brought to the hearing of this sermon.”[13] Whereas in Hebrews 3, quotations from Psalm 95 are used as warnings against not hearing the Lord and hardening one’s heart, now they are used as warnings not to give up on the rest that He offers those who have faith in Him.

While the rest of the Lord is something that is available in His coming Kingdom, it is also something that to a wide degree can be a present reality in the lives of men and women. Our author uses eiserchometha to describe this, appearing in the present middle indicative tense, indicating that a possible translation could be “We are entering” that rest. This is not just something that Believers are to partake of as a part of their faith in Yeshua, but are in the process of entering into. As they are in the process of entering into such a rest, there remains the possibility that they can leave that state. While they can experience a state of realized eschatology in their lives—future realities to be partly experienced before their full consummation—they too can leave it by denying faith in the Messiah.

From this point to v. 5, our writer focuses on the concept of “rest,” as it relates to his audience’s present experience as those who have partaken of salvation. Specifically as Lane indicates, his “argument employs the rabbinic principle and interpretation that the presence of cognate vocabulary in two passages of Scripture is designated to call attention to their mutual relationship.”[14] The specific terms that we have to look for in the Greek are the noun katapausis, “rest,” and the verb katapauō, “to rest.” The author of Hebrews takes a First Century Jewish way of interpreting Scripture, and applies it to the Greek language.

What is important to note is that while God’s rest is something that is to be fully realized in the future, it is not something from which Believers are totally separate. Even though Ancient Israel in the wilderness failed to enter the rest that He intended for them, and subsequent generations likewise followed, the author of Hebrews writes that “God’s work had been finished ever since the world was created” (REB). As Paul Ellingworth paraphrases v. 3, “God excluded the wilderness generation from his place of rest, and yet it had always been there, available for someone.”[15] That rest is now available, in part, to those who come to faith in His Son, Yeshua. To give up that rest is to make a mistake worse than Ancient Israel made at Kadesh-Barnea, where the Lord said,

“For forty years I was angry with that generation; I said, ‘They are a people whose hearts go astray, and they have not known my ways.’ So I declared on oath in my anger, ‘They shall never enter my rest’” (Psalm 95:10-11, NIV).

[4] For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: “AND GOD RESTED ON THE SEVENTH DAY FROM ALL HIS WORKS” [Genesis 2:2] [5] and again in this passage, “THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST” [Psalm 95:11].

4:4 Our author employs similar terminology in v. 4 that he has used earlier (2:6): “For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way” (RSV). This type of language is used not to haphazardly imply that “somewhere” God has said “something,” but rather to rhetorically stimulate the hearer’s mind to remember that somewhere—where you should be familiar—God has decreed something. Here, the something that the author of Hebrews knows his audience should be familiar with is Genesis 2:2: “By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.” This verse is too familiar to be forgotten by any Jew of the First Century, but also is too familiar that it can be easily overlooked in one’s personal theology and thus taken for granted. How many First Century Jews were simply raised with the weekly Shabbat as an ingrained cultural reality, that they too easily forgot the essence of it, which is that God invites men and women to experience His rest?

The author of Hebrews, possibly being of Alexandrian Jewish stock, might have even employed the statement, “For in one place it speaks about the seventh day as follows” (NRSV), to remind his audience that Philo treats the Sabbath as the rest of God, as demonstrated in the following quotations:

“An on this account too Moses calls the sabbath, which name being interpreted means ‘rest,’ ‘the sabbath of God’….by ‘rest’ I do not mean ‘inaction’ (since that which is by its nature energetic, that which is the cause of all things, can never desist from doing what is most excellent), but I mean an energy completely free from labour, without any feeling of suffering, and with the most perfect ease” (On the Cherubim 87).[16]

“And absence from all labour and fatigue is the most appropriate attribute of God…” (The Sacrifices of Abel and Cain 40).[17]

Philo primarily talks about the physical and mental benefits of resting on the Sabbath, which are certainly important. The author of Hebrews may be building upon this, and extending it to the spiritual dimension of a person, emphasizing elements that can now be fully realized by faith in Messiah Yeshua. Of course, what is important to note is that the Sabbath—even though critical to understand—is not superior to Yeshua. To give up Yeshua means giving up the rest that God intends to grant to all His people.

4:5 The author of Hebrews makes his important theological point about rest by employing the Hebraic technique of gezera shava, linking two words or concepts that share a common root. In v. 4 he writes, kai katepausen ho Theos en tē hēmera tē hebdomē, continuing in v. 5 with, ei eiseleusontai eis tēn katapausin mou. The words he links together are the verb katepausen and the noun katapausin. Lane points out that “The fact that the writer and those whom he addressed read the biblical text in Greek was crucial in this instance, since the MT used different Hebrew roots to describe God’s rest in the two passages.”[18] In Genesis 2:2, the Hebrew verb translated “rested” is nishbati, whereas in Psalm 95:11 the noun translated “rest” is menuchah. In the Greek, we see almost two identical terms, even though one is a verb and the other is a noun.

Our writer is building a case that Shabbat has both past and future elements that Believers in Yeshua are to consider. Warren A. Quanbeck summarizes quite well some of the thoughts that he may be considering:

“[The Sabbath] looked back to the creation of the world and was an enduring reminder to Jews that their God was no provincial deity but the God of the entire earth. It also served as a memorial of the covenant and recalled to the Jews their vocation as the people of God and their destiny to bring the knowledge of his name to all peoples. It looked forward to the rest that God promised to his people.”[19]

The author of Hebrews is appealing to his ancient audience’s knowledge of all the things that the Sabbath entails, not to demean it, but to demonstrate that it now takes on an even more important role for those who know Yeshua. By giving up Yeshua, one not only gives up perpetual rest, but the responsibility of being a part of God’s chosen people. We need not make this mistake even today. Those who recognize they are a part of Israel, but later give up Yeshua, will actually find themselves giving up being Israel by giving up Yeshua.

[6] Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience, [7] He again fixes a certain day, “Today,” saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before, “TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE, DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS” [Psalm 95:7-8].

4:6 Our author attests to the fact that for his audience “It still remains that some will enter that rest” (NIV). God is not at all unmerciful or unfair to His people, and the fact that there is still an opportunity for them to enter into all of the things that He has prepared for them, is evidence of this. The writer of Hebrews appeals to the failure of the Ancient Israelites at Kadesh-Barnea. He says that “those who first heard the good news failed to enter through unbelief” (NEB), but that the Lord’s mercy and grace surely did not end with that generation. This is because “again he appoints a certain day, ‘Today’” (ESV) as the day that a man or woman can repent of sin and enter into the wonderful things that God has in store.

Generations of Hebrews prior to the coming of Messiah Yeshua were striving desperately to enter into the rest that God promises throughout the Tanach. Many individuals who had faith in the Savior to come were able to enter into that rest. But then, many others because of disobedience and a lack of faith were unable. The epitome of those who were unable to enter into God’s rest was the Exodus generation, save faithful Joshua and Caleb. All those who saw God deliver Israel from Egyptian bondage died off in the wilderness.

Some would argue that Israel entered into its promised rest, as attested in the Book of Joshua, and what the author of Hebrews is arguing may actually be contrary to the Tanach. Is he arguing against previous Scripture?

“And now the LORD your God has given rest to your brothers, as He spoke to them; therefore turn now and go to your tents, to the land of your possession, which Moses the servant of the LORD gave you beyond the Jordan…Now it came about after many days, when the LORD had given rest to Israel from all their enemies on every side” (Joshua 22:4; 23:1).

Even while Joshua was able to lead the people of Israel into rest in the Promised Land, it is not the complete rest of the Lord. It is a physical rest that God promises for sure, but the rest of God is something more than just physical rest because in the Garden of Eden it involved Adam and Eve stopping their labors and communing with Him. Ellingworth observes, “The author of Hebrews comes near to contradicting such texts as Jos. 21:44 because…he does not even see Canaan as a positive antitype of God’s own [katapausis]: to him it is merely something to be contrasted with that true rest.”[20] We need to recognize how the author of Hebrews approaches the issue of rest from another angle, not intending to contradict Joshua, but adding elements to it beyond physical rest. The author of Hebrews considers God’s rest to be something that is not only physical, but a spiritual condition that must be settled in one’s heart via faith—and from this all of the different aspects of God’s rest can be experienced, leading to the Eternal State. Furthermore, we know that the rest Ancient Israel experienced in the Promised Land was only temporary, because the people quickly began rebelling against the Lord and succumbed to idolatry.

The Lord’s rest is to eventually see Creation return to what He originally intended with man and woman: one abstaining from work and communing with Him. This is a rest that no one—no matter how faithful to observe the Sabbath—has ever completely experienced, because it ultimately involves Him being present among us like He was with Adam and Eve, in the Eternal State. Certainly, Believers can partake of that experience in part, but we have yet to experience it in its fullness because God’s Kingdom has not been fully established. Many in our writer’s audience were considering giving up on Yeshua—and this profoundly awesome rest is something that they would be giving up as a result. The author of Hebrews emphasizes in v. 7 that they still have a chance not to avoid punishment, and that the day to turn back to the Lord is today, right now—because He loves every human being He has created that much.

4:7 In v. 7 we see another confirming text that the Greek Septuagint is the Bible of our author. He proceeds to quote from Psalm 95 once again, “saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted” (RSV). This psalm is anonymous in the Hebrew Masoretic text, but the LXX opens it with the words “The praise of a Song by David” (Psalm 95:1, LXE). The emphasis of the psalm, more than anything else, is what is important, because it is the repeated warning for a person not to harden his or her heart against the Lord:

“Today, if you will hear His voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, according to the day of trial in the wilderness; where your fathers tested Me, and tried Me, and saw My works” (Psalm 95:7-8, Apostle’s Bible).

The important lesson that we see in this part of the treatise may be emphasized by the Apostle Paul: “For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God” (Romans 8:14). If the target audience of Hebrews included Jewish Believers living in Rome, then they should have already heard this word, and our author is only emphasizing something that Paul has already told them. When a person becomes a son or daughter of God via adoption through faith in Yeshua, he or she should not be prone to having a hardened heart against the Lord.

[8] For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that. [9] So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. [10] For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His. [11] Therefore let us be diligent to enter that rest, so that no one will fall, through following the same example of disobedience.

4:8 Had the Ancient Israelites fully entered into God’s complete rest in the Promised Land, then “God would not have spoken later about another day” (NIV). Some Christian laypersons have interpreted these words to conclude that God would later supplant the seventh-day Sabbath with Sunday Church, but in the context of our author’s argument this is nowhere close to his line of reasoning. He is speaking of the holistic rest that is typified by Shabbat, but is only found in a person with a pure heart in right standing with the Lord. This rest is being able to stop one’s labors, and be in the complete care of the Father, in communion with Him.

The author of Hebrews writes that Joshua was unable to give the Ancient Israelites this rest. What is important to understand is that to a person reading this letter, or hearing it read aloud as a sermon or speech, is that there is no distinction in the Greek between “Joshua” and “Yeshua.” (In fact, the title of the Book of Joshua in the LXX is Iēsous.)[21] The text would be read aloud as ei gar autous Iēsous katepausen,[22] actually rendered in the KJV as “For if Jesus had given them rest.” Joshua, the successor of Moses, is often regarded as a figure who prefigured much of the ministry actions of Messiah Yeshua—but Joshua was notably not able to subdue the whole Promised Land:

“Now Joshua was old and advanced in years when the LORD said to him, ‘You are old and advanced in years, and very much of the land remains to be possessed. This is the land that remains: all the regions of the Philistines and all those of the Geshurites’” (Joshua 13:1-2).

Joshua, while bringing some of the rest that God had promised Israel in its Land, had not brought it in its entirety. The Lord tells Joshua near the time of his death, “there are still very large areas of land to be taken over” (NRSV). The complete rest, however—and all that it entails—is to be experienced is now available in Messiah Yeshua. Individuals can partake of it now on Earth, and experience the fullness of it when He returns to establish His Kingdom.

When the author writes that “another day” will come to experience this rest, this is not “Sunday Church” (or even a so-called “Sunday Sabbath”). The author is using the term “day” or hēmera as synonymous to “time.” As Donald Guthrie indicates, “He argues, on the basis of God speaking of another day, that the day of Joshua’s action could not have been the fulfillment of the promise.”[23] What is ironic, is that some laypersons, in trying to argue against the validity of the seventh-day Sabbath, often overlook an argument which is very much in favor of Believers honoring a remaining Shabbat memorial of what is to come.

4:9 Even though Joshua was unable to lead Ancient Israel into the complete rest that God intends for His people, our author says “there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.” This is the only time in the Apostolic Scriptures where the term sabbatismos is used, as the normal word for “rest” is katapausis. It is derived from the verb sabbatizō, used in the LXX meaning, “to keep the Sabbath” (LS).[24] TDNT explains that “This Sabbath rest (sabbatismós) which remains for God’s people will be the perfect sabbath of heavenly blessing toward which the pilgrim community is moving and which will mean cessation from its own labors.”[25] WBC actually renders it as “Sabbath celebration.”[26] Only by keeping the weekly Sabbath properly, can God’s people be primed to better understand all of the dimensions of the future, eschatological rest that He has promised.

How we are to approach v. 9 has been a cause of great discussion among Christian examiners, and especially for many in the Messianic community. On the one hand there is a strong sense of realized eschatology here, that we see later exemplified in Revelation 14:13: “And I heard a voice from heaven, saying, ‘Write, “Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on!”’ ‘Yes,’ says the Spirit, ‘so that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow with them.’” Ellingworth indicates that “[sabbatismos] is not contrasted with [katapausis], and the main distinction between them appears to be that they denote respectively temporal and spatial aspects of the same reality.”[27] In other words, the author of Hebrews tries to emphasize to his audience that there is a greater Sabbath rest than solely keeping the weekly Shabbat. This is a Sabbath rest that will only be fully realized in eternity.

The challenge with this is the fact that many contemporary Christians have thought that the Sabbath experience is something that is to be exclusively found passively, and not at all by keeping the weekly Shabbat in some active manner (and even if a bit misplaced, even on Sunday). Yet, the redeemed cannot hope to understand the eternal rest in God’s Kingdom, unless they understand the principle of taking one day out of their weeks and resting on the day that He has decreed as special. David H. Stern validly remarks that “The usual translation ‘There remains a Sabbath rest,’ minimizes the observance aspect and makes the role of God’s people entirely passive.”[28] The essence or substance of the Sabbath is to be found in Messiah Yeshua (Colossians 2:16-17), and is realized in Believers’ right relationship to God in Him, as opposed to meticulous rule-keeping. A mature follower of Yeshua should, however, still be able to balance the weekly Shabbat and its requirements, and greatly appreciate the promised rest and blessings that are to come in God’s restored Kingdom. This “Shabbat-keeping” (CJB) is to be more than just keeping a commandment of God; it is to be a celebration of all the things He has done for us and will do for us in the future!

4:10 Anyone who “enters God's rest also ceases from his labors as God did from his” (RSV). For Believers to begin to experience such rest, they have to stop working on Shabbat. By abstaining from their work, God’s people can enter into a special one-on-one time with their Creator. Guthrie surprisingly summarizes what Messiah followers need to be focusing their attention upon, quite well:

“God’s people share his rest. What he did, they do. By becoming identified with him, they enter into his experiences. There is no doubt that the writer is implying that the believer’s present sabbath rest is as much a reality as God’s rest.”[29]

4:11 The author of Hebrews exhorts his audience to “strive” (RSV) or “make every effort” (NRSV) to enter into this wonderful rest. The verb spouazō specifically means, “to be especially conscientious in discharging an obligation, be zealous/eager, take pains, make every effort, be conscientious” (BDAG).[30] The Amplified Bible summarizes all of these concepts, saying, “Let us therefore be zealous and exert ourselves and strive diligently to enter that rest.” Those who have acknowledged Messiah Yeshua are to make every effort to be faithful to enter into the rest that God has prepared for the redeemed. It can begin with remembering the weekly Sabbath—but it by no means ends there. It ends when all enter into God’s Kingdom in the Eternal State. First Century Jewish theology widely held that the Messianic Age is a type of Sabbath (b.Sanhedrin 97a), but the Millennium as grand as it will be, will not be as glorious as the eternity we will spend with our Lord and Savior afterward.

Does the author of Hebrews have more than just the weekly Sabbath in mind when writing to his audience? While he is certainly not demeaning Shabbat—because if he were he would be speaking against rest—he is repeating that if a professed Believer gives up Yeshua, he or she gives up the rest of God demonstrated on many different levels. How many of those thinking about denying Yeshua in the First Century considered this? How many people who consider giving up on Yeshua today consider this? At the very least, how much of the author’s perspective on Divine rest challenges us to consider the different aspects of Shabbat?

[12] For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. [13] And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.

4:12 Our author directly appeals to the authority of Scripture for the basis of his claims, as he is not communicating anything that should be new for his largely Jewish audience which was familiar with the Torah and the Tanach. He writes, zōn gar ho logos tou Theou kai energēs kai tomōteros, which NLT renders as “For the word of God is full of living power.” These are concepts that are emphasized all throughout the Bible. The Psalmist entreats the Lord, “Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me and know my anxious thoughts” (Psalm 139:23). The admonition here is that the Word of God is to try and test people to make sure that they are being conformed to God’s will and purpose in their lives. For Believers in Yeshua, this is extended to becoming more and more like the Messiah in the life of faith.

We need to understand that the reference to the “word of God” in this verse is to Scripture, and need not fall into the misunderstanding that Yeshua is being referred to here. Ellingworth notes, “The christological explanation has generally been abandoned since Calvin, even by A.T. Hanson…who interprets the…passage christologically. If the word of God were intended to mean Christ, one would not expect him to be compared with an inanimate object such as a weapon.”[31] Of course, using the Word of God properly is connected to our faith in Yeshua, because it is to confirm that Messiah followers are proceeding along the proper path and are growing spiritually.

The Word of God being active or alive is a concept that we see exemplified many, many times throughout the Scriptures. The following is an important collection of references:

“The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever; the judgments of the LORD are true; they are righteous altogether. They are more desirable than gold, yes, than much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and the drippings of the honeycomb. Moreover, by them Your servant is warned; in keeping them there is great reward” (Psalm 19:7-10).

“The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever…So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; it will not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it” (Isaiah 40:8; 55:11).

“In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures” (James 1:18).

“Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart, for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God” (1 Peter 1:22-23).[32]

The martyr Stephen describes the Word of God as being “living oracles” (Acts 7:38), which Moses had the responsibility to pass on to the people.

The Word of God has extreme power in it. Wisdom 18:15-16 in the Apocrypha describes it as being a powerful warrior and a sword that enters into the sinful world of mortals:

“[T]hy all-powerful word leaped from heaven, from the royal throne, into the midst of the land that was doomed, a stern warrior carrying the sharp sword of thy authentic command, and stood and filled all things with death, and touched heaven while standing on the earth.”

We may also be reminded of how Paul emphasizes, “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (Ephesians 6:17). In his teachings, Paul emphasizes, “Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah” (1 Thessalonians 5:23). The Word of God is to penetrate a person’s entire being, so that a man or woman can know what is right and wrong and be sustained by the Lord.

The author of Hebrews, probably a student of Paul, is not writing anything contrary to these views—but he does add to them. He writes that Scripture “is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (KJV). The term kritikos means “able to discern, critical” (LS).[33] The Bible, whether we consciously realize it or not, is our ultimate “critic,” as “It sifts the purposes and thoughts of the heart” (NEB).

The power of the Word of God is very serious for His people to comprehend. Our author writes his audience, “Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight” (NIV). Certainly, if some of them were considering denying Messiah Yeshua, then the Word of God would be able to expose them for what they truly were. Because of the awesome power of God’s Word, “all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account” (ESV). This does not only extend to those who think that they can deny Yeshua and get away with it, but those who think they can function as “God,” judging their fellow brothers and sisters. Paul writes about this in greater detail in Romans 14:10-12:

“But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. For it is written, ‘AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME, AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD’ [Isaiah 49:18; 45:23]. So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.”

Certainly, if one of the principal audiences of our author’s treatise was in Rome, then once again he was only reemphasizing concepts that Paul had already written them.

4:13 The premise of being “exposed to the eyes of the One with whom we have to reckon” (NEB) is true of Believers every bit as it is true of non-Believers, a sure penetrating thought offered by the author of Hebrews. Even those who do not consider denying the Lord Yeshua can still suffer a loss of reward. Paul writes the Corinthians that only those works built upon Yeshua will last:

“For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Yeshua the Messiah. Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire” (1 Corinthians 3:11-15).

In writing, “all things are open and laid bare” in v. 13, our writer notably employs the verb trachēlizō, often used in secular Greek “of wrestlers, to bend the neck back, and so to overpower,” and in the Apostolic Scriptures, “to have one's neck bent back so that the throat gapes when cut: hence, to be laid open” (LS).[34] With the Word of God immediately in view (v. 12), we have to each consider, how in a manner of speaking, that the Bible is so powerful that it can come up behind a person without looking, pull his neck back, and even slit his throat. This is especially true of anyone who is not in the Word and asking the Lord to continually convict himself or herself of sins. At an unexpected moment, the Scriptures can come upon someone from behind and overtake one who is not living a life of holiness. This is a condition in which no true Believer in Yeshua should ever be.

If Messiah followers are not grounded in the entire Word of God, then they will not have the ability to defend ourselves against the enemy. Furthermore, Believers will not know what God expects from them and when He is disapproving of their actions. This was obviously the case of many of our author’s First Century audience. They had strayed from the path of faith, and now were going to be exposed by the very Word that many of them claimed to uphold. The hard truth of the matter is that those failing to repent would not be overtaken by Satan, but rather by God.

In some ways, we are reminded of the Apostle Paul’s words that in the Last Days, “God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness” (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12). This “strong delusion” (KJV) is not sent by Satan—it is sent by God. The Word of God is able to test and critique each one of us to make sure that we truly know Him. Let us not be so arrogant to think that we can ignore the Word and its instructions. We cannot, because when we think we have gotten away with sin, errant behavior or attitudes—and especially rejecting Yeshua—the Word may suddenly come from behind and get us.

[14] Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Yeshua the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. [15] For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. [16] Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

4:14 From v. 14 onward through ch. 9, our author begins a series of off-and-on references to Yeshua the Messiah as High Priest. What we see is largely an exposition on Psalm 110:4, “The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind, ‘You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.’” Yeshua functions as High Priest in Heaven in a position and role that is superior to that of Aaron. Lane makes the important observation, “Jesus’ high priestly ministry is the guarantee that God’s people will celebrate the Sabbath in his presence.”[35]

Generally, the Jewish people of the First Century looked upon the priests favorably. The historian Josephus attests, “the priests were not at all hindered from their sacred ministrations…but did still twice each day, in the morning and about the ninth hour, offer their sacrifices on the altar; nor did they omit those sacrifices, if any melancholy accident happened, by the stones that were thrown among them” (Antiquities of the Jews 14.65).[36] In this particular instance, Josephus is recording the history of Pompey’s subjugation of the Land of Israel, and he is able to pridefully say, “anyone may hence learn how very great piety we exercise towards God, and the observance of his laws” (Ibid.)[37] However, even though our author’s contemporaries probably had some level of respect toward the normal kohanim or priests, most did not likely have respect for the ha’kohen ha’gadol or the high priest. This view is reflected in the Talmud:

“Abba Saul b. Bothnith said in the name of Abba Joseph b. Hanin: ‘Woe is me because of the house of Boethus; woe is me because of their staves! Woe is me because of the house of Hanin, woe is me because of their whisperings! Woe is me because of the house of Kathros, woe is me because of their pens! Woe is me because of the house of Ishmael the son of Phabi, woe is me because of their fists! For they are High Priests and their sons are [Temple] treasurers and their sons-in-law are trustees and their servants beat the people with staves’” (b.Pesachim 57a).[38]

The reason that the Jews of the First Century did not have a high opinion for the high priest was because the Sadducees were largely in league with the Roman occupiers of Judea. The position of high priest became a political appointment for Rome, as the high priest in turn was responsible for the collection and dispersion of Temple monies. A large portion of these funds would be siphoned off to the Roman government. The office of high priest was greatly abused, and nepotism flourished. And, by the time of our author writing his composition, many Jews may have become fed up with a priesthood that, for a variety of political reasons mostly, and some spiritual reasons, did fail them. It is probable that the author of Hebrews is relying upon these kinds of attitudes to be present among his audience so that they could easily look toward Yeshua functioning as High Priest, and they could focus their attention toward Him rather than the Temple system that was on the verge of falling.

Yeshua, as the Son of God, functions in an exalted state as High Priest in Heaven, and is far superior to any human priest. The Apostle Paul attests, “He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things” (Ephesians 4:10). Our author will further state, “For this is the kind of high priest we need: holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens” (7:26, HCSB). Because of these important attributes, our writer admonishes his audience, “let us hold firmly to the faith we profess” (NIV). The verb krateō is generally used in the Apostolic Scriptures to mean “to seize.” Its usage in the LXX includes “such senses as ‘to be strong,’ ‘to have power,’ ‘to rule,’ ‘to take control, and ‘to hold’” (TDNT).[39] Because of Yeshua’s unique abilities as High Priest, all Believers in Him must powerfully latch on to the faith that they have been given. Certainly, when we observe Shabbat today (v. 9), do we do so with the intention of appealing to our Father in Heaven via His Son, the High Priest?

4:15 One of Yeshua’s unique abilities is exemplified in the fact that He “has been tested as we are, yet without sin” (NRSV). Yeshua, having come down from Heaven and taken on mortality, experienced the same things that other human beings do, so that He could be the perfect sacrifice. This is easily understood from a summary of Apostolic teaching:

“He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Corinthians 5:21).

“For you have been called for this purpose, since Messiah also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH [Isaiah 53:9]; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed” (1 Peter 2:21-24).

“You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin” (1 John 3:5).

The unique feature of Yeshua’s life and ministry, of course, is that while He experienced the same things as all mortals do, as God in the flesh He lacked the fallen human nature. Bruce renders v. 15 as, “he has endured trial in all respects like ourselves, while remaining free from sin” (NICNT).[40] Nevertheless, Yeshua did partake of the human experience, and because of this He has the unique capacity to sympathize with mortals in their petitions before the Father. The verb sumpatheō specifically means, “to have/show sympathy with” (BDAG).[41] deSilva validly remarks that Yeshua “is perfectly suited as a broker between humans, for whom he has complete sympathy (and hence greater willingness and eagerness to help), and God, with whom he remains in an unblemished relationship at all times.”[42]

While Yeshua the Messiah did legitimately partake of humanity, He did not partake of fallen humanity. Lane candidly states, “The writer nowhere suggests that Jesus had to become identical to fallen humanity in order to redeem it.”[43] Because of this, Yeshua was able to offer Himself up as a sacrifice for mortal sins, but did not have to offer a sacrifice “for His own sins” (7:27; cf. 9:14).

4:16 The result of Yeshua’s work as intermediary for human beings is so that they may “boldly approach the throne of our gracious God” (NEB). The verb proserchomai sometimes means “to come forward to speak” (LS).[44] Those who have been redeemed by the work of Yeshua have the right to go before God and petition Him. As Stibbs summarizes it, “This privilege, formerly restricted to a select few, is now extended to all the people of God. Also, it is not just a symbolic earthly shrine that we can enter, but the very presence of God.”[45]

The Ark of the Covenant used to stand in the Holy of Holies, unapproachable by the people, except the high priest alone on Yom Kippur. The Psalmist records, “The LORD reigns, let the peoples tremble; He is enthroned above the cherubim, let the earth shake!” (Psalm 99:1).[46] The presence of God in His Temple was to be an awesome sight to behold, one that you did not simply “go up to” except at certain, designated times. Now in Messiah Yeshua, and Him functioning as High Priest, can those who have placed their trust in Him now “approach the throne of grace with confidence” (NIV) at any time. The “throne of grace” may also be understood as the “mercy seat” (9:5). It is an awesome concept for anyone to behold, as the prayers of people go right to the throne room in the Heavenly Temple. The Book of Revelation gives a picture of how this presently works:

“Another angel came and stood at the altar, holding a golden censer; and much incense was given to him, so that he might add it to the prayers of all the saints on the golden altar which was before the throne. And the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the saints, went up before God out of the angel's hand” (Revelation 8:3-4).

The author of Hebrews writes about all of this because those thinking about giving up on Yeshua give up on the opportunity to enter into God’s very presence. Yeshua functions before the Father on our behalf, relaying our prayers, ever interceding for people. He describes this function of the Messiah after describing Him as mediator (ch. 2) and priest (chs. 2, 4). The “confidence,” “boldness” (NRSV), or “freedom” (YLT) that men and women are to have is available only for those who have been redeemed and know the Father via the Son. Parrēsia means “freespokenness, openness, frankness” (LS),[47] and is used by Philo to describe the one-on-one relationship that Abraham had when approaching God. He writes that “the most admirable virtues are boldness and freedom of speech at suitable times towards one’s betters” (Who Is the Heir of Divine Things? 5).[48]

These comments are made regarding Abraham approaching God about his offspring, and the fact that only Eliezear of Damascus was his heir (Genesis 15:2-3). Because Abraham had a special relationship with God, he was able to speak frankly with Him. Lane summarizes that “This is precisely the attitude that the hearers of Hebrews are encouraged to adopt in speaking with God…Because they have a high priest who empathizes with them they can go with frankness to the throne of grace and receive timely help in their distress.”[49] Being able to have such parrēsia, though, does not mean that people are to haphazardly approach the Lord in their prayers—for even with a confidence of being able to approach Him, one must still stand respectfully in His awesome and supreme presence. Yet, if anyone ever considers giving up or reneging on Yeshua, such a person is likewise giving up on the ability to go to God with confidence and frankness, forfeiting the opportunity for Divine help and intervention when it is needed.

ENDNOTES FOR Commentary on Hebrews 4

[1] Kenneth L. Barker, ed., et. al., NIV Study Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 1901.

[2] Hegg, Hebrews, 61.

[3] The Soncino Talmud. Judaic Classics Library II.

[4] Lane, 47a:98.

[5] LS, 412.

[6] BDB, 630.

[7] Ibid., 992.

[8] Leonard J. Coppes, “nuach,” in TWOT, 2:562.

[9] BDAG, 255.

[10] LS, 322.

[11] Hagner, in New Interpreter’s Study Bible, 2157.

[12] Bruce, Hebrews, pp 105-106.

[13] deSilva, 153.

[14] Lane, 47a:99.

[15] Ellingworth, 245.

[16] The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged, 89.

[17] Ibid., 99.

[18] Lane, 47a:95.

[19] Quanbeck, in The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, 903.

[20] Ellingworth, 254.

[21] This is definitive proof against the errant and blasphemous claim that the Greek Iēsous, from which the English name “Jesus” is derived, actually comes from “Zeus” or from paganism. The Septuagint was the first Bible translation ever produced, translated by the Jewish Rabbis for Jews living in the Diaspora, and its Jewish translators coined the form Iēsous, the transliteration used for the names Yehoshua and Yeshua. Iēsous, contrary to what some people in the Messianic movement may think, is a name of Jewish origin. In fact, the names Iēsous and Zeus or “Zeus” have two totally different spellings and pronunciations in Greek. For a further examination of this issue, consult the author’s article “Sacred Name Concerns.”

[22] UBSHNT makes a distinction between Yeshua and Yehoshua, rendering v. 8 as ilu he’b’yam Yehoshua al ha-menuchah.

[23] Guthrie, Hebrews, 115.

[24] LS, 722.

Cf. Exodus 16:30; Leviticus 23:32; 26:34-35; 2 Chronicles 26:21 (LXX).

[25] E. Lohse, “the Sabbath,” in TDNT, 992.

[26] Lane, 47a:93.

[27] Ellingworth, 255.

[28] Stern, 673.

[29] Guthrie, Hebrews, 116.

[30] BDAG, 939.

[31] Ellingworth, 261.

[32] Cf. Psalm 107:20; 147:15, 18.

[33] LS, 451.

[34] Ibid., 815.

[35] Lane, 47a:103.

[36] The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged, 370.

[37] Ibid., pp 369-370.

[38] The Soncino Talmud. Judaic Classics Library II.

[39] W. Michaelis, “power, strength,” in TDNT, 467.

[40] Bruce, Hebrews, 114.

[41] BDAG, 958.

[42] deSilva, 182.

[43] Lane, 47a:115.

[44] LS, 690.

[45] Stibbs, in NBCR, 1200.

[46] Cf. 2 Samuel 6:2; Psalm 80:1; Isaiah 37:16; cf. Psalm 22:3.

[47] LS, 611.

[48] The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged, 276.

[49] Lane, 47a:115-116.

HEBREWS 5

COMMENTARY

[1] For every high priest taken from among men is appointed on behalf of men in things pertaining to God, in order to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins; [2] he can deal gently with the ignorant and misguided, since he himself also is beset with weakness; [3] and because of it he is obligated to offer sacrifices for sins, as for the people, so also for himself. [4] And no one takes the honor to himself, but receives it when he is called by God, even as Aaron was.

5:1 The author of Hebrews compares and contrasts the functions of the Earthly high priest (Heb. ha’kohen ha’gadol; Grk. archiereus), with the Heavenly ministry in which Yeshua the Messiah functions as High Priest. Vs. 1-4, while legitimately mentioning some of the limitations of the human high priest, especially given First Century C.E. circumstances, are still quite laudatory of the office. Our author introduces some new material in supporting this premise, but also reviews some previously addressed material. The theme of Yom Kippur or the Day of Atonement will later be interjected (cf. 7:27; 10:4, 12, 26), and over a series of chapters our writer will appropriate ideas and concepts from the high priest and his Earthly service, to Yeshua’s ministry and function before the Father in Heaven.

We first see a description of the human high priest who would function before God in the Tabernacle, and consequently also in the Temple. V. 1 states that “Every high priest [is] chosen from among mortals” (NRSV). A human priest is chosen on behalf of his other human beings to go before the Lord and deliver specific offerings for the covering of their sins. An important part of our author’s argument is that although priests are called forth to serve the people of Israel, the function they serve affects all of humanity. While the Levitical priesthood would definitively serve the community of Israel, it did play a role for all of humankind as well. Israel, after all, was to serve as God’s representatives to the nations of the world at large.

The job of the high priest is that he was to offer dōra te kai thusias or “gifts and sacrifices” before God for the covering of sins. The phraseology “gifts and sacrifices” is unique to Alexandrian Judaism, and some use this as evidence that our author was from Alexandria, possibly Apollos. It is used in the Epistle of Aristeas in the Pseudepigrapha:

“(The king) praised him generously and asked the tenth guest, ‘What is the highest form of glory?’ The reply was, ‘Honoring God. This is not done with gifts or sacrifices, but with purity of heart and of devout disposition, as everything is ordained by God and ordered according to his will’” (234).[1]

5:2 The human high priest is appointed by God because he can easily identify with “those who are ignorant and going astray” (NIV). These words parallel those of King David: “I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek Your servant, for I do not forget Your commandments” (Psalm 119:176). The high priest who was appointed by the Lord was to be a man who knew the ills of the people he was to intercede for, so he could properly convey them before God in the Holy of Holies. The problem is that by the time of the First Century, the position of the high priesthood had been largely degraded, hence our author’s usage of agnoousin kai planōmenois, “ignorant and erring” (NEB), as the high priest himself is stated to be “himself also...beset with weakness.” Tim Hegg is keen to note that “Such language no doubt has in mind the manner in which the priesthood was besmerched by appointing men not nearly qualified to function in such a strategic position.”[2] Many Bible readers are too quick to conclude that various Pharisees were some of the principal critics of Yeshua, without balancing it with how it was ultimately the chief priests and the scribes—those of the party of the Sadducees—who had Him executed and thus bear the brunt of responsibility (John 11:47-53). For the author of Hebrews, Yeshua the Messiah now fills a role that in his time was often occupied by those who were incompetent, inept, and even sinful.

An able high priest is to perform some critical functions according to the Torah. More than anything else, he is to identify with the sins of people and convey them adequately before the Lord. V. 2 includes some likely allusions to these concepts that we see spoken of in the Torah:

“Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘If a person sins unintentionally in any of the things which the LORD has commanded not to be done, and commits any of them, if the anointed priest sins so as to bring guilt on the people, then let him offer to the LORD a bull without defect as a sin offering for the sin he has committed’” (Leviticus 4:2-3).

“If a person acts unfaithfully and sins unintentionally against the LORD's holy things, then he shall bring his guilt offering to the LORD: a ram without defect from the flock, according to your valuation in silver by shekels, in terms of the shekel of the sanctuary, for a guilt offering. He shall make restitution for that which he has sinned against the holy thing, and shall add to it a fifth part of it and give it to the priest. The priest shall then make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering, and it will be forgiven him” (Leviticus 5:15-16).

“The priest shall make atonement before the LORD for the person who goes astray when he sins unintentionally, making atonement for him that he may be forgiven. You shall have one law for him who does anything unintentionally, for him who is native among the sons of Israel and for the alien who sojourns among them” (Numbers 15:28-29).

The key to a good high priest is that he can “deal gently,” “is able to bear patiently” (NEB), or “can be moderate” (Lattimore) with the people he serves. The verb metriopatheō often “denotes moderation in passion” (TDNT).[3] A priest had to be moderate in his judgment of others, “since he himself is subject to weakness” (NIV). Even Aaron himself participated in the idolatry of the golden calf (Exodus 32:24), but because of his repentance was able to be restored to serve. By the First Century, however, the corrupt priesthood of the Sadducees had largely forgotten all of these important characteristics. F.F. Bruce observes, “from the fall of the house of Zadok to the destruction of the temple 240 years later there were few high priests in Israel who manifested the personal qualities so indispensable for their office.”[4]

5:3 In his service on Yom Kippur the high priest is indebted to not only offer a sacrifice for the sin of the people, but also for his own sins because of his mortal limitations. Leviticus 16:11 specifies, “Then Aaron shall offer the bull of the sin offering which is for himself and make atonement for himself and for his household, and he shall slaughter the bull of the sin offering which is for himself” (cf. 16:6, 15-17). Aaron, as the first high priest, had to offer up a sacrifice for his house, and this obviously passed down to his successors. In Second Temple times, the Mishnah specifies that three specific sets of sacrifices were offered by the high priest on Yom Kippur:

1. A sacrifice was offered on behalf of the high priest for his own sins and those of his house:

“He came over to his bullock. Now his bullock was set between the Porch and the Altar. Its head was to the south and its face to the west. And the priest stands at the east, with his face to the west. And he puts his two hands on it and states the confession” (m.Yoma 3:8; cf. Leviticus 16:30).[5]

2. The high priest would offer sacrifices on behalf of the other priests:

“And he came to his bullock a second time…and put his two hands on it and made the confession. And thus did he say, ‘O Lord, I have committed iniquity, transgressed and sinned before you, I and my house and the children of Aaron, your holy people’” (m.Yoma 4:2).[6]

3. The high priest would finally offer a sacrifice for the people of Israel:

“He comes to the goat which is to be sent forth and lays his two hands on it and makes the confession. And thus did he say, ‘O Lord, your people, the house of Israel, has committed iniquity, transgressed, and sinned before you. Forgive, O Lord, I pray, the iniquities, transgressions, and sins, which your people, the house of Israel, have committed, transgressed, and sinned before you’” (m.Yoma 6:2).[7]

William L. Lane remarks that our author “asserts that the high priest’s oneness with other men and women in human weakness and need was kept alive by his continual obligation to make atonement offerings for himself as well as for others in Israel.”[8] Yeshua the Messiah, however, now serving as High Priest, was “without sin” (4:15) and thus did not need to offer a sacrifice for Himself.

As the Son of God, Yeshua the Messiah is able to fulfill, yet transcend, the original role of a Levitical priest. We see in v. 6 that Yeshua’s priesthood begins with that of Melchizedek, as the priesthood of Melchizedek itself looked forward to the Levitical priesthood of Aaron and beyond. Yeshua’s priesthood is summarized by His Divine appointment from the Father, His perfect humanity, His ability to sympathize with men and women because of His participation in humanity, and finally His sacrificial work for sinners. Yeshua, in no uncertain terms, is truly portrayed by the author of Hebrews as the Ultimate High Priest.

5:4 Our author emphasizes that “nobody assumes the office on his own authority: he is called by God, just as Aaron was” (REB). The understanding of Yeshua needing to be High Priest should have been very easy for our writer’s First Century Jewish audience to comprehend, because of the problems that the office of high priest often caused for the Jewish people of the era. In the Messiah’s day, the corrupt Sadducees had largely usurped the office of high priest. The role of high priest in the First Century had largely become a political appointment, per the Roman occupation of Judea. The Pharisees, in particular, expressed extreme outrage as the high priest’s power led to corruption and disdain, as detailed in the Talmud:

“It was taught, Abba Saul said: There were sycamore treetrunks in Jericho, and the men of violence seized them by force, [whereupon] the owners arose and consecrated them to Heaven. And it was of these and of such as these that Abba Saul b. Bothnith said in the name of Abba Joseph b. Hanin: ‘Woe is me because of the house of Boethus; woe is me because of their staves! Woe is me because of the house of Hanin, woe is me because of their whisperings! Woe is me because of the house of Kathros, woe is me because of their pens! Woe is me because of the house of Ishmael the son of Phabi, woe is me because of their fists! For they are High Priests and their sons are [Temple] treasurers and their sons-in-law are trustees and their servants beat the people with staves’” (b.Pesachim 57a; cf. b.Yoma 8b-9a).[9]

In spite of the strong animosity that was held for those who functioned as high priest in the First Century, we do see some positive sentiments on behalf of people for the office of high priest (Josephus Wars of the Jews 4.164; Philo The Special Laws 1.142). However, in spite of this, the office was not as respected as it was during the time of Aaron and his immediate successors. The negative views of the Pharisees were not the only ones extant within Second Temple Judaism, as the Qumran community likewise was looking for the restoration of the office of high priest to its former pristineness, which is one of the reasons that they remained secluded in the desert.

The author of Hebrews primarily writes to a very broad Jewish audience, and as such must address a variety of beliefs and opinions surrounding the high priesthood. His overall point is that his readers must look to Yeshua as High Priest. For an audience which was facing down the destruction of the Second Temple, this would be most important. The Jewish people were about to be cut off from their central locus in Jerusalem, and Jewish Believers needed to know what was going to be done about the priesthood.

Only by a series of specific circumstances could priests serving in Israel not be of Aaronic or Levitical descent. Samuel, who was of the tribe of Ephraim (1 Samuel 1:1, 20), was raised up by God as a judge, prophet, and priest during the time of the Philistine siege (1 Samuel 7:8-17). If Yeshua is now Israel’s High Priest, then it must be justified with strong evidence of His Divine call, which our writer proceeds to give. David A. deSilva explains, “The mediator of the New Covenant…is a more effective broker not only on account of his proximity to God in space and familial relationship, but also on account of the absence of any affront to God in his own life.”[10] Yeshua said that “I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do” (John 17:4), and our writer now details some of the critical components of the work given to the Son by the Father.

[5] So also Messiah did not glorify Himself so as to become a high priest, but He who said to Him, “YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU” [Psalm 2:7]; [6] just as He says also in another passage, “YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK” [Psalm 110:4].

5:5-6 In significant contrast to how the role of high priest had been largely usurped in the First Century, Yeshua the Messiah “did not exalt himself to be made a high priest” (RSV). Because of Yeshua’s Divine Sonship, He can serve as both Redeemer and High Priest, but the work He performs is notably done via the appointment of His Father. Yeshua’s calling as High Priest is justified via the appropriation of two royal psalms by our author.

The first assertion, repeating what has already been said (1:5), is from Psalm 2:7: “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.” Secondly, concurrent with this, Psalm 110:4 affirms, “You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.” Yeshua the Messiah, having been incarnated in the world of mortals (v. 2), as One who is to be worshipped (1:5-6), and One who rules alongside His Father (1:13; Psalm 110:1), is One who has also been appointed to the permanent priestly office, after the order of Melchizedek.

Yeshua is appointed as a priest after the example of Melchizedek (Genesis 14). The Patriarch Abraham encountered this elusive figure, who interestingly enough, brought out bread and wine to him, two symbols which Bible readers often associate with Yeshua and His institution of the New Covenant at the Last Supper:

“And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; now he was a priest of God Most High. He blessed him and said, ‘Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth; and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand.’ He gave him a tenth of all” (Genesis 14:18-20).

What is important about this scene is that when King David claimed Jerusalem (Salem) as his capital (2 Samuel 5:6), he and his descendants after him received the priestly duties of Melchizedek as their own. 2 Samuel 8:18 attests that “Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over the Cherethites and the Pelethites; and David's sons were chief ministers.” The Hebrew text actually says that David’s sons were kohanim or “priests” (RSV). As Bruce observes, “he and his heirs became successors to Melchizedek’s kingship, and probably also (in a titular capacity at least) to the priesthood of God Most High.”[11] Yeshua, as a descendant of David (Matthew 1:1; Luke 2:4), was an inheritor of both David’s kingly and priestly duties. It cannot go unnoticed by readers how the Qumran community believed that both a lay and kingly messiah was going to come and redeem Israel:

“They shall depart none from the counsels of the Law to walk in all the stubbornness of their hearts, but shall be ruled by the primitive precepts in which the men of the Community were first instructed until there shall come the Prophet and the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel” (1QS 9.10-11).[12]

The author of Hebrews similarly sees the roles of “Aaron” and “Israel” fulfilled in one Person. Yeshua the Messiah is portrayed as fulfilling both the priestly and kingly roles in his treatise, as evidenced by His ministry on Earth and current ministry in Heaven.

[7] In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety.

5:7 What makes Yeshua the Messiah the able High Priest, is that “In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications” (RSV). Our author employs the phrase en tais hēmerais tēs sarkos, “in the days of the flesh,” emphasizing the historicity of Yeshua’s life, because Yeshua the Messiah lived out a genuine human experience. While Yeshua was on Earth, “he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears” (NIV). Yeshua suffered and endured for fallen humanity.

“Prayer and praise,” deēseis te kai hiketērias, are concepts that many among Hebrews’ Diaspora audience should have been familiar with. We first see a reference to this in the Apocrypha:

“When Maccabeus and his men got word that Lysias was besieging the strongholds, they and all the people, with lamentations and tears, besought the Lord to send a good angel to save Israel” (2 Maccabees 11:6).

“Then the priests in all their vestments prostrated themselves and entreated the supreme God to aid in the present situation and to avert the violence of this evil design, and they filled the temple with cries and tears” (3 Maccabees 1:16).

“But the Jews, at their last gasp, since the time had run out, stretched their hands toward heaven and with most tearful supplication and mournful dirges implored the supreme God to help them again at once” (3 Maccabees 5:25).

We see further parallels in the Pseudepigrapha, describing humans’ relationship to God:

“In the heaven below them are the messengers who carry the responses to the angels of the Lord’s presence. There with him are thrones and authorities; there praises to God are offered eternally” (Testament of Levi 3:8).[13]

“If anyone prospers more than you, do not be aggrieved, but pray for him that he may prosper completely, for this is what is precisely to your advantage” (Testament of Gad 7:2).[14]

Describing himself, the historian Josephus recorded that “just then was he in an ecstasy; and setting before him the tremendous images of the dreams he had lately had, he put up a secret prayer to God…And I protest openly, that I do not go over to the Romans as a deserter of the Jews, but as a minister from thee” (Jewish War 3.353-354).[15] We also see some important portrayals of prayer by Philo in his work Who Is the Heir? 1-29,[16] demonstrating the agonies of Abraham and Moses. Lane observes, “Like Abraham, Jesus prayed with fervent cries (14), and like Moses, with deep emotion (19). Like Abraham, his prayers were accompanied by…a godly fear expressed in the recognition of God’s sovereignty and submission to the divine will (22, 24-29). What distinguishes Hebrews from the hellenistic-Jewish tradition of effective prayer is the emphasis on the significance of the passion of Jesus.”[17]

These are the varied types of usages that we see exemplified in the ministry experiences of Yeshua while on Earth. Yeshua continually beseeched His Father, praised Him, as well as prayed to Him in dire circumstances. “When He approached Jerusalem, He saw the city and wept over it” (Luke 19:41). Yeshua recognized that while on Earth, His Father would surely be able to save Him from death, but instead as an obedient Son He willingly allowed Himself to be humiliated and unjustly executed. Yeshua did not waver in fulfilling the Father’s will for Him while at Gethsemane, in spite of Him being greatly unnerved by the agony, knowing that He was to die:

“When He arrived at the place, He said to them, ‘Pray that you may not enter into temptation.’ And He withdrew from them about a stone's throw, and He knelt down and began to pray, saying, ‘Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Yours be done.’ Now an angel from heaven appeared to Him, strengthening Him. And being in agony He was praying very fervently; and His sweat became like drops of blood, falling down upon the ground. When He rose from prayer, He came to the disciples and found them sleeping from sorrow, and said to them, ‘Why are you sleeping? Get up and pray that you may not enter into temptation’” (Luke 22:40-46; cf. Matthew 26:36-46; Mark 14:32-43).

The most significant of all the instances when Yeshua does not give up is when He was actually on the cross itself, and He cried out to His Father:

“About the ninth hour Yeshua cried out with a loud voice, saying, ‘ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?’ that is, ‘MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?’” (Matthew 27:46).

Contrary to some popular views, Yeshua’s quotation from Psalm 22:1, “My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?,” is actually a recognition of the Father’s authority and sovereignty over the Son’s situation on the cross. David proclaims in this psalm, “But You, O LORD, be not far off; O You my help, hasten to my assistance. Deliver my soul from the sword, my only life from the power of the dog. Save me from the lion's mouth; from the horns of the wild oxen You answer me” (Psalm 22:19-21). God’s promise to David is that He will deliver him, just as Yeshua was ultimately delivered via His resurrection and triumph over the grave. Yeshua’s ultimate service for humankind as Priest is also an indication of His triumph over sin and over Satan. Yeshua endured hardship, unlike any other priest in Israel’s history.

The reason Yeshua was heard by His Father was “because of his reverent submission” (NIV) or “godly fear” (RSV). The Greek term eulabeia means “reverent awe in the presence of God, awe, fear of God” (BDAG).[18] Yeshua was the humblest man who ever lived on Earth, and exemplified the true character of what it means to be High Priest. In contrast to the high priest in the First Century who was largely a Roman political puppet interested in padding his accounts, Yeshua served humanity to the fullest. He did not flaunt His piety, but used it privately to entreat His Heavenly Father in the extremely important matters of accomplishing His will.

[8] Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered. [9] And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation, [10] being designated by God as a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

5:8 The author of Hebrews makes an interesting transition in his argument, writing that “even though Jesus was God's Son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered” (NLT). The remarks might make one wonder, especially if the Son is a legitimate part of the Godhead along with the Father, why Yeshua would have to “learn” anything at all, if God surely knows all things. The main issue in view is not the omniscience of God, but rather the personal experience in humanity and suffering, that only direct involvement and interaction can bring. Yeshua participated in the human experience, and because of this He can readily identify with human beings before the Father—and perhaps more importantly, people should be able to more readily identify with Him. Yeshua having come to Earth to die for human sins, no longer makes God distant and detached from the human beings He has created.

A variety of interpreters, not always acquainted with the distinct Jewish character of our author, will only make conclusions here, based on what they know from Ancient Hellenism. The HarperCollins Study Bible, for example, indicates that “To learn through what one has suffered is a Greek proverb.”[19] It is true that there is a wordplay in the Greek text of v. 8, emathen aph hōn epathen, describing Yeshua’s learning via His suffering. Donald Hagner indicates that it is “used of Jesus only here in the NT,” and that “He reached a new level in the experience of obedience, fulfilling God’s plan through his death.”[20] It is possible that learning via suffering is rooted in some Hellenistic philosophies. But, suffering leading to learning resulting in some sort of “perfection” is not exclusively a Hellenistic idea. Lane is keen to note, “The parallels in Greek literature…are not the significant factor for understanding v8.”[21]

The verb teleioō, meaning “to make perfect, complete” (LS),[22] is used in the Septuagint in reference to what Lane calls “a special cultic sense of consecration to priestly service.”[23] Notable in our writer’s argument is the LXX rendering of Leviticus 4:5, “And the anointed priest who has been consecrated having received of the blood of the calf, shall then bring it into the tabernacle of witness” (LXE). The Hebrew only says, “Then the anointed priest is to take some of the blood of the bull and bring it to the tent of meeting,” reading as ha’kohen ha’mashiach, “The anointed Kohen” (ATS). The Septuagint expands this as ho hiereus ho christos ho teteleiōmenos, which could be rendered as “the anointed priest who has been perfected.” In writing about the ministry of Yeshua, the author of Hebrews is not appropriating Hellenistic ideas as much as he is appropriating Jewish ideas from the Tanach in its Septuagint form. The learning leading to perfection, demonstrated in the ministry of Yeshua, is so that His priestly work can truly be validated and appreciated for the salvation it services. As A.M. Stibbs observes, “by the experience of such a discipline He, Son of God though He was, learnt the full meaning and cost of human obedience, and was thereby perfected in His human character.”[24]

5:9 Because of Yeshua’s obedience to His Father, ultimately manifested in His death, the author of Hebrews concludes, “he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him” (NIV). The Greek word aitios means “being the cause, responsible for,” “mainly instrumental in causing” (LS).[25] A important usage of this term is used by the Jewish philosopher Philo to describe the brazen serpent in the wilderness. He writes of it “becoming a cause [aitios] of complete safety to those who looked upon it” (On Husbandry 96),[26] and Yeshua’s being lifted up is certainly typified by the serpent in the wilderness (John 3:14). Implicitly connected to these ideas is the Prophet Isaiah’s proclamation, “Israel has been saved by the LORD with an everlasting salvation; You will not be put to shame or humiliated to all eternity” (Isaiah 45:17). It is not enough, though, to recognize the grand effects of Yeshua’s humiliation, execution, resurrection, and exaltation into Heaven; obedience to the Lord is expected of those who receive salvation.

5:10 The Messiah’s priesthood is portrayed as being like the work of Melchizedek, “being designated by God as a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek,” who encountered the Patriach Abraham, and which certainly preceded Moses and the Aaronic order. Many Christians have concluded that Yeshua’s priestly service renders the Aaronic priesthood of no importance, but it does not. The issue of Yeshua’s appointment as a high priest, after the order of Melchizedek, is something that He legitimately inherited as a descendant of David. Yeshua the Messiah’s priesthood is notably not a priesthood that had ever been encountered or heard before. Yeshua’s priesthood had a precedent established prior to the founding of Israel as a nation, and in fact, is the more ancient priesthood.

[11] Concerning him we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing.

5:11 After addressing Yeshua’s appointment as priest (v. 10), our author shifts for a few moments (recall that this treatise would likely be read out loud as a sermon or speech) to address his audience’s spiritual condition, and why they were having the problems they had. He expresses a personal desire to speak more on the figure of Melchizedek, remarking, “About Melchizedek we have much to say, much that is difficult to explain to you” (REB). The reason that our writer gives for this difficulty is that his audience is “slow to understand” (HCSB). Donald Guthrie concludes that there is “a direct relationship…assumed between spiritual condition and understanding. The latter is not merely a matter of intellect. The difficulty is essentially a problem of communication.”[27]

Sadly, many in Hebrews’ audience did have the capacity to hear some of the true points of insight about the figure of Melchizedek, and how the Messiah fulfills his priesthood. The term that our author uses to describe his audience is nōthros, perhaps meaning “sluggish” or “obtuse.” TDNT explains that “the author cannot deal with the profounder themes because his readers are slow to hear and receive. This is because they lack the vitality of assured and persevering faith.”[28]

Did our writer deal with an audience which thought they could “handle” some of the deep mysteries of God, but really could not—because it might expose some sin and ungodly behavior in their lives? Were they just not deep thinkers? The points taken from vs. 11-14 are most important not only for readers trying to understand Hebrews, but so that contemporary Messiah followers do not fall into any condition of spiritual stupor.

[12] For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. [13] For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. [14] But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.

5:12 The author of Hebrews begins a serious chastisement of his audience, employing some severe criticisms for anyone who was listening. He demonstrates a knowledge of having some prolonged contact with them, saying, “By this time you ought to be teachers yourselves” (The Message). If our author was a companion of the Apostle Paul, and he was writing to varied groups that Paul had influence over, he would be reflecting on the fact that these people have been in Messiah faith long enough to be teachers as Paul had already given them adequate training. YLT actually renders his admonition as “owing to be teachers,” indicating that having been instructed as long as they have, they are indebted to preach and teach.

Unfortunately, these people were largely not mature enough to be teachers, and instead still found themselves in the position of needing to be instructed in “the elementary truths of God's word all over again” (NIV). They needed to be taught about proper character, proper attitudes, and how one was to properly relate to his or her fellow human beings. Certainly, if one were Jewish in a Torah community these things would be emphasized every week from Moses and the Prophets. But let us not make the assumption that these are words of rebuke to just Jewish people. Our author’s composition style is geared toward non-Jews equally as much as it is Jews. Specifically, it was directed to those who were literate and had an ability to comprehend complex matters. Lane summarizes,

“The discussion appears to have been aimed at a highly literate audience. As an educated person, the writer was familiar with the oratorical procedures used by speakers and writers to indicate a transition to an important subject. The expression [polus ho logos] is a common literary phrase for ‘there is much to say’…the idiom occurs in a context where a writer wishes to draw attention to the importance of the subject to be treated.”[29]

In spite of the fact that Hebrews’ audience may be very well read, certainly as the Jewish people of the First Century were often highly educated, and many Greeks and Romans by the mid-First Century from the upper classes began receiving Yeshua (cf. Philippians 4:22), they were spiritually underdeveloped. The modern-day parallel is quite apparent. Some of the most difficult people to reach today with the good news of Yeshua are not necessarily the poor or those in third world countries who know they need something more, but are the rich and highly educated in the first world who think that they “have it,” but actually do not. The author of Hebrews was not speaking against education or high status in his rebuke, but was almost instead saying, “You have all this knowledge, but are unable to use it! You need to be taught the basics all over again.” The NEB actually renders it as “you need someone to teach you the ABC of God’s oracles all over again.” The author of Hebrews was speaking against knowledge that was not able to be employed properly. Hebrews’ audience lacked the spiritual innovation truly required of redeemed people of God.

The “oracles of God” described here are very clearly the principles of the Tanach Scriptures; our author is not one to speak against the value of the Old Testament. What he does rebuke his audience for is their lack of being able to put these oracles into proper action. If they cannot implement the absolute basics of faith in their lives, what makes them think that they can deal with some of the more complicated issues? Even with mentioning his audience’s deficiencies in his composition, readers over the centuries have still demonstrated difficulties with the things that the Epistle to the Hebrews presents. Is this the result of not being spiritually and intellectually mature enough to understand Hebrews, or not having enough information so as to adequately understand Hebrews as it was received by its ancient audience?

5:13 The author of Hebrews asserts, “everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child” (ESV). David H. Stern observes how the author of Hebrews has a difficult time dispensing “the information concerning how Yeshua’s high-priesthood goes beyond the Levitical priesthood and his personal death goes beyond the Temple and Tabernacle sacrificial system.”[30] Even today in the Messianic community, we have issues with the spiritually immature who cannot handle our writer’s words. The reason is that these spiritually immature cannot handle solid food, and must instead be taught “the elementary truths of God’s revelation” (WBC).[31] When one only deals with the basics of Biblical instruction, a person lacks the ability to go beyond and “is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness” (NIV), meaning the deeper concepts that our author wanted to talk about in v. 11, but was unable to.

In the writings of Polycarp, the successor of the Apostle John, the concept of “word of righteousness” from Hebrews 5:13, was notably used as a reference to martyrdom:

“Let us then continually persevere in our hope, and the earnest of our righteousness, which is Jesus Christ, ‘who bore our sins in His own body on the tree,’ ‘who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth,’ but endured all things for us, that we might live in Him. Let us then be imitators of His patience; and if we suffer for His name’s sake, let us glorify Him. For He has set us this example in Himself, and we have believed that such is the case. I exhort you all, therefore, to yield obedience to the word of righteousness, and to exercise all patience” (Letter to the Philippians 8.1-9.1).[32]

The audience receiving this was certainly immature if their righteousness could not be manifested in their willingness to die for the faith. Yeshua Himself says that “Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). How many of us can say that we are mature enough to lay down our lives for the faith and our fellow brothers and sisters? When the author of Hebrews wrote his treatise, persecution for the Believers was on the horizon. Polycarp only confirms in the Second Century what our author likely saw was going to happen in the First Century.

Those who are only able to handle “milk” can only receive elementary instruction, and as such cannot master more difficult matters that are becoming of true teachers. Harold W. Attridge states, “The mature have mastered ethical matters and are ready for yet more ‘advanced’ teaching.”[33] Sadly, if a professing Messiah follower cannot handle the basic concepts of loving one’s neighbor, he or she is in no way qualified to address more complicated theological, moral, and ethical issues. How much has the thrust of v. 13 gone unheeded by those of us within today’s Messianic movement? What are some of the important issues of the day that we continue to push aside, ignore, and outright disregard—although we need to surely be considering them?

5:14 The problem with our author’s audience is that they have not had “their faculties trained by practice to distinguish good from evil” (RSV), as “solid food is for those full grown” (LITV). He is likely concerned that many of them were going to lapse into evil. We see a parallel between this and Paul’s comments to the Corinthians: “And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Messiah. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able” (1 Corinthians 3:1-2). Some find support for Apollos writing Hebrews to the Corinthians here, as he may be reemphasizing what Paul has already wrote them. Regardless of who specifically received this, the author relies heavily on what the Tanach has already said about distinguishing between good and evil, themes that anyone hearing his message should have known:

“Then your [David’s] maidservant said, ‘Please let the word of my lord the king be comforting, for as the angel of God, so is my lord the king to discern good and evil. And may the LORD your God be with you’” (2 Samuel 14:17).

“So give Your servant [Solomon] an understanding heart to judge Your people to discern between good and evil. For who is able to judge this great people of Yours?” (1 Kings 3:9).

If a person has diligently strived in the faith, and continually pursues a relationship with God, then He will grant the spiritual gifts and abilities that a man or woman needs in life to accomplish His tasks. The foremost of these is discernment, and being able to properly use it in real life circumstances. Bruce observes, “It is ethically mature people…who have built up in the course of experience a principle or standard of righteousness by which they can pass discriminating judgment on moral situations as they arise.”[34] This is not something that the audience of Hebrews had been able to do.

In our lives as Believers in Yeshua, we need to be striving for a balanced maturity of both the heart and the mind. We need to make sure that we can evidence a proper spirituality in our relations with our fellow human beings, a reflection of our own relationship with the Heavenly Father. Likewise, we must strive to have the mind of Messiah, where our attention is continually focused on God’s Word and on how it is to be lived out in the world. If we can do this, then we should be able to have the level of maturity that the author of Hebrews wanted his audience to have.

ENDNOTES FOR Commentary on Hebrews 5

[1] R.J.H. Shutt, “Letter of Aristeas,” trans., in James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol 2 (New York: Doubleday, 1985), 28.

[2] Hegg, Hebrews, pp 88-89.

[3] W. Michaelis, “metriopathéō,” in TDNT, 803.

[4] Bruce, Hebrews, pp 119-120.

[5] Neusner, 269.

[6] Ibid., 270.

[7] Ibid., 275.

[8] Lane, 47a:117.

[9] The Soncino Talmud. Judaic Classics Library II.

[10] deSilva, 188.

[11] Bruce, Hebrews, 124.

[12] Vermes, 110.

[13] Kee, in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol 1, 789.

[14] Ibid., 816.

[15] The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged, 655.

[16] The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged, pp 276-303.

[17] Lane, 47a:120.

[18] BDAG, 407.

[19] Harold W. Attridge, “The Letter to the Hebrews,” in Wayne A. Meeks, ed., et. al., The HarperCollins Study Bible, NRSV (New York: HarperCollins, 1993), 2256.

[20] Hagner, in New Interpreter’s Study Bible, 2158.

[21] Lane, 47a:121.

[22] LS, 797.

[23] Lane, 47a:122.

[24] Stibbs, in NBCR, 1200.

[25] LS, 24.

[26] The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged, 182.

[27] Guthrie, Hebrews, 133.

[28] H. Preisker, “nōthrós,” in TDNT, 661.

[29] Lane, 47a:136.

[30] Stern, 676.

[31] Lane, 47a:130.

[32] The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Libronix Digital Library System 1.0d: Church History Collection.

[33] Attridge, in HarperCollins Study Bible, 2256.

[34] Bruce, Hebrews, 136.

HEBREWS 6

COMMENTARY

[1] Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Messiah, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, [2] of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. [3] And this we will do, if God permits.

6:1-2 The author of Hebrews continues from his previous point at the end of ch. 5, describing the spiritual condition of his audience and how they need to be striving for spiritual maturity. Although there is a chapter break in our modern Bibles, William L. Lane points out that “The chapter break is unwarranted and unfortunate.”[1] There is certainly no content break, as ch. 6 is used by the author to transition his audience from describing their state of relative spiritual immaturity to the point of at least potential apostasy, to picking up the previous comments he made about Yeshua and Melchizedek (5:10-11).

What our author means by mentioning “the elementary teachings about Christ” (NIV) or “the initial lessons about the Messiah” (CJB)[2] can be a considerable cause of confusion for those who separate it from its given context. Some, after considering the list of “principles” (KJV) that are given, argue that our author is describing the basic principles of Jewish theology, and is thus saying that they are inferior to the work of Yeshua. The NIV Study Bible, for example, offers the alternative rendering in its footnotes of “from useless rituals”[3] for “elementary teachings.” Commentators like Donald Hagner describe the aspects of faith listed by our author as “those elements of Christianity which overlap with Judaism.”[4]

It is absolutely true that “washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment” (ESV) are foundational principles of First Century Jewish theology that were surely shared with the First Century Messianic community. Paul Ellingworth is keen to note, “The list contains nothing distinctively Christian, and of course nothing exclusively Jewish; such a sharp dichotomy is alien to a Jewish Christian writing mainly to readers in the same tradition.”[5] It is inappropriate, then, to argue for the so-called “superiority” of Christianity over Judaism in this text. Our author’s main argument in vs. 1-3 is not about the “superiority” of Christianity to Judaism, as many automatically assume. His argument is about his audience being “borne on to full growth” (LITV).

How this is to be understood and realized can be as much a debate in the Twenty-First Century Messianic movement, every bit as much as it was for the Believers in the First Century. F.F. Bruce renders v. 1 as, “let us leave the preliminary stage of Christ’s message,”[6] meaning of course, the initial teachings in which people need to be trained when they enter into the faith. David A. deSilva notably observes that the rudimentary elements of faith in view were not only important for Hebrews’ First Century Jewish audience to master, but also the non-Jews who may have received this letter as well:

“The specific content of each element could certainly be filled out in a Christocentric manner, however, and need not refer to any pre-Christian experience of being socialized into Jewish culture. Gentiles coming into the church would be unfamiliar with many of these elements, but even Jews converted to belief in Jesus would need a basic reorientation to these tenets in terms of Jesus’ role in, for example, the ‘resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment.’”[7]

The author of Hebrews emphasizes that his audience is beyond the time for them to have progressed beyond the basic principles of Biblical instruction. He asks them why, after all the time that has been invested in them, do they have to be trained in the same basic Biblical teachings over and over again? These are things that they should already know well enough so that they can deal with more complex teachings and subjects. As Warren A. Quanbeck states, “It is clear that the ABC’s are to be left behind for growth toward maturity.”[8] This does not mean that they are to be put aside as being unimportant, but that each Believer has got to reach the point where he or she is able to comprehend far more than just the Biblical essentials.

Bruce remarks that “Their minds need to be stretched, and this will stretch them as nothing else can. They have remained immature too long; therefore he will give them something calculated to take them out of their immaturity.”[9] Our author’s treatise is, after all, both intellectually as it is spiritually complicated. Of course, there are many possible applications regarding people who have become spiritually immature that readers can explore and probe, but the principal warning in Hebrews to consider, is that enough people in the audience receiving this message were at the possible point of denying the Messiah.

What our author means by “not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God” can be confusing. Various interpreters have, at times, viewed nekrōn ergōn or “dead works” as pertaining to obedience to the Torah. This is a bad conclusion to draw, as “dead works” mostly pertain to the sinful works of unredeemed human beings. Our author notably does say, later in his treatise, that the blood of Messiah will “cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God” (9:14). Yet, “dead works” can also involve activities, mannerisms, and attitudes that are associated with presumably redeemed people, who are in desperate need of change via spiritual maturity. In the case of Hebrews’ audience, too many were likely going through the motions of being religious—and coupled with some inappropriate attitudes, causing many to doubt who Yeshua the Messiah was to be for them—and they needed a significant jolt of the Spirit.

The Jewish character of our author is seen in v. 2 by his reference to some specific aspects of one’s basic theology. He first references baptismōn, appearing in the plural as “baptisms” (NIV), “abolutions” (RSV), or “cleansing rites” (NEB). There are a variety of opinions as to what he is referring to, including: the water immersion required by proselytes to Judaism, John the Baptist’s immersion, and the immersion commanded by Yeshua (Matthew 28:19). Normally, if this were referring to what we today often call a “Beliver’s baptism,” the water immersion that one undergoes as part of his or her confession of faith, then “baptism” in the singular would be used. This is likely referring to some of the additional components of water immersion as realized within Second Temple Judaism, commonly referred to as mikveh in the Rabbinical literature.[10] But water immersion goes beyond a ceremonial act of purification, as it is also characteristic of a cleansing that is to take in the Messianic Age. Ezekiel 36:25 tells us, “Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols” (cf. Jeremiah 31; Zechariah 13:1). Presumably, these are elementary understandings that Hebrews’ audience needed to go beyond in their walk of faith.

The laying on of hands likewise was important in the First Century Jewish community. In the Torah, it was employed by the sinner to transfer his sin guilt to an innocent animal to be sacrificed (Leviticus 1:4; 3:2; 4:4; 8:14; 16:21, etc.), or for the ordination of those in leadership (Numbers 27:18, 23; Deuteronomy 34:9). By the First Century, those not only commissioned for priestly service were prayed over by the laying on of hands, but likewise rabbis were ordained in a similar manner. The emerging Christian Church of the Second Century appropriated this for the ordination of elders and deacons, and it is still employed in most Protestant denominations today. In the ministry of Yeshua and the Apostles, the laying on of hands was practiced in conjunction with healing the sick (Mark 6:5; Luke 4:40; Acts 28:8). All of these ideas are likely present in our author’s mind. Yet, even though laying on of hands plays an important part in one’s spiritual experiences, it is nevertheless considered elementary. This means that miraculous healings occurring in the midst of a congregation, because of the laying on of hands, could be taken as things that Hebrews’ audience must progress beyond.

The final area that our author lists as elementary is the resurrection of the dead and the eternal punishment to be meted out upon sinners. The resurrection of the righteous dead, as the Gospels indicate and as the Apostles teach, is to occur in the Last Days before the Messiah’s appearing (John 5:25-29; 11:25; 2 Corinthians 4:14). Of course, the resurrection is a concept rooted in both the Hebrew Tanach (Daniel 12:2) and in the Pharisaical theology of First Century Judaism. Even though the resurrection can be a difficult concept to understand, and as Paul’s encounter with the Epicureans and Stoics at the Areopagus (or Mars Hill) in Athens indicates, it was difficult for many Greeks and Romans to comprehend (Acts 17:19), the resurrection and teachings of eternal punishment are nevertheless considered elementary.

6:3 The author of Hebrews expresses a sincere desire, “God helping us, we'll stay true to all that. But there's so much more. Let's get on with it!” (The Message). Mature Believers who are diligently seeking the Lord and pursuing a right relationship with Him should ask for an extra portion of the Holy Spirit so they can move forward in their faith and handle complicated issues. Hebrews’ audience unfortunately had a difficult time with this, to the point where some were forgetting about Yeshua. Interestingly enough, we have some of the same problems today in the Messianic community. Many who enter into the Messianic movement, from either Jewish or Christian backgrounds, or are even being thrust into positions of leadership, have difficulty expounding upon the basic tenets of the faith. They do not understand immersion or the laying on of hands. Some do not understand the basics of the resurrection or eternal punishment, not knowing what to believe about “the afterlife.” Suffice it to say, we all have a long way to go as we strive for the maturation that the author of Hebrews encourages Messiah followers to have.

[4] For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, [5] and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, [6] and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.

6:4 The statement, “For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit” (RSV), is one which has caused considerable debate over the centuries. This verse has been applied in many notable ways going all the way back to the early centuries of the emerging Church. The Roman presbyter Novation, for example, interpreted it very strictly. A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs details how “The Novationists believed that the church should not pronounce ecclesiastical forgiveness to repentant Christians who denied Christ during persecution; rather, such forgiveness should only be given by Christ Himself.”[11] During the reign of the Emperor Decius (249-250 C.E.), many denied the Lord for fear of their lives and were not permitted back into the Roman church.

While this gives us some insight into the spiritual dynamics that were present in successive generations of Believers, what was present in the First Century for the author of Hebrews to write this? Obviously, by using terms such as “fallen away” he is very concerned about the potential actions of his audience.

The author of Hebrews describes an enlightenment that is extremely important for any reader to notice. The Greek verb phōtizō simply means “to enlighten, illuminate: to instruct, teach” (LS).[12] Those who think that the enlightenment refers to sacraments often focus on the definition of “to teach,” as phōtizō is used in the Septuagint in some places to render the Hebrew verb yarah meaning “instruct, teach” (CHALOT) in the Hifil stem (casual action, passive voice).[13] The verb form that our author specifically employs in his treatise is phōtisthentas, occurring as an aorist passive accusative participle, meaning “those enlightened.” A.M. Stibbs indicates that it “suggests a certain absoluteness and finality, indicating something done once for all in such a way that it is of necessity incapable of repetition.”[14]

Our author states what this enlightenment involves, as it regards those “who have had a taste of the heavenly gift and a share in the Holy Spirit” (NEB). In v. 5 he adds that the same people have “experienced the goodness of God’s word and the spiritual energies of the age to come” (NEB). Lane notes that “The use of the [participle] [geusamenous] here, and in v 5, reflects the common metaphorical usage of a verb meaning ‘to taste’ throughout hellenistic Gk. in the sense of ‘to experience.’”[15] An example we see in the LXX where this verb is used is Psalm 34:8: “Taste [geuō] and see that the Lord is good: blessed is the man who hopes in him” (LXE). We also see it referring to the physical death of Yeshua earlier in Hebrews 2:9, where our author writes that “by the grace of God he might taste [geuomai] death for everyone” (NIV).

6:5 Yeshua the Messiah is attested earlier to having died in the flesh (5:7). When Yeshua experienced or “tasted” of death, He tasted of it fully; His execution was a most horrendous experience where His body ceased to function. In a similar way, those who are enlightened by the gospel and partake of the Holy Spirit taste of it fully; this is not just a partial experience of “trying out” the goodness of the Lord. Interestingly enough, Louis H. Evans, Jr., a Presbyterian Calvinist, comments on how “The term ‘enlightened’ is common in the New Testament and almost always means a radical tranferrence out of the condition of darkness into the light of the gospel, into fellowship or relationship with Jesus Christ (see Col. 1:13; 1 Thes. 5:4; 1 Pet. 2:9; 1 John 1:6).” He further states, “It is difficult to separate this term from the experience of salvation.”[16] The enlightenment and tasting in view (v. 4), have to be the participation that men and women have in recognizing Yeshua as the One who suffered and endured for sinners, and in receiving His redemptive power into their lives.

6:6 It is important to note that the people our author is referring to “shared in the Holy Spirit” (NRSV). With a soteriological construct in mind—it means that such people who have been regenerated by God’s Spirit cannot be regenerated again. The author of Hebrews writes that “it is impossible to renew them again to repentance.” It is useful for us to keep in mind how the salvation experience is often compared to the act of circumcision. The Apostle Paul wrote the Colossians that in Yeshua “you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Messiah” (Colossians 2:11). Born again Believers are to each be circumcised in their hearts, so that they might be open to the will of God (Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:6). What is important to note about such heart circumcision is that it is a one-time process.

Many Jewish males during the period of the Maccabees practiced a removal of the effect of circumcision. 1 Maccabees 1:15 attests that many “removed the marks of circumcision, and abandoned the holy covenant. They joined with the Gentiles and sold themselves to do evil.” IDB attests that “Some Jews sought to overcome the effect of circumcision by epispasm, making foreskins for themselves.”[17] Paul refers to this practice in 1 Corinthians 7:18, where he says that a man called to faith in circumcision “is not to become uncircumcised,” literally he is not to be “drawn over.”[18] Jewish men who would practice epispasm would stretch the skin over the head of their penis so that their foreskin could be restored. There is no record of anyone who practiced epispasm being recircumcised, and in a similar way one who has been enlightened—circumcised of heart—cannot be reenlighted after having fallen away.

he verb parapiptō, rendered as “fallen away” in v. 6, is defined by BDAG as “to fail to follow through on a commitment, fall away, commit apostasy.”[19] A fiercely debated question, of course, is how someone, presumably in the faith, can at all fall away. Some who believe that a regenerated person can lose his or her salvation can think (at least unconsciously) that almost any sin can lead to this terrible condition. Obviously, the ultimate determination for who is “saved” or “unsaved” rests with God Himself. But Yeshua issues a strong warning in the Gospels of one sin that cannot be forgiven: blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. He says that “everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him” (Luke 12:10; cf. Matthew 12:32; Mark 3:29). It is important that the author of Hebrews connects being enlightened to a person who has somehow partaken of or experienced the Holy Spirit, because what it would mean is that the person who has fallen away has apparently blasphemed the Holy Spirit.

Blasphemy is a concept that our author’s First Century audience would have been familiar with as it is seen in the Tanach. The Prophet Ezekiel is moved by God to say, “Thus says the Lord GOD, ‘Yet in this your fathers have blasphemed Me by acting treacherously against Me’” (Ezekiel 20:27). But how one reaches this point can remain unclear. Lane offers us with some distinct possibilities that the author of Hebrews may have been considering:

“The aorist tense indicates a decisive moment of commitment to apostasy. In the LXX, the term [parapiptein] has reference to the expression of a total attitude reflecting deliberate and calculated rejection of God…Apostasy entailed a decisive rejection of God’s gifts, similar to the rejection of the divine promise by the Exodus generation at Kadesh.”[20]

The sober word from the author of Hebrews is that those people, who do fall away, cannot be brought back to repentance. He specifically says, “they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt” (RSV), or they are “subjecting him to public disgrace” (NIV).

When we consider the varied religious dynamics of the large and diverse Jewish world of the First Century, why would our writer say that people who are trying to be restored to faith are “crucifying once again the Son of God” (ESV)? Does this mean that some had already fallen away? Foremost in our author’s mind had to have been addressing his audience’s concern that, with the cessation of the Levitical sacrifices in the Torah via the impending destruction of the Temple, sin is still forgiven. Having once recognized the Messiah’s sacrifice and salvation as legitimate, then committing apostasy against Him—those who have rejected Yeshua and want Him again, can only bring utter shame and contempt upon Him by trying to receive Him a second time.

Regardless of what was going on in the minds of the largely Jewish audience that received Hebrews, our writer wants them to get their attention decisively focused back on Yeshua. Those who have in some way decided to deny Yeshua—those who have truly partaken of the Holy Spirit and then declare it all meaningless—cannot come to Him again.

Excursus on Calvinism, Arminianism, and the Messianic Movement

Hebrews 6:4-6, perhaps more than any other set of verses in this epistle, may be said to have had the most overall impact on theological discussions and debates outside this text. What does it mean concerning “those who have once been enlightened” who “have tasted the good word of God”? As many of you are probably aware, this is a strongly debated Scripture passage among Calvinists and Arminians in Protestant Christian theology pertaining to concepts such as predestination, the free will of human beings, and God’s elect. I would like to briefly explore whether or not it is possible for today’s Messianic movement, to at all have its “own” position on the Calvinist-Arminian controversy.

The major issue of human beings’ responsibility and God’s redemptive power in the salvation experience, actually goes back to the Fifth Century with the Pelagian Controversy. The British monk Pelagius (354-415) advocated that human beings were embodied with a complete free will, and he completely denied the sovereignty of God in worldly affairs. Salvation in the Pelagian schema was soley a human work, and something that was not largely accomplished by God. Augustine (354-430), bishop of Hippo, refuted Pelagius’ heresies, but in so doing focused almost extensively on God’s sovereignty and His work in salvation. Augustine was right to emphasize that salvation was a work of God, largely focusing on John 15:5, “apart from Me you can do nothing.” As Alister E. McGrath summarizes, “Augustine understood grace as the real and redeeming presence of God in Christ within us, transforming us; something that was internal and active.”[21] Augustine rightly rejected Pelagius’ view that grace was something outside of us that was passive.[22]

Moving forward to the Protestant Reformation, the French Reformer John Calvin (1509-1564) was largely influenced by Augustine’s view of Divine grace, with his followers often emphasizing it as “irresistible grace,” something that one could not refuse. Calvin was certainly a brilliant scholar and able exegete of the early Reformation, and much is to be gained by examining his works. Calvin’s theology is noted by his emphasis on the sovereignty of God and His predestination of all human events. Followers of Calvinistic theology believe that salvation is entirely a work of God. However, the Calvinistic theology of election emphasizes that God has chosen only some to be redeemed, and others He has selected to be eternally condemned. In the schema of God having predestined all events in human history is the debate over whether God is the author of the Fall and thus the author of sin (supralapsarianism), or God’s predestined choices come after the Fall (infralapsarianism). Calvin’s system of theology is generally known as Reformed, and in America is largely adhered to in the Presbyterian Church and many sectors of the Baptist Church.

A major issue arose in the Reformation when challenges to Calvin’s theology of specific foreknowledge arose in Holland. Dutch pastor Jacob Arminius (1560-1609), who had been trained as a strict Calvinist, was asked to refute Dirck Koorenhert, who did not believe in specific foreknowledge. Arminius examined his beliefs and became convinced that Yeshua the Messiah did not just die for the elect, but for all the world. Justo González summarizes Arminius’ principal view that “the final destiny of each individual was based, not on the sovereign will of God, but rather on divine foreknowledge, by which God knew what each person’s response would be to the offer of salvation.”[23] Arminius argued for a general foreknowledge in that God has certainly predestined particular events to take place in human history, but has left individuals to decide for themselves whether or not they want to receive His salvation or reject it. The Remonstrance movement in the Netherlands issued what would become known as “the open decree of predestination.” While often confused with Pelagianism, the Remonstrance movement emphasized “that humans can do nothing good on their own account, and that the grace of God is necessary in order to do good.”[24] In America today, forms of Arminian theology are largely present in the Methodist Church, and in various Wesleyan offshoots.[25]

The major difference between Calvinists and Arminians today pertains to the issue of salvation. Did Yeshua die only for the elect? Or, did He die for all the world? Both views rightly emphasize that salvation is to be a work of God via His Holy Spirit. But Calvinists largely emphasize that salvation is something that remains permanent and cannot be lost, often referred to in the vernacular as “once saved, always saved.” They frequently base this on John 10:27-29: “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.” Calvinists argue that God knows who His chosen ones are, and no one is capable of removing them from Him—even the people themselves.

Arminians, in stark contrast to this, will argue on the basis of Hebrews 6:4-6 that an individual can be enlightened and spiritually regenerated, having received salvation, but can then reach a point where this salvation is lost. Arminians argue that salvation is a work of God, but that the free will of humans can interrupt that salvation. Case studies such as Ancient Israel in the wilderness, Judas Iscariot, Simon Magus, and perhaps even King Solomon can be offered as examples of those who experienced God’s salvation, but then at a later point rejected it because of sin. Arminians are generally in agreement with Calvinists over the fact that God has certainly decreed particular events to occur through the prophecies of His Word, but would not make the argument that God has decreed that every event of every single second has been decreed from eternity.

I am infrequently asked if there is a distinct Messianic view of the Calvinist-Arminian debate. Based on my experience in the Messianic movement since 1995, I would have to observe that there is no distinct view at this point in time. Almost anyone taking a position as either a Calvinist or Arminian is taking that position because he or she was raised or trained in a denominational setting that adhered to a Calvinist theology or Arminian theology. Sometimes Calvinistic or Arminian theology is moderated by Messianics as “the nature of God’s universe” is something that cannot be fully understood by us as limited mortals. However, as someone raised Methodist and being a student of the teachings of John Wesley (1703-1791), I am no exception to being affected by this debate as I was raised in an Arminian environment. I believe in the general foreknowledge of God, but also that people can lose their salvation. Wesleyan-Arminianism, however, does highly emphasize the personal holiness and sanctification of the individual—concepts that should be emphasized in today’s Messianic movement through its Torah observance—as well as experiencing the power of the Holy Spirit. In stark contrast to many Calvinists, Wesleyan-Arminians believe in the continuance of the gifts of the Spirit, but may not emphasize it to the same degree of many within the Pentecostal or charismatic movement today.

While I respect some of the theological tenets of Calvinism and the benefits that it has brought to Western society—in particular its emphasis on hard work—I have two principal problems with Calvinism. My first problem with Calvinism is its doctrine of limited atonement. This is the belief that Yeshua the Messiah only died for the elect, and thus He did not die for all sinful humanity. (Surprisingly, this view is often based on the Apostle Paul’s words in Romans chs. 9-11, where he writes that “those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened” [Romans 11:7].) Wesleyan-Arminianism does differ from other forms of Arminianism in that it does advocate that certain individuals may be chosen by God for damnation, such as Pharaoh, Judas Iscariot, or the coming antimessiah/antichrist, but this is few and far between. A question each of us has to ask is whether or not Yeshua the Messiah died for the whole world, or only a small sector of chosen. Some in the Messianic movement believe that Yeshua died only to save Israel, and not the whole world, and in their own way may find themselves actually supporting some form of Calvinist dogma.

My second major problem with Calvinism is its emphasis on eternal security, lived out in much of contemporary Christianity by people “making decisions for Christ” and then living ungodly lives inconsistent with that of our Lord. Many believe that salvation is not something that needs to be maintained by holy living and the sanctification process, much like a person would maintain a car, house, or yard. Where is the evidence of salvation? Faith is to be evidenced by works, and those works—most importantly love for God and one’s neighbor, emphasized by Yeshua (Matthew 22:36-40; Mark 12:28-31; Luke 10:25-28)—are to give people the assurance they need that they are in the Lord.

The argument over whether or not a person can lose his or her salvation, however, may ultimately be solved by personal experience. Many moderates on the issue believe that it is pointless trying to figure out whether or not someone falling away was once “saved,” or had a false conversion, because the point of Hebrews 6:4-6 is to never even be in the position of even thinking of leaving the faith. I generally agree with this, because most who deny Yeshua the Messiah (Jesus Christ) have never known Him as their personal Lord and Savior or have experienced the Holy Spirit. Still, does this mean that every single person who denies Him never knew Him? In the Messianic community today, we sadly encounter an increasing number of people who question and deny the Divinity of, and later the Messiahship of, the Lord Yeshua. Are they all “unsaved”? We must see to it that people in our Messianic faith community never question the work of the Holy Spirit in their lives.

It is notable that the debate over God’s foreknowledge and human beings’ free will is not at all given as much attention in Jewish theology as it is in Protestant Christian theology. There are certain examples of these two facets of existence that are often given for discussion, such as Abraham’s binding of Isaac (Genesis 22) and the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart (Exodus 9). The Jewish Philosophy Reader notes, “In the volume of the Mishnah known as the Pirke Avoth (‘Sayings of the Fathers’) Rabbi Akiba proclaimed: ‘Everything is seen, yet freedom is given’ (3.19). It is clear from this brief statement that already in the 2nd century Jewish theology had at least recognized, if not solved, the apparent incompatibility between divine omniscience and human freedom.”[26] When it comes to the issues as presented by both Calvin and Arminius, the Jewish position is much more “let God be God.”

Messianics who are either Calvinist or Arminian in their orientation are often so because of their upbringing or theological training. Certainly, we have the responsibility to foster a Messianic environment where people leaning toward Calvinism or Arminisiam are both welcome, so a more distinct Messianic viewpoint can be developed over time. The debate over Calvinism or Arminianism is an old one, and only time will determine if developing a distinct Messianic position is possible. In the meantime, we need to make sure that people truly do have salvation in Messiah Yeshua, have experienced the regenerative power of the Holy Spirit, and are strong in their faith so that they do not even consider abandoning the Lord.[27]

[7] For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; [8] but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.

6:7 Moving forward after commenting that those who reject the Messiah, and then think that they can repent again and be regenerated again cannot do so (v. 6), the author of Hebrews compares the faith of his audience to land that is supposed to bring forth vegetation. He writes that “When the soil drinks in the rain that falls often upon it, and yields a crop for the use of those who cultivate it, it receives a blessing from God” (REB). Those who remain true to their faith in Yeshua are compared to land that is rained upon and “produces a crop” (RSV, NIV). This emphasis could be taken from Deuteronomy 11:11-12, where Moses tells the Ancient Israelites, “the land into which you are about to cross to possess it, a land of hills and valleys, drinks water from the rain of heaven, a land for which the LORD your God cares; the eyes of the LORD your God are always on it, from the beginning even to the end of the year.” Just as the Promised Land was seen by the Lord and looked after by Him, so does He look after His people who are faithful to Him.

The intense desire of the Lord is to bless His people because they are fulfilling the call that He has upon their lives, and they are able to benefit from a happiness and peace that only come from Him. An obvious evidence of this is whether or not they are bearing spiritual fruit. This spiritual fruit as listed by the Apostle Paul “is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, [and] self-control” (Galatians 5:22-23). When God rains His Spirit upon the redeemed, these positive character traits—and surely many more—are to be emanating from them, as crops grow from the ground. When these godly attributes are a part of mature men and women in Yeshua, they will not find themselves in the condition of even thinking about denying Him and His atoning work.

6:8 Contrary to this, if what is grown from one’s presumed faith, is “thorns and thistles,” then a person may find himself or herself “on the verge of being cursed” (NRSV). In a physical sense, this may be associated with the Fall of humanity in the Garden of Eden where God proclaimed, “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; and you will eat the plants of the field” (Genesis 3:18), as Adam and Eve were cast out. We also see some parallels between v. 8 and Isaiah 5:6, where the Lord says, “I will lay it waste; it will not be pruned or hoed, but briars and thorns will come up. I will also charge the clouds to rain no rain on it.”

Individually, each person who has recognized Yeshua, actually has the capacity to allow “thorns and thistles” to grow from them spiritually, instead of fruits and crops that can be eaten. “Worthless” or “rejected” vegetation is described by our author as being adokimos, “not standing the test, spurious” or “rejected as false, disreputable, reprobate” (LS).[28] This comes as a result of certain individuals not having disciplined themselves spiritually, and finding themselves as easy prey for the enemy. Paul employs this term in 1 Corinthians 9:27, writing, “I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified [adokimos].” No one should wish to find themselves “castaway” (1 Corinthians 9:27, KJV). The sure ways that Messiah followers can have the fruit required of the redeemed, and find themselves spiritually approved—is to be disciplined through times of prayer, examination of the Scriptures, and an urgent plea every day to ask the Lord to convict them of sin. Each Believer must continually strive to be approved by God.

The end result of those who bear nothing spiritual but thorns and thistles, is not a good one. The author of Hebrews writes, “its end is to be burned” (RSV). There are a variance of views among commentators as to what this means, especially between Calvinists and Arminians. Calvinists, who do not believe that salvation can be lost, may think that this is only a reference to the burning up of dead works. Arminians, however, will push what is said even further, and conclude that not only are dead works burned up, but this is a likely reference to eternal punishment. Surely, anyone who heard these words in the First Century was being warned of the dangers of denying the Messiah, and was being admonished to have good works.

[9] But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation, though we are speaking in this way. [10] For God is not unjust so as to forget your work and the love which you have shown toward His name, in having ministered and in still ministering to the saints.

6:9 The author of Hebrews, in spite of his repeated warnings and criticisms of his audience in ch. 5 and through ch. 6, is actually encouraging them by addressing them as “beloved” (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:14; 15:58; 1 John 2:7). He writes them, “We are confident that you are meant for better things, things that come with salvation” (NLT). He thinks that his audience can certainly change, because they have a track record of good works through the power of the Holy Spirit.

6:10 In spite of those among Hebrews’ audience leaving the faith and any false teachings disturbing them, our author was encouraged that God in His mercy would not forget them and what they have done toward others. He specifically says, “God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for his sake in serving the saints,” which “you still do” (RSV). God is by no means “unrighteous” (KJV), and will remember the service that these Believers have performed. IVPBBC notes that this “probably refers to financial help”[29] for other Believers. Perhaps it included Paul’s collection for the saints in Jerusalem (Romans 15:25), or it just included Hebrews’ audience having been most generous and giving, in helping the needs of others in their local community, or in other communities. Regardless of which is the specific case, their ministry is testified by the writer to have been considered a “labour of love” (KJV).

[11] And we desire that each one of you show the same diligence so as to realize the full assurance of hope until the end, [12] so that you will not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.

6:11-12 The author of Hebrews wants every person hearing his message “to show the same earnestness to have the full assurance of hope until the end” (ESV). A definite part of getting back onto the right track of faith, for Hebrews’ audience, would be to return to the same pattern of ministry service that they once demonstrated (v. 10). Those who do not show some kind of “eager concern” (NEB), for demonstrating a proper faith in action, will often become “slothful” (KJV) or “lazy” (NIV). People who become lazy in maintaining their faith can often be exploited by Satan, and are more subject to temptations of the flesh and doubts regarding who Yeshua is for them. Among Hebrews’ First Century audience were those who had become “sluggish” and were falling from the faith. Not surprisingly, we have the same thing today with people who deny Yeshua not only by falling for arguments against who He is, but because they are not people filled with God’s love and with a concern of caring for others.

The author of Hebrews offers a solution, telling his audience “to imitate those who through faith and patience inherit what has been promised” (NIV). Already, he has made direct references to Moses, Aaron, and David, and in ch. 11 will list many more examples of giants of faith who endured through the power of God.

[13] For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself, [14] saying, “I WILL SURELY BLESS YOU AND I WILL SURELY MULTIPLY YOU” [Genesis 22:17]. [15] And so, having patiently waited, he obtained the promise. [16] For men swear by one greater than themselves, and with them an oath given as confirmation is an end of every dispute.

6:13-14 One example that is immediately given by the author of Hebrews, of one to remember to emulate, and surely consider, is Abraham. Our author testifies to the faithfulness that God demonstrated toward Abraham, in that “since there was no one greater for him to swear by, he swore by himself” (NIV). God was the Guarantor of the promises made to Abraham, as stated by Genesis 22:17: “indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies.” Writing to an audience that has been wavering in its Messiah faith, the author of Hebrews wants to build their confidence level. If important people in the past placed trust in God’s unwavering promises, then those in the (then-)present can likewise place trust in the climax of those promises: the Messiah Himself.

6:15 Our writer candidly states that “Abraham, after patient waiting, obtained the promise” (REB). But Abraham did not live long enough to see his offspring multiply into a great nation, Ancient Israel. Nevertheless, Abraham had confidence that by his faith God would see to it that his posterity would multiply forth. Using this as a point of comparison, our author wants his audience to understand that they can indeed trust in the Son of God, Yeshua. In spite of their circumstances, the Lord will be faithful to them and bless them, as He was certainly faithful to fulfill His promises to Abraham. No one among Hebrews’ ancient audience needed to get impatient, or become impudent, somehow thinking that God’s Word was untrue.

6:16 God making an oath is contrasted with human beings making oaths. The author of Hebrews states, “Human beings, of course, swear by someone greater than themselves, and an oath given as confirmation puts an end to all dispute” (NRSV). Human oaths in the Biblical context often attempt to invoke the favor of God over some kind of a pursuit, and in Second Temple Judaism frivolous oath-taking was often viewed as a violation of the Third Commandment. In fact, Yeshua Himself advised in His Sermon on the Mount, “But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God…But let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’; anything beyond these is of evil” (Matthew 5:34, 37). Still, proper oaths, when made, are to be taken most seriously.

When God takes an oath on behalf of humans, it is so they might believe in His promises. In the case of Abraham, Philo remarks how God’s “word is an oath, in order that Abraham’s mind may be established still more firmly and immovably than before” (On Abraham 273).[30] God’s oath to Abraham was regarded as being given to him as confirmation of His great fidelity and reliability. Philo also taught that “God does not swear by any other being than himself, for there is nothing more powerful than he is; but he swears by himself, because he is the greatest of all things” (Allegorical Interpretation 3.203).[31] Is the author of Hebrews appropriating some of these concepts and applying them to a Believer’s faith in Yeshua? Some have made the case that our author was an Alexandrian Jew by these possible appeals to Philonic teaching. Regardless of this, however, would Hebrews’ audience have the faith to trust in God’s promises—especially those which relate to the Messiah and His eternal redemption?

The claim that our author was only acquainted with a Hellenistic Jewish worldview can be easily overstated. This is because he was relying on the basic insistence that a person is to look to God for strength. In the successive Jewish theology of the Talmud, we see similar appeals made for people to see the promises that the Lord made to the Patriarchs, to understand that His Word stands forever:

“Remember Abraham, Isaac and Israel Thy servants, to whom Thou didst swear by Thyself. What is the force of ‘by Thyself’? R. Eleazar said: Moses said before the Holy One, blessed be He: Sovereign of the Universe, hadst Thou sworn to them by the heaven and the earth, I would have said, Just as the heaven and earth can pass away, so can Thy oath pass away. Now, however, Thou hast sworn to them by Thy great name: just as Thy great name endures for ever and ever, so Thy oath is established for ever and ever” (b.Berachot 32a).[32]

What is not explicitly stated by our author here in vs. 13-16, but should no doubt be understood, is that if God is true to His promises to bless His people and see them enter into His purpose— so is He likewise true to His promises to punish them should they rebel. How many of us in times of doubt need to be reassured of God’s positive promises to bless and sustain us, and we know deep in our spirits that if we forget these promises we may be judged? How much of this was true for Hebrews’ First Century audience?

[17] In the same way God, desiring even more to show to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of His purpose, interposed with an oath, [18] so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us.

6:17 The reason why God makes oaths to human beings is to “show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose” (ESV), as those who can acknowledge the benefits of the Abrahamic promise should surely trust in the One who made it. Ametathetos means “unalterable, unchangeable” (BDAG),[33] meaning that when God intends to do something, it is accomplished. God’s promise to multiply Abraham’s seed (vs. 13-15) was accomplished unconditionally, in spite of Abraham’s action or inaction. The Lord has proven Himself in past history, to be faithful and true to His Word. So if God is faithful in His promises to Abraham, the author’s argument is that certainly this same Father can be faithful via the actions of His Son!

6:18 Regarding what God has said He would do, He will do, as our author asserts, “is impossible for God to lie,” or “God could not possibly play us false” (NEB). Born again Believers, who have recognized Yeshua as Savior, are to be those “who have taken refuge...[and] have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us.” It is in Yeshua where all of the answers to life’s questions can be found, and in Him is a hope from which the redeemed should never lose sight or let go!

[19] This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil, [20] where Yeshua has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.

6:19 If God’s promises to Abraham are steadfastly secure (vs. 13-18), then the Messianic promises and prophecies regarding Yeshua are surely also just as secure. The author of Hebrews describes it all as “a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul” (RSV). The specific hope that Messiah followers are to have, is in how Yeshua is One who “enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain” (NIV). This is a direct reference to the Holy of Holies (Heb. ha’qodesh ha’qodoshim), which was only accessible by the high priest on Yom Kippur (Leviticus 16:2). Our author actually employs the term katapetsama or “curtain,” specifically pertaining to what “separated the holy of holies fr. the holy place” (BDAG).[34] This place of intimacy between the Creator God and human beings—once only accessible by the high priest—is a place where the Messiah has surely entered. The redeemed in Him through Him also have access to this place.

6:20 At Yeshua’s execution, the veil in the Temple was ripped in two (Matthew 27:51), indicating that a major change had taken place in the spiritual dimension. With Yeshua’s ascension into Heaven, our author testifies that “Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek” (ESV). It is only by Yeshua’s entry into the Father’s intimate presence, as a Melchizedekian priest, that the redeemed can have such free and open access to Him at any time—rather than limited access to the Creator, as would be seen on the Day of Atonement.

ENDNOTES FOR Commentary on Hebrews 6

[1] Lane,  47a:139.

[2] Actually rendered elsewhere as “the rudiments of Christianity” (NEB) or “the basics of Christianity” (NLT).

[3] NIV Study Bible, 1903.

[4] Hagner, in New Interpreter’s Study Bible, 2159.

[5] Ellingworth, 313.

[6] Bruce, Hebrews, 137.

[7] deSilva, 216.

[8] Quanbeck, in Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary, 905.

[9] Bruce, Hebrews, 138.

[10] A mikveh is a “gathering of water, esp. the ritual bath of purification” (Jastrow, 829).

[11] Cf. “Novation, Novationists,” in David W. Bercot, ed., A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998), 476.

[12] LS, 878.

[13] CHALOT, 144.

LXX renderings of phōtizō for yara include: 2 Kings 12:2; 17:27-28.

[14] Stibbs, in NBCR, 1201.

[15] Lane, 47a:132.

[16] Evans, 132.

[17] J.P. Hyatt, “Circumcision,” in IDB, 1:629.

[18] Grk. mē epispasthō.

[19] BDAG, 770.

[20] Lane, 47a:142.

[21] Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2001), 447.

[22] Ibid., pp 443-448 for a summarization of the Pelagian controversy and Augustine’s basic theology.

[23] Justo L. González, The Story of Christianity, Vol. 2 (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1985), 180.

[24] Ibid., 181.

[25] Consult McGrath, pp 467-470 for a summarization of the basic tenets of Calvinism and Arminianism. Also González, pp 61-69, pp 179-183 for summaries of Calvin, and Arminius and the Remonstrance movement.

[26] Seymour Feldman, “The Binding of Isaac: A Test-Case for Divine Foreknowledge,” in Daniel H. Frank, Oliver Leaman, and Charles H. Manekin, eds., The Jewish Philosophy Reader (London and New York: Routledge, 2000), 122.

[27] For a further discussion on these issues, consult Body and Eddy’s comments in their book Across the Spectrum: Chapter 8 “The Salvation Debate” (pp 132-145) and Chapter 11 “The Eternal Security Debate” (pp 165-177).

[28] LS, 13.

[29] Keener, 661.

[30] The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged, 434.

[31] Ibid., 73.

[32] The Soncino Talmud. Judaic Classics Library II.

[33] BDAG, 53.

[34] Ibid., 524.

HEBREWS 7

COMMENTARY

[1] For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, [2] to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth part of all the spoils, was first of all, by the translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, which is king of peace.

7:1 Hebrews 7:1-10:18 forms much of the core of the epistle, as the author wants to demonstrate to his audience how Yeshua the Messiah is able to hold the office of priest, and that there is indeed a legitimate precedent for it. This precedent is found in the relatively elusive individual of Melchizedek, who appears only once in the Tanach (Genesis 14:18-20). Melchizedek was a major figure in the theology of the First Century Pharisees, the Qumran community, as well as the Diaspora Jewish community. Comparing the role that Yeshua plays to the function of Melchizedek from the ancient past, could be readily identified by a broad Jewish audience both native and non-native to the Land of Israel.

Of particular importance to our examination will be Hebrews 7:1-10, which William L. Lane indicates “assumes the form of homiletical midrash.”[1] He goes on to say that the “basis of the midrash in 7:1-10 is the hermeneutical principal of gezera sawa, that is, if two separate passages of Scripture contain the same word, the verbal analogy provides a sufficient reason for explaining one text in light of the other.”[2] In this case, the identity of Melchizedek and the role that Melchizedek played in relation to Abraham are considered in light of the present function of Yeshua the Messiah and various aspects of His salvation work. Our writer picks up where he left off in Hebrews 5:11, having previously observed that “There is much we have to say about this matter, but it is hard to explain to you, because you are so slow to understand” (Good News Bible). He doubts that his audience, whomever they may be, will fully comprehend what he is trying to communicate. Consequently, we should not be surprised today if we have some difficulty as well, understanding some of the comparisons and contrasts between Melchizedek and Yeshua.

7:2 Abraham met Melchizedek as his nephew Lot was caught in the middle of the War of the Kings. In the midst of this conflict, the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were invaded and Lot and his possessions were taken as spoil. Abraham heard of this and led a band to free him. Abraham was successful (Genesis 14:1-17), and on his return encountered Melchizedek, giving him a tenth of the booty that he had captured while freeing Lot:

“And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; now he was a priest of God Most High. He blessed him and said, ‘Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth; and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand.’ He gave him a tenth of all” (Genesis 14:18-20).

Not much is said in the actual Genesis account about Melchizedek, but it is apparently enough for our author to build a case for the work of Yeshua. Melchizedek is identified as both a king and a priest, the two principal roles that Yeshua is portrayed as having. Melchizedek is a priest of “God Most High” or El Alyon.[3] Donald Hagner writes, “Melchizedek is thus regarded as a legitimate priest outside of Israel,”[4] as the priesthood in which Yeshua operates from Heaven definitely serves all of humanity. Donald Guthrie observes how “Any priesthood is evaluated according to the status of the deity who is served, which means that Melchizedek’s must have been of a highly exalted kind.”[5]

Genesis 14:20 is the first account seen of tithing in the Bible. The Patriarch Abraham recognized who Melchizedek was as a priest of the One True God and gave him what was his due. The two characteristics that our author focuses on are seen in the etymology of the name Malki-Tzedeq (Grk. trans. Melchisedek), as he writes, “His name, in the first place, means ‘king of righteousness’; next he is also king of Salem, that is, ‘king of peace’” (NRSV). It is important to realize that the author of Hebrews provides a translation of Melchizedek’s name, as this is strong internal evidence that his letter was not originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, but instead Greek. In fact, we see some distinct parallels and contrasts between his wording in v. 2 and what the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher Philo says about Melchizedek:

“Moreoever, God made Melchisedek, the king of peace, that is of Salem, for that is the interpretation of this name, ‘his own high priest,’ without having previously mentioned any particular action of his, but merely because he had made him a king, and a lover of peace, and especially worthy of his priesthood. For he is called a just king, and a king is the opposite of a tyrant, because the one is the interpreter of law, and the other of lawlessness” (Allegorical Interpretation 3.79).[6]

Yeshua the Messiah Himself, of course, is prophesied as demonstrating both of the key character traits of righteousness and peace:

“For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; and the government will rest on His shoulders; and His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness from then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this” (Isaiah 9:6-7).

“‘Behold, the days are coming,’ declares the LORD, ‘When I will raise up for David a righteous Branch; and He will reign as king and act wisely and do justice and righteousness in the land. In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely; and this is His name by which He will be called, “The LORD our righteousness”’” (Jeremiah 23:5-6).

The Hebrew terms tzedeq or tzedaqah, meaning “rightness” or “righteousness,” correspond via the Septuagint to the Greek term dikaiosunē, employed by our author (also at times meaning “justice”). But perhaps the more significant term is the connection of Salem with “peace.” Shalem[7] is almost always associated as being synonymous with the city of Jerusalem, Yerushalayim or the “city of peace” (cf. Psalm 76:2). Yeshua, of course, is the Prince of Peace, a title employed for Him in the Apostolic Scriptures (Luke 1:79; Ephesians 2:14).

There are some key contrasts between the Hebrew and Greek terms for “peace.” The common Greek term for peace, eirēnē “is the opposite of pólemos (‘war’). It is linked with treaties of peace or the conclusion of peace” (TDNT).[8] In a solely Hellenistic context, eirēnē often just means absence of war. Shalom “means much more than mere absence of war. Rather, the root meaning of the verb shālēm better expresses the true concept of shālôm. Completeness, wholeness, harmony, fulfillment, are closer to the meaning. Implicit in shālôm is the idea of unimpaired relationships with others and fulfillment in one’s undertakings” (TWOT).[9] While shalom is rendered as eirēnē in the LXX, and this usage carries over into the Greek Apostolic Scriptures, its association with righteousness might not totally have been clear to some of the non-Jewish members of Hebrews’ audience.

[3] Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually. [4] Now observe how great this man was to whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth of the choicest spoils.

7:3 Vs 3-4 are somewhat elusive to many interpreters, as the words about Melchizedek, “He is without father or mother or genealogy, and has neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest for ever” (RSV), can be confusing. What does Melchizedek truly represent? This has certainly been a cause of much debate and discussion in the centuries and millennia following Hebrews’ composition. There is a distinct, mysterious quality about who Melchizedek was, that our author wanted his readers to understand in light of the ministry work of Yeshua.

The author of Hebrews certainly uses the ambiguity surrounding how Melchizedek’s genealogy is not addressed in the Genesis narrative, to relate to it as being a precursor to the work of Yeshua. Warren A. Quanbeck notes how “to the rabbis it was not only what God said in scripture that was to be noted but also what he did not say. The absence of vital statistics and of reference to parents is therefore used to heighten the mysterious significance of Melchizedek in the unfolding of salvation history.”[10] To what extent, however, this plays in identifying who Melchizedek was and what his relationship to Yeshua may be, has been argued from many different lines of thought.

Many laypersons, even in the Messianic movement, have interpreted the words “like the Son of God” and have extrapolated that the Melchizedek who encountered Abraham, was actually Yeshua (Jesus). However, the phrase aphōmoiōmenos de tō huiō tou Theou, “being made like to the Son of God” (YLT), should not be taken as Melchizedek being a pre-incarnate manifestation of Yeshua. The verb aphomoiō means “to make like” and “to compare,” as well as “to pourtray, copy” (LS).[11] Melchizedek is said to be “resembling” (RSV) Yeshua, having been “made conformable to the Son of God” (NICNT).[12] That Melchizedek is a king who was righteous and provided peace can be certain; whether he was a pre-incarnate manifestation of Yeshua the Messiah is something else.

While Abraham gave his due respect to Melchizedek, he did not make any attempt to worship or bow before him, unlike the later incident when God actually appeared to him in the form of three men (Genesis 18:2). Tim Hegg validly describes, “Those that claim that Melchizedek to be a christophony have a grave difficulty to deal with, namely, that in no other case of a pre-incarnate appearance of Yeshua do those people to whom He appears continue on as though talking with a mere mortal…In the Gen 14 account, Melchizedek, while standing in a very high position, is nonetheless treated as a man, not worshiped as the Divine One.”[13]

What the author of Hebrews is likely doing, however, is using an argument of silence to suggest that since the Tanach Scriptures say nothing about Melchizedek’s genealogy, or his death, that his priesthood must somehow continue on. Silence in the Scriptures was actually a major feature of Alexandrian Jewish exegesis, evidenced in some of the teachings of Philo. Philo used the argument to silence to deal with the fact that the Tanach did not speak of the death of Cain. While Cain surely died a human’s death, Cain’s spirit of murder for his brother lives on, as it were, and continues in many people (That the Worse Is Wont to Attack the Better 178; On Flight and Finding 60). In a similar manner, the priesthood of Melchizedek may be regarded as being present and functioning in the salvation activity of Yeshua the Messiah.

Why our author mentioned Melchizedek at all, can be a cause of a great many questions when we consider the historical framework in which it was likely given. There are three distinct streams that we see within sects of Judaism of the greater First Century period that the author of Hebrews—at least to some degree—may be confronting:

1. The Qumran community viewed Melchizedek as some kind of an angelic being:

The DSS (11Q13) indicate that the Qumran community identified Melchizedek as being an exalted figure, perhaps even an angel, who would be used to bring about God’s judgment in the apocalypse. A text called The Heavenly Prince Melchizedek indicates, “Melchizedek will avenge the vengeance of the judgments of God…and he will drag [them from the hand of] Belial and from the hand of all the sp[irits of] his [lot]….This is the day of [Peace/Salvation] concerning which [God] spoke [through Isa]iah the prophet….And your ELOHIM is [Melchizedek who will save them from] the hand of Belial.”[14] Paul Ellingworth indicates that while “the original Sitz im Leben [Ger. Situation in Life] is lost…a cult of Melchizedek as an angel may tentatively be suggested.”[15]

It is possible that some in Hebrews’ audience believed in an exalted Melchizedek coming and exacting God’s justice on the world. The author of Hebrews may be relying on such an idea to emphasize that it is not Melchizedek who is to judge the world, but rather the One whose work Melchizedek, at least partially, prefigured: Yeshua the Messiah. Furthermore, while we see explicit references to Melchizedek in the DSS, Lane points out that “it is recognized by nearly all interpreters that Melchizedek occupied an exalted status in the apocalyptic expectations of first-century sectarian Judaism.”[16] These sentiments need not have been believed only by the Qumran sect to be present in the greater sectors of Hebrews’ audience.

2. Melchizedek was an important historical figure in Hellenistic Judaism:

The figure of Melchizedek has an important role to play in the Hellenistic Judaism of the Diaspora. Philo praises him, saying that he was “a lover of peace, and especially worthy of his priesthood. For he is called a just king, and a king is the opposite of a tyrant, because the one is the interpreter of law, and the other of lawlessness” (Allegorical Interpretation 3.79).[17] He says that the Scriptures assign “to him the outward senses the faculty of feeling properly, and by the sense of speech the faculty of speaking well, and by the senses connected with the mind the faculty of thinking well” (On the Preliminary Studies 99).[18] He also talks about a tradition that indicates that Melchizedek honored Abraham and rejoiced in his victory freeing Lot: “he raised his hands to heaven, and honored him with prayers in his behalf, and offered up sacrifices of thanksgiving for his victory, and splendidly feasted all those who had had a share in the expedition; rejoicing and sympathizing with him as if the success had been his own” (On Abraham 235).[19]

These concepts too were likely present among Hebrews’ audience, as Melchizedek was viewed as a peaceful king who instated a law-abiding rule, was able to communicate well, and rejoiced when righteous persons such as Abraham would overcome evil. These are all characteristics that we can see present in the ministry of Yeshua, and His work for the redeemed.

In the eschatological sense, the most important aspect to know is that Yeshua, just like Melchizedek was, will be enthroned as king. The First Century historian Josephus actually says that Melchizedek was the first priest of Jerusalem, and that he also built a temple:

“But he who first built it was a powerful man among the Canaanites, and is in our own tongue called [Melchizedek], the Righteous King, for such he really was; on which account he was [there] the first priest of God, and first built a temple [there], and called the city of Jerusalem, which was formerly called Salem” (Wars of the Jews 11.438).[20]

Paralleling this, Yeshua presently intercedes before God the Father in Heaven as high priest, and when He returns will reign over the world from Jerusalem over a fully-functioning restored Temple.

3. Rabbinic literature holds Melchizedek as being an exalted figure:

Rabbinical literature post-dating the composition of Hebrews holds him to be one of the four craftsmen of Zechariah 2:3: “And behold, the angel who was speaking with me was going out, and another angel was coming out to meet him.” The Talmud states, “Who are these ‘four craftsmen’? — R. Hana b. Bizna citing R. Simeon Hasida replied: The Messiah the son of David, the Messiah the son of Joseph, Elijah and the Righteous Priest” (b.Sukkah 52b).[21] The reference to “the Righteous Priest” would be viewed as being Melchizedek. Certain Rabbinical views of Melchizedek may have also been intertwined with the Archangel Michael, who is described as being “the great prince standing and offering” (b.Zevachim 62a)[22] in the Temple in Heaven. If some of these ideas were present among Hebrews’ audience, the need to understand Yeshua as being pre-figured by Melchizedek, and superior to him, is self-apparent.

The concept of Melchizedek’s priesthood would help Hebrews’ audience to consider as valid, the ongoing ministry of Yeshua in Heaven. The author of Hebrews uses the silence about Melchizedek’s birth, genealogy, and death to make the point that his priesthood continues on, concurrent with the fact, as F.F. Bruce notes, that “Historically, Melchizedek appears to have belonged to a dynasty of priest-kings in which he had both predecessors and successors.”[23] The Talmud identifies Melchizedek as being a descendant of Shem or from “the priesthood from Shem” (b.Nedarim 32b).[24] Melchizedek would historically have lived and died a normal human’s life, but his work and priesthood continue on, now permanently present in the activities of Yeshua.

7:4 Some may wonder why Melchizedek was such an important theological figure among sectors of Second Temple Judaism, when so little is said of him in Genesis. The author of Hebrews asked his readers to “Consider how great he must be” (NEB). Melchizedek was important enough to receive a tenth of the treasure Abraham had captured in his rescue of Lot. In this instance, Melchizedek was a superior to Abraham—even though Abraham was given the great promises of his seed blessing the entire world (Genesis 12:2). Melchizedek having been a superior to Abraham, who is widely regarded and considered as being the father of faith, could alone have been enough for ancient Jewish readers of the Torah to assign him with a high status.

[5] And those indeed of the sons of Levi who receive the priest's office have commandment in the Law to collect a tenth from the people, that is, from their brethren, although these are descended from Abraham. [6] But the one whose genealogy is not traced from them collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed the one who had the promises. [7] But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater.

7:5-6 The author of Hebrews makes a correct statement by indicating that the Levites have a Torah-commanded responsibility to collect a tithe from among their fellow Israelites, saying, “And those indeed of the sons of Levi who receive the priest's office have commandment in the Law to collect a tenth from the people, that is, from their brethren, although these are descended from Abraham.” This is detailed explicitly in Numbers 18:26:

“Moreover, you shall speak to the Levites and say to them, ‘When you take from the sons of Israel the tithe which I have given you from them for your inheritance, then you shall present an offering from it to the LORD, a tithe of the tithe.’”

The Levites had the responsibility of taking a part of the tithe of the Israelites, and then giving “one-tenth of the tithe as a gift to the LORD” (NJPS). Yet as our writer states it, “this man [Melchizedek] who does not have his descent from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises” (ESV). The point made is that Melchizedek had a legitimate priestly service, outside that of the Levitical priesthood established for Ancient Israel.

7:7 The author of Hebrews further observes, “beyond all dispute the lesser is always blessed by the greater” (NEB). While Abraham was greater in wealth and means than Melchizedek was, Melchizedek was greater in position than Abraham, as the one receiving a tithe is always of a higher position or office than the one giving it. So, as important as Abraham would surely and rightly have been for any within Hebrews’ audience, Melchizedek would be, interestingly enough, a little more important.

[8] In this case mortal men receive tithes, but in that case one receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives on. [9] And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, [10] for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

7:8 The tithe “is collected by men who die” (NIV), but as our author observes, there is “one whom scripture affirms to be alive” (REB). The CJB renders this as “in the case of Malki-Tzedek, it is received by someone who is testified to be still alive.” David H. Stern actually asserts that “Malki-Tzedek is testified to still be alive,”[25] yet this is an improper assumption based on our author’s theological methods. The Oxford Study Bible (REB) likewise makes this mistake, indicating “The Levitical priests are mortal, Melchizedek is not.”[26] Melchizedek can only be “still living” in the sense of how the priestly office that he occupied during the time of Abraham continues on in the present ministry of Yeshua. In view of what has just been stated about the lesser being blessed by the greater (v. 7), our author’s point is to significantly highlight the superiority of Melchizedek’s priesthood, even though it is easy to not think that much of it.

7:9-10 The writer’s manner of interpretation, which is intended to stretch the mind a bit, is seen when he says, “It might even be said that Levi, the receiver of tithes, was himself tithed through Abraham” (REB). He attests that Levi was able to give tithes, even though he was not born, because he existed “in the body of his ancestor” (NIV). If Levi is able to “tithe,” after a fashion, via Abraham, with Levi only existing in the genetic sperm of his great-grandfather Abraham—then it might be said that Melchizedek lives on, after a fashion, in the priestly ministry of Yeshua the Messiah.

[11] Now 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? [12] For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.

7:11 Vs. 11-12 are critical for readers to approach properly, if we want to correctly understand the message of Hebrews in association to the Torah. The author inquires of his audience, asking them, “If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood...why was there still need for another priest to come—one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?” (NIV). These words were largely directed to Jews who would have possibly expected some kind of “perfection” to be attained through the Levitical priesthood and its animal sacrifices.

Leon Morris actually gives us a very good definition of “perfection,” saying that it “means the condition in which [people] are acceptable to God.”[27] The source text employs the term teleiōsis, meaning “a completing, perfecting...fulfilment, accomplishment; the event which verifies a promise” (Thayer).[28] The perfection that our author is speaking about is the state of people being totally and completely reconciled to their Creator. This was a state that was simply unattainable in the Levitical system, because sacrifices had to be continually offered before the Lord for the propitiation of sins. This does not necessarily make the Levitical priesthood bad, or even “imperfect,” because the Levitical priesthood was surely given and established by a God who is perfect. It does, rather, make the Levitical priesthood incomplete and unable to bring about the complete perfection that is to be established in the lives of God’s people.

The CJB offers us a good rendering of teleiōsis, rendering Hebrews 7:11 with, “if it had been possible to reach the goal through the system of cohanim derived from Levi.” Stern says that “here it means ‘reaching the goal’ of being reconciled with God and able to be eternally in his presence, as Yeshua is now…In order for sinful human beings to reach this goal, they must indeed become ‘perfect’ by having their sins forgiven by God. The author will later show that this can never come about through the Levitical priesthood but can come about through Yeshua’s priesthood.”[29] Lane also correctly states, “the writer’s sustained concern [is] with God’s declared intention to bring humanity to its appointed goal of a right relationship with himself.”[30]

A significant thrust of the Epistle to the Hebrews is in recognizing the superiority of Yeshua the Messiah’s priesthood after the order of Melchizedek (vs. 23-28), which offers a permanent atonement for human sin, when compared to the Levitical priesthood and its animal sacrifices that had to be offered over and over again. The author of Hebrews rightly testifies that “perfection [has not] been attainable through the Levitical priesthood” (11a, RSV), such as “reach[ing] the goal” (CJB) being eternal redemption and reconciliation with God. Obviously, an appreciation for what the Levitical priesthood and its animal sacrifices are, is  necessary, for anyone to appreciate the much greater and more significant priesthood of Yeshua and His own personal sacrifice.

The challenge, among many readers and interpreters, is that they view these statements about perfection, as often being a denigration of the Torah or Law of Moses, as they connect the statement “if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood” to “on the basis of it the people received the Law.” It is often said that the Levitical priesthood was “imperfect,” and thus God’s Torah or Law too was “imperfect.” These are, however, statements that the author of Hebrews does not make. All our author says is that the Levitical priesthood could not bring about the full perfection of human beings, meaning a permanent atonement and reconciliation of sins before the Creator God.

Morris, while validly noting permanent atonement and reconciliation for sins before God, as the proper definition of “perfection,” sadly does conclude, “We ought not to think of the law and priesthood as two quite separate things that happened to be operative at the same time among the same people. The priesthood is the very basis of the law.”[31] Ellingworth similarly echoes, “Priesthood and law are indissolubly bound together; and within this relation, priesthood is logically prior.”[32] Here, it is simply asserted that the Levitical priesthood and the Torah are absolutely tied together, and you either have to have them both, or neither at all.

Significant confusion abounds from the author’s parenthetical statement in v. 11b, which the RSV renders as “for under it the people received the law.” The implication from this English reading is that the Ancient Israelites being given the Torah is predicated on the existence of the Levitical priesthood. Presumably one could conclude that if the Levitical priesthood is inferior to the Messiah’s priesthood, that the significance of Moses’ Teaching is to also be diminished. Hebrews 7:11b is a definite place in our author’s treatise, where there are some translation and perspective issues that need to be significantly evaluated.

The contention that the Torah was given to Ancient Israel on the basis of the priesthood is strictly incorrect—as can be easily detected from any survey of the Pentateuch. No Levitical priesthood or animal sacrifices could be established for Ancient Israel until the instructions that regulated such a priesthood, its sacrifices, and the Tabernacle were given to Moses by God. Nor can it be said that once the Levitical priesthood was established, then could the Torah’s instruction for the remainder of Ancient Israel then be codified. Yet this is precisely what many theologians think: with the Levitical priesthood gone, so then is the Torah as a whole gone.

What is intended by Hebrews 7:11b is going to come down entirely to how we view the statement ho laos gar ep’ autēs nenomothetētai, with much attention given to the specific clause ep’ autēs.

How should ho laos gar ep’ autēs nenomothetētai be translated? Notably absent from this clause is the preposition hupo or “under,” making the rendering “for under it” (RSV/ESV/HCSB), invalid.[33] Most appropriately, the preposition epi in 11b is a “marker of perspective, in consideration of, in regard to, on the basis of, concerning, about, w. gen.” (BDAG), with this lexical entry further noting how “[ep’ autēs means] on the basis of it Hb 7:11.”[34] So, on the basis of “it,” the Levitical priesthood, some action was to be performed to the Ancient Israelites.

While most contemporary English translations communicate something to the extent that “through which the people received the law” (v. 11b, Lattimore), it is necessary that we probe the significance of the verb nomotheteō, “to make law” (LS),[35] which Bruce says means “legislate.”[36] The verb nomotheteō does appear in the Septuagint to describe the giving of the Torah by God to Moses: “the commandments that I wrote to legislate [nomotheteō] for them” (Exodus 24:12, NETS).[37] At the same time, though, nomotheteō appears in various contexts where God’s Torah being taught to people is in view. Deuteronomy 17:10 notably says, concerning the Levitical priests, “And you shall do according to the word whatever they report to you from the place that the Lord your God may choose for his name to be called there, and you shall guard very much to do according to all things whatever is legislated [nomotheteō] for you” (NETS). The Levitical priesthood definitely had a Torah-prescribed responsibility to teach Ancient Israel God’s commandments (Deuteronomy 33:10),[38] to in other words “legislate” the people. That the verb nomotheteō can regard God’s people being taught His Law and commandments, is something witnessed throughout the Septuagint version of Psalms, where nomotheteō translated the Hebrew verb yara[39]:

“Good and upright is the Lord: therefore will he instruct [nomotheteō trans. yara] sinners in the way” (Psalm 24:8, LXE).

“Who is the man that fears the Lord? he shall instruct [nomotheteō trans. yara] him in the way which he has chosen” (Psalm 24:12, LXE).

“Teach [nomotheteō trans. yara] me, O Lord, in thy way, and guide me in a right path, because of mine enemies” (Psalm 27:11, LXE).

“Teach [nomotheteō trans. yara] me, O Lord, the way of thine ordinances, and I will seek it out continually” (Psalm 119:33, LXE).

“I have not declined from thy judgments; for thou hast instructed [nomotheteō trans. yara] me” (Psalm 119:102, LXE).

What would it mean for us to render Hebrews 7:11b as “upon it the people were legislated,” meaning that upon the basis of the Levitical priesthood Israel was to be instructed in the Torah? It is not a stretch at all to conclude that by the mid-First Century the Second Temple Saddusaical priesthood had utterly failed at such a responsibility—especially given the fact that the Sadducees were flat known for denying the resurrection,[40] the essential truth upon which Yeshua’s Messiahship and our faith in Him must ultimately be based.[41] That the First Century Jewish community was not properly “legislated,” meaning taught God’s Torah from the Temple priesthood, is easily witnessed. The Saddusaical priesthood was decisively impotent to instruct people in perfection—precisely because “the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor an angel, nor a spirit” (Acts 23:8a)—and a new priesthood, that of Yeshua the Messiah, needed to be established!

But if those of Ancient Israel were to once be taught the Law, “legislated,” upon the basis of the Levitical priesthood—what was to happen with Yeshua’s Melchizedekian priesthood taking over? Was the Torah to be gone with it too? This is what most conclude. However, this is an insupportable conclusion when the New Covenant promise that the author of Hebrews will appeal to twice (8:8-12; 10:16-17), involves God’s laws being written on the hearts and minds of the redeemed. The Torah surely has key instructions regarding human ethics, morality, fairness, relationships and sexuality, and how God’s people are to live their day-to-day lives.

Previously, God’s people were to be legislated/instructed in His Torah on the basis of the Levitical priesthood’s service, something which by the First Century had failed because of its Saddusaical occupants (7:28a). With Yeshua the Messiah on the scene, the New Covenant is to be legislated/instructed forth on the basis of the promises of the Messianic expectation and His superior priestly service (7:16b, 20-27), most especially involving permanent forgiveness of sins (9:14).

7:12 The gravity of Yeshua’s sacrifice for fallen humankind, should be significant enough for all readers of Hebrews to legitimately recognize its salvation historical significance, and the changes that are naturally resultant of it. Vs. 11-19, interestingly enough, are subtitled in Louis H. Evans’ PreachC volume as, “The Need for a New Priesthood.”[42]

When seeing Hebrews 7:12, many of today’s Christians conclude that the Torah is no longer to be followed by God’s people. This verse says, “For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also,” and readers need to keep this statement in definite view of the wider issues that the author of Hebrews is speaking about to his audience. Eternal perfection was not something attainable through the Levitical priesthood (v. 11), but is something to be found in the Messiah Yeshua’s Melchizedkian priesthood (v. 28; cf. 9:11). Yet, there is a problem with Yeshua’s priesthood being regarded as superior to the Levitical priesthood: Yeshua is a member of the tribe of Judah, whereas according to the Torah those serving the Tabernacle or Temple are to be of the tribe of Levi (v. 11c; Numbers 18:21-24). This is what has largely necessitated “a change in the priesthood” (Hebrews 7:12, RSV), metatithemenēs gar tēs hierōsunēs, something clearly resultant from the salvation work accomplished by the Messiah.

Any “change in the law” (RSV), nomou metathesis, that is being spoken of concerns the establishment of Yeshua’s Melchizedekian priesthood in Heaven (v. 27). The various changes in view are those which specifically regard the priesthood and sacrificial system, resultant from the salvation work of the Messiah. Unfortunately, though, a great number of today’s readers of Hebrews are unable to see this. Bruce’s conclusions are fairly typical of what one will find:

“[A] change in the priesthood carries with it inevitably a change in the law. If the Aaronic priesthood was instituted for a temporary purpose, to be brought to an end when the age of fulfillment dawned, the same must be true of the law under which that priesthood was introduced.”[43]

It would be quite difficult to argue against the sacrificial work and resurrection of the Messiah not inaugurating any changes in the relation of humankind to the Creator, or even to the Mosaic Law. Likewise, the author of Hebrews is clear throughout his treatise that the source of perfection for the redeemed is not the Torah or any of its instructions (7:11, 19; 9:9; 10:10). We should agree with David A. deSilva’s assertion: “the Torah and its priesthood could not usher in any worshiper save the high priest into God’s presence, so they are unable to lead human beings into God’s very presence in the unshakable, heavenly realm.”[44] Such perfection is obviously only available in Yeshua Himself.

Does the “change of law” in v. 12, at all render God’s Torah completely invalid as instruction for born again Believers? Much of how we view the validity or non-validity of the Torah in Hebrews 7:12 regards our approach to the verb metatithēmi and noun metathesis. Hebrews’ interpreters tend to take these terms as the author having a rather negative approach toward Moses’ Teaching. Ellingworth describes how “[metatithēmi]…means literally ‘put somewhere else,’ hence figuratively ‘change,’” further informing us, “more often the standpoint is that of the place from which something is moved, so that the verb comes to mean ‘remove,’”[45] which it can mean as employed elsewhere in the epistle (11:5). Some take metatithēmi as a complete abrogation of the Torah. However, not only does such a conclusion stand in opposition to the Messiah’s own stated intention of upholding the validity and relevance of the Mosaic Law (Matthew 5:17-19), but it has a considerable difficulty in terms of Hebrews’ own author stating how Yeshua’s priesthood has inaugurated the era of New Covenant with God’s laws to be written on the hearts and minds of the redeemed (8:8-12).

Lane notably renders Hebrews 7:12 with, “For whenever the priesthood is altered, there is necessarily also an alteration of law” (WBC).[46] This corresponds closely to one of the definitions for metatithēmi provided by BDAG: “to effect a change in state or condition, change, alter,” noting “when the priesthood is changed, i.e. passed on to another.”[47] While “removal” is a possible definition of the noun metathesis, so too is “change, transformation” (BDAG).[48] If a complete removal of the Levitical priesthood is intended by Hebrews 7:12, then what is to be made of Tanach prophecies such as Ezekiel chs. 40-44 that detail the reestablishment of the Levites in the Millennium? Likewise, what do any of us do with the word, “I will also take some of them for priests and for Levites” (Isaiah 66:21)? A complete removal of the Levitical priesthood from the scene of God’s future plan is insupportable; a complete removal of the Torah from the scene of God’s current dealings with His people is also insupportable if the thrust of the New Covenant includes a supernatural transcription of the Law onto their hearts. Ellingworth fortunately concludes how “In the present verse, both noun and verb should be understood neutrally as ‘change,’ not of the ‘removal’ of law altogether.”[49] The conclusions of Kaiser, an evangelical Old Testament theologian from the Reformed tradition, should be well taken here:

“It would be wrong to think that just because the sacrificial system had been replaced therefore the whole law, including the moral law of the Decalogue (Ex 20; Dt 5) and the Holiness Code (Lev 18-20), had likewise been superseded and replaced.”[50]

Indeed, what is in view in Hebrews 7:12 are how the various alterations brought about by Yeshua’s priestly service in Heaven, regard how “a change of priesthood must mean a change of law” (REB). The great Methodist commentator Adam Clarke would conclude, “The priesthood, therefore, being changed, Jesus coming in the place of Aaron, the law of ordinances and ceremonies, which served only to point out the Messiah, must of necessity be changed also.”[51] While such a view originates from the traditional Protestant perspective of the Torah making up moral, civil, and ceremonial commandments—which might be a bit artificial—Clarke does not see a widescale dismissal of the Mosaic Law in Hebrews 7:12. Instead, the only changes asserted concern the priesthood and/or sacrificial system.

In his Complete Jewish Bible, Stern renders Hebrews 7:12 with, “For if the system of cohanim is transformed, there must of necessity occur a transformation of Torah.” He justifies this on the basis that “no change or transformation in Torah is envisioned other than in connection with the priesthood and sacrificial system. The term ‘metathesis’ implies retention of the basic structure of Torah, with some of its elements rearranged (‘transformed’); it does not imply abrogation of either the Torah as a whole or of mitzvot [commandments] not connected with the priesthood and the sacrificial system.”[52] These conclusions too are most appreciated. The nomou metathesis most certainly includes a recognition of Yeshua the Messiah as the central focus of the Father’s redemptive activity (cf. 1:1-4; 13:8); only the Messiah event can “change” anything as it regards our approach to the Torah.

The Epistle to the Hebrews, as any cursory reading or survey will reveal, is concerned about how various First Century Jewish Believers (and probably many non-Jewish Believers as well) are going to handle the reality that Yeshua’s Melchizedkian priesthood is superior to the Levitical priesthood. The author’s issue is not with the Ten Commandments, or how Yeshua directs His followers to observe the Torah most especially in matters of relationship with other people (i.e., Matthew chs. 5-7). One cannot use Hebrews 7:12 and the “change in law” to cast aside the significance of the seventh-day Sabbath/Shabbat, the appointed times, or kosher dietary laws—much less any of the Torah’s commandments regulating human ethics and morality. One can use Hebrews 7:12 to argue that the “change in law,” required by Yeshua’s priesthood, involves the capital penalties of the Torah being remitted by His sacrifice at Golgotha (cf. Colossians 2:14), and various rearrangements and reprioritizations naturally enacted by what the Lord has accomplished.

There is some difficulty presented here to various Messianic people today, who might believe or try to argue, that every single commandment of the Torah can be followed today. This precludes that with the coming of Yeshua nothing has changed, and humankind still needs ongoing animal sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins. But the coming of Yeshua to Planet Earth did change things, just as the development of economics and technology has rendered certain aspects of the Torah unapplicable to its followers, such as the laws concerning slavery.[53]

The implications of this for us today are that if it is the priesthood and sacrificial system that have been changed via the coming of Yeshua, then what aspects of the Torah remain relevant for God’s people? Obvious areas that the Messianic movement has been helping to restore to the community of faith include keeping the seventh-day Sabbath or Shabbat, commemorating the appointed times of Leviticus 23, and eating kosher. Certainly, there are arguments against observing these things put forward by many contemporary Christians, which require today’s Messianics to be continually studying the Apostolic Scriptures in their First Century Jewish context. The “change” or “transformation” that the Torah has experienced in the arrival of the Messiah primarily regards permanent atonement for sins and Yeshua serving in the office of Melchizedekian priest. It does not regard how Messiah followers relate in their day-to-day lives with God and what He considers acceptable and unacceptable, ethical and moral behavior. The Lord still wants us to spend special times with Him every week and in sacred seasons such as Passover or Tabernacles. The Lord still wants His people to eat properly. The Lord still wants His people to be instructed by the Torah, which is the foundation of His written Word. And, the people of God are to surely emulate the Messiah Yeshua who followed Moses’ Teaching.

[13] For the one concerning whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar. [14] For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests. [15] And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek, [16] who has become such not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life. [17] For it is attested of Him, “YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK” [Psalm 110:4].

7:13-14 From v. 13 to the end of ch. 7, the author of Hebrews describes the superiority of the priesthood of Yeshua when compared to the Levitical priesthood. He reflects on the reality that “He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar” (NIV), further stating that “It is beyond all doubt that our Lord sprung from Judah, a tribe to which Moses made no reference in speaking of priests” (REB). Yeshua the Messiah was of the tribe of Judah, a Jew, yet the instruction delivered to Moses at Mount Sinai requires that priests who serve the altar (Grk. thusiatērion) be from the tribe of Levi. This is an indication of how the priesthood has been transposed from that of Levi to Melchizedek.

7:15-16 The author of Hebrews states how, “Moses never mentioned Judah in connection with the priesthood. The change in God's law is even more evident from the fact that a different priest, who is like Melchizedek, has now come” (NLT).

In v. 16 our author attests that Yeshua has become a priest “not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life” (NKJV). The nomon entolēs sarkinēs or “rule in the Torah concerning physical descent” (CJB), the instruction relegating the Levitical priesthood, was required to be changed to accommodate for Yeshua serving in the office of Melchizedek (vs. 11-12). Priests in the Torah were not only to come from the tribe of Levi, but more specifically from the family of Aaron (Exodus 28:1-4; 40:12-15; Numbers 3:10). Contrary to this, Yeshua came from the tribe of Judah. And to be kept in mind here is how Levitical priests had to retire by the age of 50 (Leviticus 8:23-25).

Yeshua the Messiah has not become a priest because of the written instructions in the Torah prescribing the Levitical priesthood, but has become a priest because of something much better. He has become a priest “on the basis of the power of an indestructible life” (NIV). The adjective used to describe this “endless life” (KJV) is akatalutos, meaning “indissoluble” (LS).[54] The only other place akatalutos appears is in 4 Maccabees 10:10, where four brothers were being tortured, and one of them said to his captors, “you, because of your impiety and bloodthirstiness, will undergo unceasing [akatalutos] torments.” If sinners can undergo an unending punishment for their crimes, then certainly the resurrected Son of God can forever occupy the office of Melchizedek as High Priest.

7:17 The author of Hebrews once again quotes Psalm 110:4, “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” Yeshua the Messiah is a Melchizedekian priest l’olam or “forever,” eis ton aiōna. Unlike the Levitical priests, who would have to retire and who would eventually die (v. 23), Yeshua the Messiah will serve in the role of a Melchizedekian priest in perpetuity.

[18] For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness [19] (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.

7:18-19 Within the Epistle to the Hebrews, readers definitely encounter how Yeshua’s Melchizedkian priesthood, with the Messiah interceding in Heaven at the right hand of the Father (8:1-2; 10:12; 12:2), is surely superior to the Levitical priesthood—as highly respected and regarded as the Levitical priesthood is to surely be. Changes have occurred to the relationship God’s people have toward the priesthood and the Torah, as a result of Yeshua’s sacrificial death, resurrection, and ascension. But does this at all mean that the Torah is to be thrown away as irrelevant instruction for Messiah followers? This is a conclusion that many do draw from reading vs. 18-19. Yet, a more careful reading, of what our author communicates to his First Century audience, is needed.

Many of today’s Christians, unfortunately, may conveniently forget that the Author of the Torah and its commandments, is actually God Himself. Is the Torah or Law of Moses absolutely meaningless to read, and completely irrelevant for guiding Believers in a path of holiness and sanctification? Is the Torah as given by the Lord really of no spiritual value of all? The conclusion that the Torah or Law of Moses is to be totally set aside is not what Hebrews 7:18-19 says. Vs. 18-19, while speaking of the insufficiency of the Torah providing eternal perfection—something obviously only available in Yeshua’s salvation—only speaks of “a former commandment” set aside:

“The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God” (vs. 18-19, NIV).

Vs. 18-19 do not say that God’s Torah was set aside; what is said is that “a former commandment is set aside” (RSV) or “The earlier rules are repealed” (REB). The particular clause of interest is athetēsis men gar ginetai proagousēs entolēs, with the important term in view being athetēsis. BDAG defines athetēsis to be “gener. the process of causing someth. to be set aside, removal.”[55] Elsewhere in the Epistle to the Hebrews it describes the putting away of sin by Yeshua’s sacrifice (9:26), as well as people who disregard the Torah of Moses (10:28). The Friberg Lexicon considers athetēsis to largely be “a legal technical term annulment, setting aside as being no longer in force.”[56] While AMG defines athetēsis as “Cancellation, disannulling,” its commentary says that “In Heb. 7:18, it refers to the natural abrogation or annulment of the commandment for the sacrifice of animals in that it was weak and unprofitable.”[57]

As far as looking to the Levitical priesthood and its animal sacrifices as being the source of perfection and reconciliation with the Creator, Believers in Yeshua should effectively consider such a system nullified. The animal sacrifices of the Torah are not required with the final atonement of Yeshua on the cross offered for a permanent covering of human sin, and would at best be redundant. With the impending destruction of the Second Temple in the First Century, things were about to be significantly altered for the Messianic community, and it needed to be solidified in the minds of many Jewish Believers that the sacrifice of Yeshua was primary to the animal sacrifices of the Temple. Still, the issue in view in Hebrews 7:18-19 is not the Torah in its totality, or its code of conduct for men and women of faith, but instead “a former commandment” concerning the regulation of the Levitical priesthood.

Various Hebrews’ commentators, even expressing a preference to the Torah as a whole being set aside, have to recognize that the main issue in view is the instruction regarding the Levitical priesthood: Bruce remarks, “It was inevitable that the earlier law should be abrogated sooner or later; for all the impressive solemnity of the sacrificial ritual and the sacerdotal ministry, no real peace of conscience was procured thereby, no immediate access to God.”[58] Ellingworth similarly says, “Here the context suggests [entolē] a particular command…but since no individual [OT] text is cited, it is probably better to think of the legislation establishing the Aaronic priesthood and its function.”[59]

The fact that the Messiah’s Melchizedian priesthood causes “a setting aside of a former commandment” (v. 18a), of the Levitical priesthood, has to be balanced with various prophecies within the Tanach (Old Testament) which speak of the reinstatement of the Levitical priesthood and animal sacrifices in the future. In Jeremiah 33:20-22, the Lord says that His covenant with David and with the Levites cannot be broken:

“Thus says the LORD, ‘If you can break My covenant for the day and My covenant for the night, so that day and night will not be at their appointed time, then My covenant may also be broken with David My servant so that he will not have a son to reign on his throne, and with the Levitical priests, My ministers. As the host of heaven cannot be counted and the sand of the sea cannot be measured, so I will multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.’”

If any of us holds to a pre-millennial end-time scenario, then there must be an operating Levitical priesthood with animal sacrifices occurring, in order for the Abomination of Desolation to take place (Daniel 9:27; cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:4). Furthermore, Ezekiel chs. 40-44, speaking of the Millennium, does prophecy of an operating Levitical priesthood with animal sacrifices occurring in the Messianic Age. Ezekiel 44:10-11 describes the Levites in the Millennial Temple performing animal sacrifices:

“But the Levites who went far from Me when Israel went astray, who went astray from Me after their idols, shall bear the punishment for their iniquity. Yet they shall be ministers in My sanctuary, having oversight at the gates of the house and ministering in the house; they shall slaughter the burnt offering and the sacrifice for the people, and they shall stand before them to minister to them.”

The only way any Bible reader can get around the future reality of animal sacrifices occurring in the Millennium is to argue that these sayings are metaphorical, and are not to be taken too literally—that the future of God’s people is somehow only mimicked in language of the past. Conservative pre-millennialists, including myself, have considerable difficulty just allegorizing something like Ezekiel chs. 40-44. We instead have to conclude the athetēsis or setting aside of the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices (Hebrews 7:18) to either concern eternal perfection being now offered in Yeshua with such a previous system effectively nullified, and/or a temporary setting aside of this system with the priesthood once again operative at a future point for God’s end-time purposes.

Various Christian prophecy teachers, who we would easily describe as being opposed to the relevance of the Torah for Believers today, have to even recognize the reality of animal sacrifices being performed by Levites during the Millennium. Tim LaHaye states in his Prophecy Study Bible, commenting on Ezekiel 43:15-27, that “The offerings will be memorial and retrospective, looking back to Christ’s finished work on the cross, instead of looking forward to Christ.”[60] These same sentiments are elaborated on in more detail by Walvoord, in his book Israel in Prophecy:

“A number of Scriptures also describe the temple worship which will characterize the millennial kingdom. According to Ezekiel, a magnificent temple will be built, and a system of priesthood and memorial sacrifices will be set up…Some have felt it impossible to have a system of animal sacrifices subsequent to the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross in light of New Testament passages stating that the sacrifice of Christ makes other sacrifices unnecessary. Though varied explanations have been given for Ezekiel 40-48 which unfolds these details, no satisfactory explanation has been made other than that it is a description of millennial worship. In any case, it is clear that the sacrifices are not expiatory, but merely memorials of the one complete sacrifice of Christ. If in the wisdom and sovereign pleasure of God the detailed system of sacrifices in the Old Testament were a suitable foreshadowing of that which would be accomplished by the death of His Son, and if a memorial of Christ’s death is to be enacted, it would not seem unfitting that some sort of a sacrificial system would be used.”[61]

As we read Hebrews 7:18 in concert with other texts of Scripture, it seems to speak of a temporary “setting aside” of the Levitical priesthood and animal sacrifices, until the appointed season in God’s end-time plan for the future when they will be reinstated. The author of Hebrews, writing to Jews in the First Century whose worship and spiritual hub was centered around the Jerusalem Temple—the destruction of which was imminent—wrote that it “was weak and useless” (NIV) in light of the sacrifice and atoning work of Messiah Yeshua. Lane is keen to note for us, “Its ‘weakness’ ([asthenēs]) inheres not in the law or its purpose, but in the people upon whom it depends for its accomplishment…Its ‘uselessness’ ([anōphelēs]) derives from the fact that the law regulated the approach to God in a cultic sense and was able to cleanse only externally (9:9-10, 13, 23; 10:14).”[62] The main problem with the Levitical priesthood and its sacrifices was its inability or ineffectiveness to offer a permanent solution to the alienation that sin causes between human beings and their Creator: “a former requirement is set aside because of its weakness and ineffectiveness” (TLV).

Recognizing the limitations of the Levitical priesthood and animal sacrifices, it should not be surprising that the author of Hebrews can assert “the Law made nothing perfect” (v. 19a). Do be reminded that when v. 19a says this, the statement being made is that perfection is only attainable in the Messiah of Israel; it is not a claim that the Torah is somehow not tamim (Psalm 19:7) or is to be unvalued by God’s people, because the author of Hebrews never says “the Law is not perfect.”[63] His point is “there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God” (v. 19b), this hope or expectation ([elpis]) being what Yeshua the Messiah (Jesus Christ) has brought about by His sacrifice and priesthood (cf. 1 Timothy 1:1; Colossians 1:27).

The Complete Jewish Bible notably renders Hebrews 7:19a with, “the Torah did not bring anything to the goal.” Here, the verb teleioō would be taken to mean something along the lines of “to overcome or supplant an imperfect state of things by one that is free fr. objection, bring to an end, bring to its goal/accomplishment” (BDAG).[64] What the Torah cannot do is bring the goal of eternal perfection into reality within a person’s life; such reaching the goal can only be realized in a personal relationship with the Messiah Himself (v. 11).

The Torah is entirely incapable of bringing eternal redemption because eternal redemption is available only in Messiah Yeshua. But this does not all of a sudden make the Torah of no value. Even the Levitical priesthood and animal sacrifices of the Torah are to serve as a valuable type and shadow of the salvation Yeshua provides in Himself (10:1). It is critical for Messiah followers to study Moses’ Teaching and its commandments which foreshadow Yeshua’s ministry and salvation work (cf. John 5:46), because we not only learn more about the Messiah and who He is by delving into the Word—as we see Him prophesied in the Torah’s accounts and instructions—but we can have confirmation that He truly is the anticipated Savior! Clarke issues the proper view, “it was only the outline of a great plan, the shadow of a glorious substance.”[65] Yet, even with the Torah being incomplete to some degree—the Torah is hardly irrelevant or unimportant for faithful students of Scripture. It does mean, though, that our focus of spiritual interest and attention is to be on the Messiah. Guthrie astutely concludes,

“There is no doubt that the writer [of Hebrews] does not here mean that the law itself is annulled, but that it can be discounted as a means of gaining perfection…It is characteristic of law—not merely the Mosaic law, but all law—that it has made nothing perfect. All it could do was focus on imperfection. Indeed the Mosaic law went further and demonstrated in its application that perfection was impossible.”[66]

Even though keeping the Torah is not intended to be something difficult for people (Deuteronomy 30:11ff), the human tendency will still be to disobey and ignore various commandments—even out of simple omission. It would not be inappropriate for us to approach 19a with, “the Torah itself did not bring anything to the goal” (my paraphrase), as built into the Torah is a necessary component which inevitably points people to their need for a Divine Savior and to focus on Him in all of their decisions and actions for life. We have the responsibility as Messianic Believers who are Torah obedient to make sure that everything we do is focused around Yeshua, and God’s continuing plan of salvation history communicated to us in His Instruction.

[20] And inasmuch as it was not without an oath [21] (for they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath through the One who said to Him, “THE LORD HAS SWORN AND WILL NOT CHANGE HIS MIND, ‘YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER’” [Psalm 110:4]); [22] so much the more also Yeshua has become the guarantee of a better covenant.

7:20 The author of Hebrews makes the important statement that no Divine oath was associated with the establishment of the Levitical priesthood, something that is seen in Exodus 29:35, 43: “Thus you shall do to Aaron and to his sons, according to all that I have commanded you; you shall ordain them through seven days…I will meet there with the sons of Israel, and it shall be consecrated by My glory.” Exodus 29:9 clearly attests that “The priesthood shall be an eternal duty for them” (ATS) or a chuqat olam.[67] The priesthood of Levi is established by God’s decree, not by some oath or commitment that He made.

The taking of an oath was extremely important in ancient Hebrew culture. Evans makes the important point to “‘Think Hebrew, think Semitic!’ We must, if we are to understand this section of our author’s argument to show Christ a superior priest….Oaths, or nedarim, are described to a considerable extent in the Mishnah tractate Nedarim, which builds upon biblical principles gleaned from various incidences of oath-making. Once taken, oaths were binding and unchangeable.”[68] The reason that the Levitical priesthood can be set aside is because “Those who formerly became priests took their office without an oath” (RSV).

7:21 Contrary to this, Yeshua the Messiah has become a priest on the basis of the Father’s oath made to Him. Psalm 110:4 is used as a support text once again, which says “The LORD has sworn and will not change his purpose: ‘You are a priest for ever, in the succession of Melchizedek’” (NEB). As this is the oath made by the Father to His Son, it is impossible to be revoked and enables the Torah to experience a “change” (v. 12) accommodating for this.

7:22 There is a distinct correlation drawn between the fact that occupants of the Levitical priesthood are human, and humans have the inability to follow through on an oath, whereas God is able to follow through. The result of the Father making this oath to His Son, is that “This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant” (ESV). The word enguos, employed as “guarantee,” “means ‘offering security’…Jesus with his life, death, and ascension is the guarantee that the beginning of God's saving work will be followed by its promised completion” (TDNT).[69] Yeshua the Messiah is the Guarantor because He ensures us right relations with the Father, ever interceding before Him on our behalf.

V. 22 includes the first usage of the term diathēkē or “covenant” in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Generally speaking, diathēkē communicates the concepts behind the Hebrew word b’rit, meaning “pact, compact, covenant,” or possibly also “agreement, pledge” (BDB).[70] The word b’rit is mostly rendered as diathēkē in the Septuagint, and this usage is carried over into the Apostolic Scriptures. While the author of Hebrews primarily uses the LXX definition of diathēkē in his treatise, it is debated among interpreters whether later uses in this letter, possibly fluctuate somewhat between its LXX and secular Greek usage. In an entirely secular context, diathēkē means “a disposition of property by will, a will, testament” (LS),[71] although we do not see this usage employed in v. 22.

What our author is preparing to introduce to his audience is the fact that by being established in the priesthood of Melchizedek, Yeshua the Messiah inaugurated the essence of the New Covenant promised to restored Israel in Jeremiah 33. Ellingworth rightly notes, “Hebrews develops the theme of the new covenant more fully than any other NT writer, the epistle accounting for just over half the occurrences of [diathēkē] in the NT.”[72] This is something that is only available by the guaranteed work of the Messiah, sworn by God the Father Himself. This “better covenant” can only be initiated in the lives of men and women who have experienced salvation in Yeshua.

[23] The former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing, [24] but Yeshua, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently. [25] Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

7:23 The Levitical priesthood was not permanent because its priests would die and need to be steadily replaced. As the author of Hebrews attests, “there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office” (NIV). This is one of the distinct reasons why the Levitical priesthood could not “perfect” others. The First Century historian Josephus records that there had been a total of eighty-three high priests from Phinehas up until the destruction of the Second Temple (Antiquities of the Jews 20.227). This reflects upon the historical reality that the priests, because of their mortality, would need to be replaced and were “prevented by death from continuing in office” (NEB).

7:24 Yeshua, in contrast to a human priest that would need to be replaced because of death, “holds a permanent priesthood, because he remains forever” (REB). As attested earlier in v. 16, He has become a priest “according to the power of an endless life” (YLT). Yeshua the Messiah, because He has been resurrected and exalted in Heaven, is not going to die and does not need to be replaced. This is a key element of what makes Yeshua’s priesthood superior to that of Levi. In our previous commentary on Hebrews 2:17-18, we quoted from the Pseudepigraphal work Testament of Levi, which attests to a belief present among some Second-First Century B.C.E. Jewish communities of a high priest to come who would never need any replacement:

“In his priesthood sin shall cease and lawless men shall rest from their evil deeds, and righteous men shall find rest in him. And he shall open the gates of paradise; he shall remove the sword that has threatened since Adam, and he will grant to the saints to eat of the tree of life. The spirit of holiness shall be upon them. And Beliar shall be bound by him. And he shall grant to his children the authority to trample on wicked spirits” (Testament of Levi 18:9-12).[73]

7:25 Yeshua’s priesthood does not need any kind of replacement, either in the actual work He performs, or in the loyalty His folowers are to have for Him in their hearts. V. 25 summarizes why Yeshua’s service in the priesthood of Melchizedek can rightfully be regarded as superior, to the work of the Levitical priesthood. Yeshua is able to “save completely” (NIV) those who seek a relationship with God the Father by acknowledging His redemptive work on the cross. Yeshua’s priesthood is superior because “He always lives to intercede for” (HSCB) us before the Father. Isaiah 53:12 summarizes the work of Yeshua the Suffering Servant, and this includes the work of intercession:

“Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, and He will divide the booty with the strong; because He poured out Himself to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet He Himself bore the sin of many, and interceded for the transgressor.”

The exalted Yeshua in Heaven is now “always” (Grk. pantote)[74] able to intercede for human people, directly before His Father. The Messiah “is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them” (ESV). Notably the verb sōzein, “to save,” appears in the infinitive present active form. Lane indicates that “The present tense of [sōzein] reflects the current experience of the community and suggests that Jesus’ support is available at each critical moment.”[75] Perhaps our author has chosen to emphasize this aspect of Yeshua’s ministry, so those in his ancient audience who were thinking about denying Him, can know that God’s help is available if they readily call upon Him.

Yeshua is able to save people from their sins certainly because of His sacrifice, but also because of the fact that “He lives forever to plead with God on [our] behalf” (NLT). Because of His continual intercession, the Lord never ceases showing His children grace and mercy. The participle proserchomenous, implies, as A.M. Stibbs notes, action that “suggests a sustained experience resulting from a continuous practice.”[76] Appearing in the present tense, the intercession that Yeshua performs continues at this very moment. For many of those in Hebrews’ audience, again likely considering denying the Lord, they needed to hear that Yeshua was presently interceding for them before the Father. What kind of a human high priest would continually do this? This is again an indication of why Yeshua’s priesthood is superior.

Of course, v. 25 does ask us a question about the nature of salvation and whether or not it can be lost by those who choose to deny the Lord. Our author says that “He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him.” Ellingworth validly states, “Just as Christ’s priesthood is permanent, so is the salvation which he makes possible.”[77] Is salvation something that is permanent? On the part of Yeshua’s ability to provide for our eternal salvation—yes! But the part of professing Believers, continuing in that salvation, remains a personal decision we each must make. The author of Hebrews previously addresses the fact that some who have experienced the gift of the Holy Spirit have denied the Lord and can now no longer be saved (6:4-6). He writes here that “he is able, now and always, to save those who come to God through him” (Good News Bible), in that salvation is available freely to all—but each person has the opportunity to deny Him in that salvation. Professing Believers have to recognize His continual work, and ask each day for strength, stamina, and the ability to finish the marathon of faith.

[26] For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; [27] who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. [28] For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints a Son, made perfect forever.

7:26 Our author now proceeds to describe the characteristics of Yeshua as High Priest, indicating that He is hosios akakos amiantos, kechōrismenos apo tōn hamartōlōn, “holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners” (RSV). He uses a number of very specific Greek terms to describe who Yeshua is as High Priest that we must take note of.

The first term that the author of Hebrews employs here is hosios, most often rendered as “holy,” but to be distinguished from the more common word hagios. Hosios more correctly means “without fault relative to deity, devout, pious, pleasing to God, holy” (BDAG),[78] and is specifically used in the Septuagint to refer to one’s faithfulness to God:

“For the end, A Psalm of David, upon the eighth. Save me, O Lord; for the godly [hosios] man has failed; for truth is diminished from among the children of men” (Psalm 12:1, LXE).

“With the holy [hosios] thou wilt be holy; and with the innocent man thou wilt be innocent” (Psalm 18:26, LXE).

“Therefore shall every holy [hosios] one pray to thee in a fit time: only in the deluge of many waters they shall not come nigh to him” (Psalm 32:6, LXE).[79]

While not the case in every instance, hosios in the LXX generally renders the Hebrew chasid, which itself means “holy one, godly, saint” (TWOT).[80] This term itself derives from chesed, invariably meaning “mercy” or “grace.” A good consensus of all of these concepts indicates that Yeshua is One who is the ultimate manifestation of mercy, grace, holiness, and piety.

The second term that our author employs is akakos, rendered as either “innocent,” “unstained” (RSV, ESV), or “has no fault” (Good News Bible). LS defines it as “unknowing of ill, guileless.”[81] TDNT further explains, “Religiously our High Priest is holy, cultically without defect, and morally innocent. The final qualifications denote his majesty.”[82] Yeshua is One who knows no evil and can thus perform no evil. Yeshua, as the able High Priest, has the best intentions in mind, for the mortals He services, in His intercession before the Father.

The third term employed by the author of Hebrews is amiantos, which while meaning “undefiled,” means it “first physically, then morally” (TDNT).[83] Primarily amiantos denotes a cultic purity that we would expect from those who operate in conjunction with the priesthood—be it the Levitical priesthood or the Melchizedekian priesthood. We see the term amiantos used in this context in the Apocrypha:

“O Lord of all, who hast need of nothing, thou wast pleased that there be a temple for thy habitation among us; so now, O holy One, Lord of all holiness, keep undefiled [amiantos] for ever this house that has been so recently purified” (2 Maccabees 14:35-36).

“And they all, looking to heaven, blessed the Lord who had manifested himself, saying, ‘Blessed is he who has kept his own place undefiled [amiantos]’” (2 Maccabees 15:34).

The author mainly links amiantos to Yeshua being “set apart from sinners” (NIV), a reference to His spotless character. Yeshua was certainly not unprepared to touch an unclean person in order to heal an afflicted from a disease or illness, neither was He unprepared to associate Himself in the company of perceived “sinners” who needed sound teaching and deliverance from sin. The difference, however, is that Yeshua Himself was never contaminated from these illnesses and His character was always sound. It is for this reason why our author can confidently write that He has been “exalted above the heavens.”

7:27 Yeshua the Messiah, because of His state of perfection, “has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people” (RSV). There is some debate over whether our author is referring to the sacrifices specified in the Torah that are offered every day, the tamid (Exodus 29:38-45), or to the yearly sacrifice of Yom Kippur (Leviticus 9:1-17). The Jewish philosopher Philo reflects on the fact that the high priest “offers up prayers and sacrifices every day on behalf of the whole nation” (Special Laws 3.131),[84] and the Mishnah further says that “Seven days before the Day of Atonement they set apart the high priest” (m.Yoma 1:1).[85] The high priest was required to offer sacrifices for himself, and then the priesthood, before he could offer up the atoning sacrifices for the nation of Israel.

Yeshua the Messiah, because of who He is as the Divine Savior, is already cultically pure. Yeshua the Messiah has no need to offer up any kind of animal sacrifice since He performed the ultimate sacrifice “when He offered up Himself.” We see this also exemplified in Isaiah’s Suffering Servant motif, where “the LORD was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief; if He would render Himself as a guilt offering” (Isaiah 53:10). The key statement here is that Yeshua “makes himself an offering for sin” (RSV). We actually see some important parallels between the service of Yeshua and the martyrs of the Maccabbean period, which various commentators have speculated that our author may be employing:

“You know, O God, that though I might have saved myself, I am dying in burning torments for the sake of the law” (4 Maccabees 6:27).

“What person who lives as a philosopher by the whole rule of philosophy, and trusts in God, and knows that it is blessed to endure any suffering for the sake of virtue, would not be able to overcome the emotions through godliness?” (4 Maccabees 17:21-22).

4 Maccabees 18:4 attests that “Because of them the nation gained peace, and by reviving observance of the law in the homeland they ravaged the enemy.” Of course, Yeshua the Messiah endured unbelievable pain and hardship as well—and He endured it willingly. As Mark 10:45 so aptly testifies, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” Possible references, even in passing suggestions, by our author to the Maccabees, may be to get them to understand that Yeshua willingly offered Himself up for human sins, and for them to realize that it is a great honor to die for righteousness. We know in historical hindsight that persecution was on the horizon for many Believers in the First Century.

What makes Yeshua’s sacrifice so superior to the animal sacrifices of the Torah—and actually validates His priesthood—is that it is permanent. The Torah’s sacrifices, whether the daily offerings (Exodus 29:36-42) or the yearly Yom Kippur sacrifice, would have to be offered over and over again. The best that these sacrifices could provide for, would be for a temporary covering of the sin of the people. But Yeshua was “sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself” (NIV). The term used to describe this occurrence is ephapax, which applies to “taking place once and to the exclusion of any further occurrence, once for all, once and never again” (BDAG).[86] There is no more need of an animal sacrifice to take away human sin, as Yeshua has paid it all in full. Any animal sacrifices to take place in the future can only be viewed as memorials of the completed work of Yeshua and point us back to that day He was sacrificed at Golgoltha (Calvary).

7:28 In comparison to Yeshua functioning in exaltedness at the right hand of the Father, “The high priests appointed by the law are men in all their weakness” (REB). The human priests required for the Levitical priesthood are mortal, have a fallen sin nature, and could only offer animals for sacrifice. This is especially true given the First Century circumstances by which the corrupt party of the Sadducees controlled the priesthood. In contrast to this we see the Divine Son of God who offered Himself up for the sins of men and women, who continually intercedes before the Father in Heaven on their behalf. On Yom Kippur the priests would have their sins atoned for before the offerings were offered on behalf of all the people (m.Yoma 8:8), to make sure that the priests were in right standing with God before interceding for the people. Yeshua, in stark contrast to this, is always in right standing with His Father.

Too many of those who read and interpret what our author is saying often think that he is demeaning the Levitical priesthood and its occupants. He is not, and this trend has actually been significantly changing in contemporary Hebrews’ scholarship. As deSilva remarks,

“Attention to classical rhetoric leads to a promising solution. Encomia (speeches in praise of some person and his or her achievements) regularly included comparisons between the subject of the speech and other persons of renown….The author of Hebrews selects the levitical priests as material for synkrisis for a number of reasons. They provide the ‘type’ or ‘pattern’ from which the priestly activity of Jesus beyond the heavens can be credibly ‘constructed.’ They are a revered part of the work of God in the past, and their limitations can be used to highlight the surpassing honor of Jesus and value of having this Jesus as one’s mediator of divine favor.”[87]

The analogy made in Hebrews ch. 7 is not one between “the Law and Christ” as too many interpreters have concluded, but rather of the Levitical priesthood given in the Torah for Israel and the Melchizedekian priesthood which preceded it. Yeshua the Messiah can serve as High Priest because He occupies the office of Melchizedek. The priesthood of Levi has been temporarily put aside until it is reinstated in association with events subsequent to His Second Coming. Yeshua’s priesthood has been established by “the promise of the oath…[appointing] a Son, who has been perfected forever” (HSCB). The oath that the Father has made (Psalm 110:4) cannot be revoked, and we would not want it to be revoked as Yeshua is serving before Him in Heaven, ever interceding on our behalf. It is His service as High Priest in Heaven that is able to introduce the New Covenant into the lives of the redeemed, which our author will proceed to explain in Hebrews ch. 8.

ENDNOTES FOR Commentary on Hebrews 7

[1] Lane, 47a:158.

[2] Ibid., 159.

[3] Grk. LXX and NT: tou Theou tou hupsitou.

[4] Hagner, in New Interpreter’s Study Bible, 2160.

[5] Guthrie, Hebrews, 155.

[6] The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged, 59.

[7] Grk. LXX: Salēm.

[8] W. Foerster, “eirēnē,” in TDNT, 207.

[9] G. Lloyd Carr, “shālôm,” in TWOT, 2:931.

[10] Quanbeck, in The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, 907.

[11] LS, 139.

[12] Bruce, Hebrews, 156.

[13] Hegg, Hebrews, 119.

[14] Vermes, pp 501, 502.

[15] Ellingworth, 353.

[16] Lane, 47a:160-161.

[17] The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged, 59.

[18] Ibid., 312.

[19] Ibid., 431.

[20] The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged, 750.

[21] The Soncino Talmud. Judaic Classics Library II.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Bruce, Hebrews, pp 159-160.

[24] The Soncino Talmud. Judaic Classics Library II.

[25] Stern, 680.

[26] Victor P. Furnish, “Hebrews,” in M. Jack Suggs, Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, and James R. Mueller, et. al., The Oxford Study Bible, REB (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 1525.

[27] Morris, in EXP, 12:66.

[28] Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 619.

[29] Stern, 680.

[30] Lane, 47a:181.

[31] Morris, in EXP, 12:66.

[32] Ellingworth, 372.

[33] Consult the author’s article “What Does ‘Under the Law’ Really Mean?—A Further Study” for more details in regard to the Greek clause hupo nomon or “under [the] law.”

[34] BDAG, 365.

[35] LS, 535.

[36] Bruce, Hebrews, 164 fn#36.

[37] Cf. Psalm 84:6; 4 Maccabees 5:25.

[38] “They shall teach Your ordinances to Jacob, and Your law to Israel. They shall put incense before You, and whole burnt offerings on Your altar” (Deuteronomy 33:10).

[39] BibleWorks 8.0: LEH Lexicon (Lust-Eynikel-Hauspie). MS Windows Vista/7 Release. Norfolk: BibleWorks, LLC, 2009-2010. DVD-ROM notes how nomotheteō “always transl. of [yara],” and can mean both “to give laws to” and “to instruct, to teach, to ordain.”

[40] Mark 12:18; Matthew 22:33; Luke 20:27; Acts 23:8.

[41] For a worthwhile exploration, consult N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003).

[42] Evans, 115.

[43] Bruce, Hebrews, 166.

[44] deSilva, 271.

[45] Ellingworth, 374.

[46] Lane, 47a:173.

[47] BDAG, 642.

[48] Ibid., 639.

The Friberg Lexicon further notes, “figuratively changeover from one state or institution to another, transformation, change” (BibleWorks 8.0: Friberg Lexicon.)

[49] Ellingworth, 374.

[50] Walter C. Kaiser, The Promise-Plan of God: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 367.

[51] E-Sword 8.0.8: Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible.

[52] Stern, 681.

[53] Consult the author’s article “Addressing the Frequently Avoided Issues Messianics Encounter in the Torah.”

[54] LS, 26.

[55] BDAG, 24.

[56] BibleWorks 8.0: Friberg Lexicon.

[57] Spiros Zodhiates, ed., Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament (Chattanooga: AMG Publishers, 1993), 89.

[58] Bruce, Hebrews, 169.

[59] Ellingworth, 381.

He does further conclude, unfortunately like many interpreters, “This is for our author the heart of the [nomos], and is not sharply distinguished from it here.”

[60] Tim LaHaye, ed., Tim LaHaye Prophecy Study Bible, KJV (Chattanooga: AMG Publishers, 2000), 885.

[61] John F. Walvoord, Israel in Prophecy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962), pp 125-126.

[62] Lane, 47a:185.

[63] “The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple” (Psalm 19:7).

The LXX notably renders tamim or “perfect” as amōmos, meaning “faultless” (NETS).

[64] BDAG, 996.

[65] E-Sword 8.0.8: Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible.

[66] Guthrie, Hebrews, 164.

[67] LXX: hierateia emoi eis ton aiōna, “a priestly office to me for ever” (LXE).

[68] Evans, pp 118, 119.

[69] H. Preisker, “éngyos,” in TDNT, 194.

[70] BDB, 136.

[71] LS, 187.

[72] Ellingworth, 386.

[73] Kee, in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol 1, 795.

[74] Meaning “at all times, always” (LS, 592).

[75] Lane, 47a:189.

[76] Stibbs, in NBCR, 1204.

[77] Ellingworth, 391.

[78] BDAG, 728.

[79] Cf. Psalm 32:6; 79:1-2; 132:9, 16; 149:1-2 (note all Greek LXX).

[80] R. Laird Harris, “chesed,” in TWOT, 1:305.

[81] LS, 25.

[82] W. Grundmann, “ákakos,” in TDNT, 393.

[83] F. Hauck, “amíantos,” in Ibid., 593.

[84] The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged, 607.

[85] Neusner, 265.

[86] BDAG, 417.

[87] deSilva, 263.

HEBREWS 8

COMMENTARY

[1] Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, [2] a minister in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man. [3] For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices; so it is necessary that this high priest also have something to offer.

Hebrews chs. 8-9 employ some very complicated arguments, which readers should recognize as being the natural climax of our author’s epistle. If we do not have a proper handle on what he is communicating in ch. 8, which is relatively brief, yet very monumental, then we may risk misunderstanding his primary purpose for writing about the ministry work of Yeshua and what it has brought to the redeemed.

8:1 V. 1 opens with the statement, “Now this is my main point” (NEB). What readers consider or identify as the “sum” (YLT) of the author’s argument is of key importance for a correct interpretation of what he will proceed to say. The author of Hebrews plainly says, “Here is the main point: We have a High Priest who sat down in the place of honor beside the throne of the majestic God in heaven” (NLT). Louis H. Evans, among Christian commentators, notes, “We have come to the third and final section of doctrine—the ministry of the High Priest.”[1] Donald Guthrie likewise remarks, “the focus falls on what the high priest has to offer and where he performs his ministry.”[2] This High Priest is undoubtedly Yeshua the Messiah. But while these commentators, and others, rightly identify the main point as Yeshua’s priesthood and continuing ministry in Heaven, the conclusions readers often draw, may not always be as rooted within the text as much as it should.

To emphasize how important it is to understand Yeshua’s High Priesthood operating in Heaven, our author employs the term kephalaion, meaning, “a brief statement concerning some topic or subject, main thing, main point” (BDAG).[3] The majority of his remarks from the beginning of his composition, where he talks about Yeshua’s superiority over angels, His humanity and humbling, the penalties for rejecting Him, and how He functions in the office of Melchizedek—now leads to him discussing what this priesthood has brought to the redeemed. David A. deSilva describes what is about to be discussed as the “leading idea.”[4] William L. Lane offers us an excellent description of what the author of Hebrews is about to do, saying that “The ‘crowning affirmation’ is not simply that [Believers] have a high priest who has taken his seat at God’s right hand (v 1) but that he is the ministering priest in the heavenly sanctuary (v 2).”[5]

The remark that Yeshua has “sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven” (NIV) is a major indicator of how much power the Son actually and truly has. Implicit in our author’s statement are some of his constant references to Psalm 110:1, “The LORD says to my Lord: ‘Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet’” (cf. 1:13). A possible secondary reference is Zechariah 6:13 from the Septuagint, which notably includes the phrase ek dexiōn autou, “on his right hand” (LXE), which is absent from the Hebrew, which only has kohen al-kiso, “priest on His throne.” This text is certainly Messianic in nature, as it relates to “a man whose name is Branch” (Zechariah 6:12). We have to remember that many of our author’s theological arguments are derived from the subtle differences seen in the Greek LXX when compared to the Hebrew MT:

ZECHARIAH 6:13 (MT)

ZECHARIAH 6:13 (LXX)

He shall build the Temple of the LORD and shall assume majesty, and he shall sit on his throne and rule. And there shall also be a priest seated on his throne, and harmonious understanding shall prevail between them (NJPS).

And he shall receive power, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and there shall be a priest on his right hand, and a peaceable counsel shall be between them both (LXE).

v’hu yivneh et-heikal ADONAI v’hu-yisa hod v’yashav u’masal al-kis’o v’hayah kohen al-kis’o v’atzat shalom tiheyeh ben shenei’hem

kai autos lēmpsetai aretēn kai kathietai kai katarxei epi tou thronou autou kai estai ho hiereus ek dexiōn autou kai boulē eirēnikē estai ana meson amphoterōn

Our author makes it clear that Yeshua the Messiah “is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven” (RSV), and the “right hand” does have some critical significance. First of all, as the Son of God, Yeshua has literally “taken his seat” (NEB) and is present right next to God the Father in Heaven. Secondly, the Son has the supreme authority, as it is Yeshua who is upholding the universe by His word (cf. 1:3-4).

What makes Yeshua’s priesthood very special for the redeemed is that He has gone in and sat directly beside His Father. Levitical priests were limited in their service to God, because they could only be in the presence of God in the Tabernacle or Temple. The Son, however, sits right next to the Father in His service, and is able to continually mediate, without having to leave as a mortal priest would. As Paul Ellingworth summarizes it, “the author will explore what Jesus is now doing at God’s right hand.”[6] This is an awesome thing for any of us to consider, because it is by means of Yeshua’s priestly service—continually in Heaven—that He has inaugurated the New Covenant.

8:2 Yeshua the Messiah “ministers in the heavenly Tabernacle, the true place of worship that was built by the Lord and not by human hands” (NLT). The Tabernacle on Earth was incomplete because it is a copy of the one that exists in Heaven, where God Himself sits upon His throne. Take note of the fact that in our author’s vocabulary he does not concern himself with the Temple, but instead the Tabernacle (Grk. skēnē), just like Stephen (Acts 7). This is a likely reflection on him being a Hellenistic Jew, as Hellenistic Jewry in the Diaspora focused more on the Tabernacle in its theology, which they knew from the Scriptures, than the Temple, which Judean Jewry had present among them in the Land of Israel.

One’s view of v. 2 should not be significantly altered by the writer of Hebrews only employing “tabernacle,” instead of “temple.” The key in properly understanding what he is trying to communicate is that the edifice where Yeshua serves has not been built by “any mortal” (NRSV). This place in Heaven is alēthinos, “genuine, authentic, real” (BDAG).[7] We see a possible allusion to Numbers 24:6 in the Septuagint, which adds that Israel is “as tents which [the Lord] pitched” (LXE), hōsei skēnai has epēxen Kurios. This is only a slight difference from the MT, but it may indicate that as Yeshua is serving in Heaven before the Father, He is indeed serving Israel—and by implication all who are served by Him and who are redeemed, are regarded a part of the community of Israel:

NUMBERS 24:5-6 (MT)

NUMBERS 24:5-6 (LXX)

How fair are your tents, O Jacob, Your dwellings, O Israel! Like palm-groves that stretch out, like gardens beside a river, like aloes planted by the LORD, like cedars beside the water (NJPS).

How goodly are thy habitations, Jacob, and thy tents, Israel! as shady groves, and as gardens by a river, and as tents which [the Lord] pitched, and as cedars by the waters (LXE).

mah-tovu ohalekha Ya’akov mishkenotekha Yisrael. k’nechalim nitayu k’ganot ‘alei nahar k’ahalim nata’ ADONAI k’arazim alei-mayim.

hōs kaloi sou hoi oikoi Iakōb hai skēnai sou Israēl hōsei napai skiazousai kai hōsei paradeisoi epi potamōn kai hōsei skēnai has epēxen Kurios hōsei kedroi par’ hudata

Building upon his statement that Yeshua as High Priest has sat down at the right hand of His Father, our author writes that he is “a minister in the holy places” (ESV) or in tōn hagiōn. The Greek appears in the plural, literally meaning “the holies,” or perhaps also “the holiest.” There is no doubt that this is a reference to the Holy of Holies (Heb. ha’qodesh ha’qodoshim), especially when we consider the specific work that Yeshua now to be regarded as performing before the Father in Heaven. The high priest on Earth was only allowed entry to the Holy of Holies once a year on the Day of Atonement or Yom Kippur:

“He shall put the incense on the fire before the LORD, that the cloud of incense may cover the mercy seat that is on the ark of the testimony, otherwise he will die. Moreover, he shall take some of the blood of the bull and sprinkle it with his finger on the mercy seat on the east side; also in front of the mercy seat he shall sprinkle some of the blood with his finger seven times. Then he shall slaughter the goat of the sin offering which is for the people, and bring its blood inside the veil and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it on the mercy seat and in front of the mercy seat” (Leviticus 16:13-15).

The intercession that the Earth-bound high priest had to perform before God in the Holy of Holies could only be done once a year, whereas Yeshua’s intercession before His Father occurs continually. Lane indicates, “By means of a typological interpretation of the OT, the writer asserts that Christ has achieved what the sacrificial action of the high priest on the great Day of Atonement only foreshadowed.”[8] Yeshua the Messiah is sitting constantly at His Father’s right hand, constantly interceding for the affairs of humankind, and most especially the redeemed in Him.

While all of this is indeed a most wonderful and greatly beautiful picture to behold, our author’s words were likely met with some hostility when they were composed in the First Century. Many in the Jewish community, either in the Land of Israel or in the Diaspora, had been raised in a culture that relied upon the high priest in the Temple to intercede for them before God. While this work was indeed important, with the ministry of Yeshua before the Father in Heaven, the Levitical service is not as necessary as it once was. Lane observes, “The point emphasized in v. 2 is that the possibility of access to God through a Levitical and earthly arrangement no longer exists because of their intrinsic inadequacy. Access is possible only through the ministering priest who serves in the heavenly sanctuary.”[9]

Yeshua’s priesthood taking over where the Levitical priesthood leaves off is part of the “change of law” (7:12), or rearrangement that the Torah has experienced as a result of His sacrifice for human sin. Access to God the Father in a priestly context, for Hebrews’ First Century audience, would soon only be available through the Son functioning as High Priest in Heaven. To a largely Jewish audience that stood on the verge of the Temple’s destruction, these would have been candid words to cut to the quick of the problem of those denying or thinking about denying the Lord. The priestly service of Yeshua in Heaven is most superior to the best service any human priest could offer on Earth. Some would have been offended by this, and sadly today, there are some—even in the Messianic community—who still are to a degree. This is because there are those in the Messianic movement, who for whatever reason, fail to study the Torah from the perspective of how Messiah Yeshua has come in fulfillment of its sacrifices for sin, and the priesthood that was to regulate those sacrifices.

8:3 Our author writes in v. 3 that the Levitical, human high priest “is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; hence, of necessity, this one too had something to offer” (REB). Building upon the motif of Yom Kippur and of the Earth-bound high priest taking the blood of bulls and goats, he says that Yeshua “must make an offering, too” (NLT). This is not addressed in the text later, where it will be stated that “through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption” (9:11-12). The offering that Yeshua is regarded as having presented before the Sanctuary in Heaven, as High Priest, is the redemption accomplished by His own shed blood at Golgotha (Calvary).

[4] Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law; [5] who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, “SEE,” He says, “THAT YOU MAKE all things ACCORDING TO THE PATTERN WHICH WAS SHOWN YOU ON THE MOUNTAIN” [Exodus 25:40].

8:4 If Yeshua’s priestly service “were limited to earth” (The Message), than our author rightly says that “He would not be a priest at all.” This is partially because, as he has already addressed, the priests on Earth are to be descendants of Aaron of the tribe of Levi, and our Lord is of the tribe of Judah (7:14). Secondly, it is because the service of the priests on Earth are “already… offering the gifts required by the Torah” (CJB).

Many examiners think that vs. 4-5 definitely indicate that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written before the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. The author does employ the present tense for both “offer” (Grk. prospherontōn) and “serve” (Grk. latreuousin), which would imply that these priests were presently offering the required gifts and presently serving in the required place as detailed in the Torah, as he was writing his work. Others think, on the basis of statements appearing in later literature, describing the Temple service still in operation when it was not, that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written after the fall of the Second Temple. If this were actually the case, though, one would not expect for his composition to have its necessary effect on an audience teetering on denying the Lord, unless Hebrews were written not too long after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E.

8:5 The author of Hebrews states how the Levitical priests “serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things.” Yeshua is a different kind of High Priest from the Earthly high priest, because of the fact that He occupies the office of Melchizedek and serves in Heaven, and does not occupy the role of the Levitical high priest, which is to serve on Earth. The priestly system established on Earth in the Torah may be actually regarded as being a copy of that which exists in Heaven. Yeshua’s Melchizedkian priesthood in Heaven, consequently, has been copied by the Levitical priesthood on Earth—with Yeshua’s priesthood being the model upon which the Levitical priesthood has been based. The author of Hebrews uses Exodus 25:40 as proof that the Levitical priests serve a copy of what exists in Heaven. God instructed Moses, “See that you make them after the pattern for them, which was shown to you on the mountain.”

Some examiners have more than hinted at a belief that the author of Hebrews employs some form of Platonic Greek dualism, by him suggesting that the priesthood and Tabernacle/Temple service on Earth is a copy of that in Heaven. It is very certain, as deSilva indicates, that “The notion of a heavenly counterpart to the Jerusalem temple or desert tabernacle was common in Hellenistic Judaism,”[10] but how far our author goes with this has been debated. F.F. Bruce validly observes, “There is indeed some affinity with Plantonic idealism here, but it is our author’s language, and not his essential thought, that exhibits such affinity.”[11] We see that the Earthly priests “serve a sanctuary that is a shadowy suggestion” (WBC).[12] Our author’s statements are actually deeply Hebraic, and are paralleled in First Century Jewish literature, Philo, and later the Talmud. Our author is not necessarily appropriating Plato to suggest that there is a Sanctuary in Heaven upon which the Sanctuary in Earth is based.

In Exodus 25:40 alone, Moses is told to “Note well, and follow the patterns for them that are being shown you on the mountain” (NJPS). Where these patterns originated, which Moses used for the Tabernacle furniture, implements, and the priestly garments, forms the basis of there being a Heavenly Sanctuary where God dwells. 2 Baruch 4:5-6 in the Pseudepigrapha indicates, “I showed it also to Moses on Mount Sinai when I showed him the likeness of the tabernacle and all its vessels. Behold, now it is preserved with me—as also Paradise.”[13] This details an extant Jewish belief that the Tabernacle’s vessels were ultimately with God in Heaven, making those on Earth to be replicas or copies.

Philo of Alexandria communicated some interesting remarks about the Tabernacle furniture:

“Therefore Moses now determined to build a tabernacle, a most holy edifice, the furniture of which he was instructed how to supply by precise commands from God, given to him while he was on the mount, contemplating with his soul the incorporeal patterns of bodies which were about to be made perfect, in due similitude to which he was bound to make the furniture, that it might be an imitation perceptible by the outward senses of an archetypal sketch and pattern, appreciable only by the intellect” (Life of Moses 2.74).[14]

Philo described what Moses was copying as “the incorporeal patterns of bodies,” but goes on to say that by being put in physical form they “were about to be made perfect.” For him, the physical implements used in the Tabernacle were more important than the Heavenly originals. But nevertheless, he reflects a widescale Jewish opinion that there were Heavenly originals for Moses to replicate.

The Talmud likewise details the reality of God showing Moses Heavenly implements to replicate for the Tabernacle:

“R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Jonathan, What is the meaning of the expression, ‘Upon the pure candlestick’? It signifies that its pattern came down from the place of purity. Will you then say that the expression ‘Upon the pure table’ also signifies that its pattern came down from the place of purity?” (b.Menachot 29a).[15]

The observation being made by the author of Hebrews, in regard to the priests’ service on Earth, is that they only serve a replication of a Heavenly reality. Ellingworth remarks, “what Moses is shown constituted a [tupos] simply by the fact that he is told to copy it. It is assumed that the copy is inferior to the original.”[16] Yeshua the Messiah operates in a priestly service, in a far deeper reality beyond what can be humanly seen on Earth, this surely makes His Heavenly ministry far superior to the Earthly ministry of the Levites. Our author is by no means appropriating Platonic Hellenism to assert that there is a Heavenly Sanctuary, but bases his views upon widely held Jewish beliefs. This might be a good place for us to note how much of the Book of Revelation occurs in the Heavenly Temple, the “temple of the tabernacle of testimony in Heaven” (Revelation 15:5).

It is important for us to understand, as Messianic Believers, that while Yeshua’s priesthood is indeed superior to the Levitical priesthood, Yeshua’s priesthood is not in conflict with the Levitical priesthood. Do note that Phinehas was given a b’rit kehunah olam or “a covenant of eternal priesthood” (Numbers 25:13, ATS) by God, and we do know that the Levitical priesthood will be restored in the Millennium with Yeshua reigning from Jerusalem (discussed previously). However, unlike Phinehas and the human Levitical priests who serve on Earth, Yeshua can minister for the redeemed eternally because He serves in Heaven.

[6] But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises. [7] For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.

8:6 The author of Hebrews writes his audience that Yeshua “has now obtained a superior ministry” (HCSB) or “service” (YLT). The term he uses to describe this is diaphoros, which “pert. to being different, w. focus on value, outstanding, excellent” (BDAG).[17] Yeshua’s Heavenly ministry is far beyond the Earthly ministry of the Levites, when the two are compared. Because of Yeshua’s “higher ministry” (Lattimore) in Heaven, He is “the mediator of a better covenant.” Yeshua serves before the Father in Heaven, offering priestly intercession, not being limited as any mortal priest would have been.

Yeshua the Messiah is stated by our author to be the mesitēs, “mediator, umpire, arbitrator” (LS).[18] The Apostle Paul also uses this term to describe how Yeshua willingly gave Himself up, being the Mediator for humankind: “For there is one God, and one mediator [mesitēs] also between God and men, the man Messiah Yeshua, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time” (1 Timothy 2:5-6). These verses largely emphasize the humanity of Yeshua, and how all of us as human beings must have a Mediator between ourselves and God. This work of mediation, while being present during Yeshua’s Earthly ministry, continues with His priestly ministry in Heaven, as such priestly work has inaugurated the promised New Covenant.

Generally speaking, diathēkē was used in the LXX to render the Hebrew word b’rit or “covenant,” substantiated later in vs. 8-12 as being a reference to the diathēkēn kainēn or New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-33. This prophecy details how not only will permanent atonement and forgiveness be available for the Lord’s redeemed, but also how by His Spirit the Torah’s instruction will be written onto their hearts and minds. The verb that our author uses in v. 6, commonly rendered as “enacted” (NASU), “founded” (RSV), or even “legally secured” (NEB), is nomotheteō, often meaning “to ordain by law” (LS).[19] Lattimore renders v. 6 by saying this “greater covenant…is made law on the strength of greater promises,” and the CJB has “this covenant has been given as Torah on the basis of better promises.”

While these can be some appropriate vantage points for readers to understand nomotheteō, the Greek verb nomotheteō is commonly associated in the Tanach with the need for God’s people to be trained in His Instruction (Deuteronomy 17:10; Psalm 24:8, 12; 27:11; 119:33, 102), rendering the Hebrew verb yara. As previously discussed for 7:11, “legislated” is perhaps the best rendering for nomotheteō, as “upon it the people were legislated” (my translation), meaning that the Levitical priesthood was responsible for training Israel in God’s Torah. Concurrent with this in v. 6, our author testifies, epi kreittosin epangeliais nenomothetētai, “upon better promises [it] has been legislated” (my translation), meaning that Yeshua’s priesthood is legislated forth on the basis of the promises of the Messianic expectation. The enaction of the New Covenant, by Yeshua’s priesthood, includes a supernatural transcription of the Torah onto the hearts and minds of God’s people—which was surely not available in the time of the Levitical priesthood, in the manner and to the degree that it is now.

8:7 Prior to seeing the appeal made to Jeremiah 31:31-34 in vs. 8-12, our author makes the assertion, “For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.” There is an immediate question to be asked, because in a version like the NASU which employs italics for words added by the translators, it is easily seen that “covenant” is not in the original reading.[20] The Greek actually reads with Ei gar hē prōtē ekeinē ēn amemptos, with the term diathēkē or “covenant” noticeably missing from v. 7: “for if that first were faultless” (YLT). While the New Covenant is something that features within the author’s discussion for sure, what is hē prōtē really connected to? Is adding “covenant” an inappropriate value judgment, as made by most Bible translators? Grammatically speaking, given the surrounding cotext, there are four possible feminine nouns that can be legitimately associated with hē prōtē. Diathēkē or “covenant” is certainly one of them,[21] but so are skēnē or “tabernacle,”[22] hierōsunē or “priesthood,”[23] or even leitourgia or “ministry/service.”[24] The latter three would be used as references to the Levitical sacrificial system, which the author of Hebrews has affirmed previously in ch. 8, is surpassed in effectiveness by the Melchizedekian priesthood of Yeshua (vs. 1-4).

Hebrews 8:1, in particular, is frequently left out of readers’ evaluations of what Hebrews 8:7-13 really communicates—even though it clearly controls what the author is trying to communicate. What does he label that he is about to discuss? He calls it kephalaion—“Now this is my main point” (NEB). The discussion in Hebrews 8:7-13 is controlled by the change in priesthoods that Yeshua has brought by His sacrifice, which in turn enacts the power of the New Covenant. As Lane describes, “By his life of perfect obedience and his death, Jesus inaugurated the new covenant of Jer 31:31-34. His entrance into the heavenly sanctuary guarantees God’s acceptance of his sacrifice and the actualization of the provisions of the superior covenant he mediated.”[25] Only by the priesthood of Yeshua in Heaven can the enactment of the New Covenant be realized.

Why is it important to recognize that the discussion of the New Covenant is placed within an overarching discussion about a change in priesthoods? It is because it affects how we read v. 7: “For if that first...had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second” (NASU). Is this the “first covenant,” meaning the Mosaic Covenant that had been delivered by God at Mount Sinai to His people? Or is this the “first priesthood/tabernacle/ministry,” which had been occupied by sinful human beings? The perspective of the author of Hebrews is that the Levitical priesthood was the problem, because it could not offer the permanent redemption that Yeshua’s Melchizedekian priesthood offers (7:11, 28). No statement is ever given that the Law given by God is somehow bad or is somehow the problem, rather it is those sinful men who occupied the office of Levitical priest (7:27; 10:11) that requires the change. With Yeshua’s Melchizedekian priesthood now in place, the essential reality of the New Covenant can be partaken of.

It was largely the first “priesthood” that was actually discovered by God to not be “faultless,” because its human occupiers (“them,” v. 8) cannot perform the same type of work that Yeshua the Son performs before the Father in Heaven. If, for the statement Ei gar hē prōtē ekeinē, translators provided “first priesthood,” “first tabernacle,” “first ministry”—or perhaps the most encompassing of these three, “first service”—the reference would be placed upon the Levitical priesthood and Tabernacle service. Not enough realize, that it is upon the basis of Yeshua’s priesthood, that the New Covenant has been inaugurated forth (v. 6). The problem was not with any previous covenant God had made with His people, but it was with the actual people—especially the priests—that definitely required salvation history to progress forward (1:1-2), and for a new arrangement to be made via the sacrifice of Yeshua the Messiah, providing permanent atonement and forgiveness.

[8] For finding fault with them, He says, “BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH; [9] NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT; FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT, AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD [Jeremiah 31:31-32, LXX].

8:8a Our author notes how the “first priesthood/tabernacle/ministry,” or the “first service,” was not “faultless.” The New Covenant has to be inaugurated because God “find[s] fault with them.” While it might be thought that this is mainly speaking of “the people” (NIV), it is more likely that “them” relates to “the priests” (v. 4, RSV/NIV/NRSV/ESV) referred to earlier. However, such sinful and weak human priests do have “to offer up sacrifices, first for [their] own sins and then for the sins of the people” (7:27), so the sins of the people at large are still in the equation.

Principally, in light of the wider issues, the New Covenant is inaugurated because of the poorness of the Levitical priests—not difficult to assert in the First Century C.E. due to the corrupt Sadducees—and secondly relates to the people at large. Yeshua exalted in Heaven now serves the people after His Melchizedkian order, bringing the essential reality of the Jeremiah 31:31-34 prophecy to those who were once served by the Levitical order. Bruce fairly summarizes these expectations as:

“[T]he people’s life would be reconstituted on a new basis, and a new relationship between them and their God would be brought into being. This new relationship would involve three things in particular: (a) the implanting of God’s law in their hearts; (b) the knowledge of God as a matter of personal experience; (c) the blotting out of their sins.”[26]

8:8b-9 Jeremiah 31:31-32, appearing in either the Hebrew MT or Greek LXX, is the clear promise of the New Covenant that God will make with His people:

JEREMIAH 31:31-32 (MT)

JEREMIAH 31:31-32 (LXX)

“Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD.

Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah. Not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day when I took hold of their hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; for they abode not in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord (Apostle’s Bible).

hinneih yamim ba’im ne’um-ADONAI v’karati et-beit Yisrael v’et-beit Yehudah b’rit chadashah. lo k’brit asher karati et-avotam b’yom he’chezi’qi b’yadam l’hotzi’am m’eretz Mitzrayim asher-heimah hei’feiru et-b’riti v’anoki ba’alti bam ne’um-ADONAI

idou hēmerai erchontai phēsin Kurios kai diathēsomai tō oikō Israēl kai tō oikō Iouda diathēkēn kainēn ou kata tēn diathēkēn hēn diethemēn tois patrasin autōn en hēmera epilaboumenou mou tēs cheiros autōn exagagein autous ek gēs Aiguptou hoti autoi ouk enemeinan en tē diathēkē mou kai egō ēmelēsa autōn phēsin Kurios

In Hebrews 8:8b-12, Jeremiah 31:31-34 is quoted by the author. Many pastors and lay readers, unfortunately, quickly jump through the verses that describe the New Covenant or diathēkēn kainēn, expelling very little time and energy thinking through or contemplating what the New Covenant specifically involves. So, when glossing through the single longest quote from the Old Testament in the New Testament, many of today’s Christians errantly think that the Torah has no more validity or relevance in the post-resurrection era—when this is not at all what the Jeremiah 31:31-34 promise says! Furthermore, the author of Hebrews fully upholds how the New Covenant is delivered “WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH” (v. 8b), and not to any separate “Church” entity. While the New Covenant affects all people, it is only accessible through Israel, which non-Jewish Believers have been integrated into via their Messiah faith (Romans 11:16-17; Galatians 6:16; Ephesians 2:11-13, 19; 3:6). The fact that the New Covenant is universal to all who place their faith in Yeshua the Messiah, would by necessity imply that non-Jewish Messiah followers are to be involved, to one degree or another, in the eschatological restoration of all Israel.

As Jeremiah 31:31-34 is quoted by the author of Hebrews from the Greek Septuagint, the ancient translation of the Hebrew Tanach employed by the Diaspora Jewish Synagogue (among as many as thirty-five quotes or allusions to the LXX are seen in Hebrews), there are some slight differences witnessed.[27] We should by no means make the mistake of thinking, when we go to look up Jeremiah 31:31-34 in our Bibles, translated from the Hebrew Masoretic Text, that the author of Hebrews has somehow made a misquotation if things do not totally match up.[28] (This is also true of other places in the Gospels or Apostolic Epistles where the Greek LXX, and not Hebrew MT, is quoted.)

Hebrews 8:9, quoting from Jeremiah 31:32, specifies the reason why the New Covenant is to be enacted. The Lord says that it is “NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT; FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT, AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD.” The LXX translation largely conforms to what is seen in the MT, with the exception of the final phrase. The actual Hebrew of this clause in Jeremiah 31:32 reads with v’anoki ba’alti bam, meaning “though I was their husband” (RSV) or “though I espoused them” (NJPS). The Greek LXX, employed in Hebrews, contrasts this and has kai egō hēmelēsa autōn, “I had no concern for them” (NRSV).

Ellingworth thinks that “[Hēmelēsa] is an LXX mistranslation of the Hebrew ‘although I was a husband to them,’”[29] even though he is examining it entirely from a text-critical point of view. It is certainly possible that the Septuagint Rabbis translated ba’alti as hēmelēsa to interject a theological opinion of God not concerning Himself with Israel for a season after the people broke His covenant. But it is also very possible that the Greek LXX is translating an overlooked and ancient definition of the Hebrew verb ba’al. Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, for example, offers the definition “to loathe, reject,” absent from most lexicons. It compares the verb ba’al to its Semitic cognates in Arabic, and notes that “there are also other verbs, in which the sense of subduing, being high over, ruling, is applied to the signification of looking down upon, despising, condemning,”[30] hence by extension not having any concern or regard. This is obviously not a permanent action, because if it were, then the Lord would not seek to establish this New Covenant with His people. But it does indicate that for the season in which Jeremiah prophesied, Israel did need to be punished and He did look down on them with some strong displeasure.

[10] FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS, AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS. AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. [11] AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN, AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, ‘KNOW THE LORD,’ FOR ALL WILL KNOW ME, FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM. [12] FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES, AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE” [Jeremiah 31:33-34, LXX].

8:10-12 Continuing the author’s affirmation that the priestly work of Yeshua has inaugurated the prophesied New Covenant, there are some more subtle differences to be aware of between the Hebrew MT of Jeremiah 31:33-34, and the Greek LXX version seen in Hebrews. These differences will not change one’s overall interpretation of the text, but do present some particular emphases that cannot go overlooked:

JEREMIAH 31:33-34 (MT)

JEREMIAH 31:31-32 (LXX)

“But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

For this is my covenant which I will make with the house of Israel; after those days, saith the Lord, I will surely put my laws into their mind, and write them on their hearts; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people. And they shall not at all teach every one his fellow citizen, and every one his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them: for I will be merciful to their iniquities, and their sins I will remember no more (LXE).

ki zot ha’b’rit asher ekrot et-beit Yisrael acharei ha’yamim ha’hem ne’um-ADONAI nattati et-torati b’qirbam v’al-l’bam ektavennah v’hayi’ti l’hem l’Elohim v’heimah yih’yu-li l’am. v’lo yelam’du od ish et-rei’eihu v’ish et-achiyv l’mor de’u et-ADONAI ki-kulam yeid’u oti l’m’qetanam v’ad-gedolam ne’um-ADONAI ki eslach l’avonam u’l’chata’tam lo ezkor-od.

hoti autē hē diathēkē hēn diathēsomai tō oikō Israēl meta tas hēmeras ekeinas phēsin Kurios didous dōsō nomous mou eis tēn dianoian autōn kai epi kardias autōn grapsō autous kai esomai autois eis Theon kai autoi esontai moi eis laon kai ou mē didaxōsin hekastos ton politēn autou kai hekastos ton adelphon autou legōn gnōthi ton Kurion hoti pantes eidēsousin me apo mikrou autōn kai heōs megalou autōn hoti hileōs esomai tais adikiais autōn kai tōn hamartiōn autōn ou mē mnēsthō eti

Hebrews 8:10 continues with quoting Jeremiah’s oracle from the LXX, where we encounter some variation with the MT: “FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS, AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS.” In either the Hebrew or the Greek the overwhelming consensus is that the critical part of the New Covenant is that God says, “I will place My Torah within them and I will write it onto their heart” (Jeremiah 31:32, ATS). The Hebrew reads nattati et-Torati b’qirbam, “I will put my law within them” (RSV). Sometimes this is rendered with “inmost being” (NJPS) or “inward parts” (JBK). The Greek, however, adds a distinct dimension to this, reading didous dōsō nomous mou eis tēn dianoian. The NIV of Jeremiah 31:32 follows the LXX reading in part and has “I will put my law in their minds.” Whether the Torah is written on the inward parts, heart, and/or minds—still implies that it is written onto the very psyche of God’s people.

A second difference, while less notable but quite important, between the Hebrew MT and Greek LXX of Jeremiah 31:33, is that the Hebrew only employs torati meaning “My Torah” (ATS) or “My Teaching” (NJPS),[31] in the singular, and the Greek uses nomous or “laws,” in the plural. Why does “laws” appear in the plural in the Greek? Guthrie suggests, “It may be that the translator wished to emphasize the separate parts of God’s law to distinguish these parts from the law of Moses as a complete unity,”[32] which would certainly be the view of a Reformed theology that artificially sub-divides the Torah into moral, civil, and ceremonial laws. Still, the plural “laws” might better suggest that as the Holy Spirit writes God’s commandments onto the heart via the New Covenant, it is not something that happens all at once, and only takes place at the speed of an individual’s sanctification—a speed only to be determined by the Spirit.

The contrast between the previous Mosaic Covenant, and the New Covenant inaugurated by Yeshua’s priesthood, is that God’s commandments would no longer just be written on stone (Exodus 32:15-16), but now on the heart. We see a definite shift from an external to an internal emphasis. The unique rendering of the LXX, adding how God’s laws will be written on the human dianoia, only further buttresses how significant the New Covenant is. Not only will redeemed people be empowered by hearts that love God, but they will have minds that can compute who God is that will appreciate the value of His Law.

It is quite sad to see how many Bible readers just skip over the fact that the New Covenant promise includes an implantation of God’s laws onto the psyche of His people. Permanent forgiveness for sins and a restored relationship with God are offered for sure (vs. 11-12)—and that is why the New Covenant is superior to anything which had preceded it! But, the New Covenant most definitely includes the clear imperative for those affected by it to obey God. Bruce makes a direct reference to Romans 8:1-4, about the work of the Spirit inside of Believers accomplishing “the requirement of the Law,” also noting a variety of Tanach passages that describe obedience to the Torah (Deuteronomy 6:6-9; Ezekiel 11:19; 36:26; Exodus 24:7).[33]

It is interesting to observe the viewpoints that are made by Hebrews commentators, who have to recognize, that to some degree or another, the Torah is connected to the enactment of the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:10; Jeremiah 31:33), as opposed to the two being at odds with one another. In the view of Lane, “The quality of newness intrinsic to the new covenant consists in the new manner of presenting God’s law and not in newness of content.”[34] deSilva also observes, “it speaks of an internalization of God’s commandments, an internal knowledge of, and commitment to do, God’s laws.”[35]

While commentators do have to acknowledge some role that the Torah or Law plays within the dynamics of the New Covenant, they then move on without paying a great deal of attention to it. No time is really spent discussing what it means for a redeemed person—as mentioned in Hebrews—to have the laws of God written on the heart and mind.

What “laws” (nomous) are written onto the hearts and minds of God’s people? No mature Believer disagrees with the fact that what is Divinely implanted into their psyche is the requirement to love God and neighbor, considered by our Lord Yeshua to be the foremost of the commandments.[36] The bulk of the Torah’s commandments relate to such a love imperative, and detail what the proper ethics and morality of God’s people are to be, and how people are to interact with one another, showing one another value and respect. The real issue, as Yeshua’s Melchizedekian priesthood has inaugurated the New Covenant, is whether this signals an end to things like the Sabbath rest, appointed times, or a kosher diet—all of which today’s Messianic movement believes were not annulled by Yeshua or the Apostles.

In principle, the Torah does certainly remain in effect for this era of the New Covenant, but with Yeshua’s priesthood there has come “a change of law” (7:12), as there are new post-resurrection realities to be considered. The thoughts of Old Testament theologian Walter C. Kaiser should be well taken here. He says, “Only those laws from which Christ releases his church may be jettisoned,”[37] meaning those things directly impacted by the Messiah’s sacrificial work. Kaiser and today’s Messianics actually have no disagreement on the validity of the Torah; we just differ on the matter of how much actually has changed with Yeshua’s arrival.

Issues like Shabbat, the appointed times, the kosher laws, circumcision, etc.—and passages within the Apostolic Scriptures that have been frequently interpreted as speaking against these practices—need to be worked through contextually and historically, and with patience. Have these things really been rendered inoperative in this era of the New Covenant, or have Bible readers possibly missed certain things from First Century Judaism, which can affect our interpretation of certain verses? This requires further study and research of the Gospels and Apostolic Epistles on the part of today’s Messianics.

The great irony of common Christian interpretations and views of Hebrews 8:8b-11, quoting from Jeremiah 31:31-34, is that while many haphazardly jump through the text and do not sit down to consider it closely—and many Christian theologians, pastors, and teachers strongly insist that the Torah has been abolished—most spiritual, evangelical Christians actually keep the majority of the Law of Moses. Those who come from holiness and pietistic traditions have always looked to the Torah’s instructions on how to be godly, ethical people who follow Christ. There are actually only a few course corrections that have to be enacted in terms of things which have often been viewed as just being “Jewish”—which today’s Messianic movement is being positioned to present to our brothers and sisters in the institutional Church, as relevant for their lives, in the future. Specifically, these are areas that only an historically and Jewish-conscious reading of the Apostolic Scriptures will reveal, and often includes the consideration of data and research that previous generations did not have access to. (Learning how to approach this constructively with other Believers, guided by the Torah’s imperative to love, may be a challenge in the short term.)

The greatest emphasis of the New Covenant promise, anticipated by Jeremiah 31:34, and quoted in Hebrews 8:11-12, is the intimate knowing of God and the permanent forgiveness He provides by the work of His Son: “AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN, AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, “KNOW THE LORD,” FOR ALL WILL KNOW ME, FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM. FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES, AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE.’” Yeshua the Messiah’s priestly work is what has brought this reality into the lives of those affected by the gospel. It is perfectly valid, in the sentiments of evangelical Christianity, to recognize that the New Covenant brings one into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Knowing the Lord does not just involve knowing about Him or being reckoned as a member of His people, but brings a new standing of intimacy and being with Him, where we can approach Him with all of our needs (cf. 4:16).

In the Messianic community today, we do tend to rightly emphasize how we are recipients of the New Covenant, and are to have God’s Torah written on our hearts. This is a good thing. But how many of us can forget that this work is to be accomplished by the Holy Spirit, and will result in men and women being better servants of the Lord, being better equipped to share the good news and perform His work here on Earth? The Qumran community too saw themselves as people of the New Covenant, but their emphasis was much different than the author of Hebrews. The author of Hebrews is interested in his readers in having a relationship with the Father through His Son Yeshua. The Qumran community was not. As Ellingworth puts it, “It is clear that the new covenant played a central role in the constitution and self-understanding of the Qumran community; but it was understood as a more rigorous re-establishment of Torah observance, with additional rules.”[38]

How many in the Messianic community, while emphasizing themselves as recipients of the New Covenant, are only doing so to enforce a rigid form of Torah observance, perhaps without an emphasis on Divine grace? For the author of Hebrews, the inauguration of the New Covenant comes via the continuing priestly work of Messiah Yeshua in Heaven. One can only have the Torah written on his or her heart and mind via the work of the Holy Spirit. Obedience to God’s commandments in turn comes as a part of the sanctification process as we all strive toward greater maturity. This is what we should be emphasizing in the Messianic movement today, and if we fail to do so, we should not be surprised when we see people question who Yeshua is, or even deny Him. Likewise, we should not be surprised if a few people even voice problems with the message of the letter to the Hebrews.

[13] When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

8:13 Similar to the translation issues of Hebrews 8:7, where diathēkē or “covenant” (noted in the NASU by italics) does not appear in the source text, so is this same issue present in the closing remark of Hebrews 8:13a: “[I]n the saying ‘new’” (YLT), en tō legein kainēn. With Yeshua’s new priesthood, or perhaps also ministry or even (Heavenly) tabernacle service, the Levitical service was going to fade into history.

For the remainder of Hebrews 8:13, there are also translation issues. The NASU renders this with “He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear,” yet there are actually two Greek verbs, with one of them used twice, both relating to growing old, that should be translated along “ageing” lines. The first of these is pepalaiōken, and as Ellingworth notes, “the active voice means ‘declare old,”[39] as opposed to the more common “obsolete.” The second usage that concerns us is the clause palaioumenon kai gēraskon, employing the previous verb palaioō, and another verb, gēraskō. Just as palaioō means “to be old or antiquated” (LS),[40] so does gēraskō similarly mean “to bring to old age” (LS).[41] Most Bibles render these two participles together as “becoming obsolete and growing old” (NASU) or “old and worn out” (Good News Bible). But a more accurate rendition of these two verbs is simply “growing old and ageing” (NEB).[42] LITV offers a good translation of v. 13 in its entirety:

“In the saying, New, He has made the first old. And the thing being made old and growing aged is near disappearing.”

And what was preparing to disappear?[43] If Hebrews was indeed written in the mid-to-late 60s C.E., then these are observations made between the thirty to forty year period after the sacrifice of Yeshua, His ascension into Heaven, and Yeshua’s Melchizedekian priesthood inaugurating the era of New Covenant. As a result of this, the Levitical priesthood is considered to be “old,” and looking back on this two millennia later, it did disappear with the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. The First Century Believers need not have been disturbed because the new priesthood of Yeshua was already ministering for them before the Father in Heaven, with a still-functioning Levitical priesthood that was “growing old and ageing” (NEB).

For the author of Hebrews, the animal sacrifices of the Levitical priesthood were no longer necessary because of the final sacrifice of Yeshua and the service of His Melchizdekian priesthood. The first priesthood/tabernacle/ministry has now given way to the priesthood/tabernacle/ministry of Yeshua in Heaven, which offers a permanent sacrifice and eternal forgiveness for sin. As a direct result of Yeshua’s salvation work for us, the promised New Covenant can now come into play, as redeemed Jewish and non-Jewish Believers are filled with the Holy Spirit and supernaturally enabled to keep the Torah’s commandments—the foremost of which would be love for God and neighbor.

Excursus on the "New Covenant" or "Renewed Covenant"?

In many sectors of the Messianic community today, it is not uncommon to hear the term “Renewed Covenant” being used instead of the more common “New Covenant.” This is often done so because it is believed, albeit in error, that the New Covenant or “New Testament” is an additional and vastly superior set of Scripture to the “Old Covenant” or “Old Testament.” A figure like the Apostle Paul, though, does not say that this is what the Old Covenant was. He writes that because of the work of Yeshua, the redeemed in Him have been “made…adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Corinthians 3:6). The New Covenant is a ministry that brings life, whereas the Old Covenant can only condemn. The Old Covenant may be regarded as the ministry of condemnation in which the Torah operates prior to a person coming to faith in Yeshua, whereas the New Covenant is the ministry of the Spirit in which the Torah operates after a person comes to faith in Yeshua.

Prior to coming to Yeshua, all that the Torah can do is condemn men and women as sinners. Paul describes it as “the ministry of death.” Certainly, this ministry of death “came with glory” (2 Corinthians 3:7), because it was revealed by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. But Paul is forced to ask, “how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory?” (2 Corinthians 3:8). The ministry of the Spirit comes by people receiving Messiah Yeshua into their lives. He compares the ministry of death to a veil that Moses had over his face, so that the Israelites were unable to see the reflection of God’s presence that was upon it (2 Corinthians 3:13). Paul further writes, largely speaking of his Jewish brethren who have rejected Yeshua, “for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Messiah” (2 Corinthians 3:14). Those who hear the Torah read, as non-Believers without atonement for their sin, can only be condemned by it, because the Old Covenant is at work and can only condemn them. The condemnation can only be removed by the work of Yeshua so we can fully behold the glory of the Father.

In Pauline literature the terms old and new are primarily employed to speak of a person’s spiritual condition. Colossians 3:9, for example, admonishes, “Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices.” Ephesians 4:22 further says, “in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit.” When a new self is introduced via one’s salvation experience, it replaces the old self. It is by no means some sort of “renewed self.” The Torah or God’s Law remains the same, but how it functions is certainly changed: the agreement of the Old Covenant could at most be written on durable stone (2 Corinthians 3:7), but the New Covenant is brought about with the Instruction of God decisively written on the human heart (2 Corinthians 3:3).

Leon Morris is absolutely correct when he says that the New Covenant “will not simply be the old one patched up and renewed.”[44] But many Christians will not often conclude the New Covenant to involve a condition of how God’s Word functions in the life of a person. The person himself or herself is not necessarily replaced, but the personality is changed from one that is unregenerate to regenerate. The condemnation of the Torah upon the sinner is removed (Romans 8:1), so that the saved person can then walk out the Torah’s requirements via the empowerment of the Spirit (Romans 8:4). The terms old/new in Pauline theology are used to represent lost/saved.[45]

Unfortunately, many in the Messianic community have not broken out of thinking that the “Old Covenant” and “New Covenant” are different parts of the Bible, but are instead conditions in which the Torah operates in prior to, and after, someone comes to faith in the Lord. Those who use the term “Renewed Covenant” often do so from the vantage point that the “Renewed Covenant,” i.e., the Apostolic Scriptures, does not negate or replace the Tanach or so-called “Old Covenant.”[46] However, the Hebrew and Greek vocabulary behind the terms b’rit chadashah and diathēkēn kainēn do not support the description of “Renewed Covenant.”

The most common Hebrew term used in the Tanach for “new” is the verb chadash. In the Piel stem (intensive action, active voice) it can mean “to make anew, restore” (HALOT).[47] It is employed in 2 Chronicles 15:8 as such when King Asa “renewed [chadash] the Altar of HASHEM that was before the Hall of HASHEM” (ATS). However, the adjective chadash does not have the same variance that its verb equivalent has. It is used to indicate things that are “new, fresh…not yet existing,” “new things” (HALOT).[48] In this way the b’rit chadashah of Jeremiah 31:31-33 is to truly be a New Covenant that is unparalleled by what has come before it. Of course, the New Covenant is absolutely consistent with the character of God that we see beginning in the Book of Genesis, but the Lord did not renew what Paul calls “the ministry of death.” The New Covenant, in contrast, is “the ministry of righteousness” brought in by “the Spirit [which] gives life” (2 Corinthians 3:9, 6).

In the Greek Septuagint, the most common equivalent for chadash is kainos, which “pert. to being not previously present, unknown, strange, remarkable, also w. the connotation of the marvelous or unheard-of” (BDAG).[49] This usage is continued in the Greek Apostolic Scriptures. As it regards the New Covenant prophesied by Jeremiah, it was certainly known by centuries of Jews who read the Prophets and anticipated it being inaugurated via the final restoration of Israel. What is unexpected or remarkable about the New Covenant is that the author of Hebrews connects its inauguration to the priestly work of Yeshua in Heaven. This is what makes it such a New or remarkable Covenant. Yeshua Himself attested to this at His Last Sedar meal:

“And He said to them, ‘I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.’ And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, ‘Take this and share it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes.’ And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.’ And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup which is poured out for you is the new [kainos] covenant in My blood’” (Luke 22:15-20).

With Yeshua’s death for us on the cross and Him spilling His blood forth, the ministry of death or the Old Covenant can be rendered obsolete in our lives. The New Covenant or b’rit chadashah of Jeremiah 33 and Hebrews 8 is not the ministry of death revisited or “renewed” by any means, but is the Torah operating in its fullness by God writing His Instruction onto our hearts and minds. This is something that is totally new in the life of a person who is no longer subject to the Old Covenant of the Torah’s condemnation, but now can definitely have the commandments of God written on the heart by the Holy Spirit.

Most in the Messianic community, who use the term “Renewed Covenant,” do so by often repeating what they have heard from those who have not examined the issue fully. They have not broken out of the belief that “covenant” does not constitute Scripture, but rather how Scripture is applied in the life of a person. Many tend to use terms like Tanach or Apostolic Scriptures/Writings, to affirm that these texts all compile authoritative instruction from God, but they do not make up a “covenant.” The covenants of God, rather, are detailed inside these texts. When necessary, we do find ourselves using terms like “Old Testament” or “New Testament” for the familiarity of others who are new to Messianic things, but that should be infrequent. What we need to understand more than anything else is that the New Covenant is not something divorced from the Tanach, but it is something that is likewise only accessible through Yeshua. It is not the ministry of condemnation revisited and reworked, but is something certainly new that is inaugurated only by the Spirit of God.[50]

ENDNOTES FOR Commentary on Hebrews 8

[1] Evans, 143.

[2] Guthrie, Hebrews, 170.

[3] BDAG, 541.

[4] deSilva, 279.

[5] Lane, 47a:204.

[6] Ellingworth, 400.

[7] BDAG, 43.

[8] Lane, 47a:210.

[9] Ibid., 206.

[10] deSilva, 282.

[11] Bruce, Hebrews, 184.

[12] Lane, 47a:199.

[13] A.F.J. Klijn, “2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch,” trans., in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol 1, 622.

[14] The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged, 497.

[15] The Soncino Talmud. Judaic Classics Library II.

[16] Ellingworth, 408.

[17] BDAG, 240.

[18] LS, 499.

[19] Ibid., 535.

[20] Most English versions simply have “first covenant” (RSV, NIV, NRSV, ESV, HCSB, CJB) with no differentiation.

[21] Hebrews 7:22; 8:6, 9, 10; 9:4, 16, 17, 20.

[22] Hebrews 8:2, 5; 9:2, 3, 6, 8, 11, 21.

[23] Hebrews 7:11, 12, 24.

[24] Hebrews 8:6; 9:21.

[25] Lane, 47a:208.

[26] Bruce, Hebrews, 189.

[27] Cf. Ellingworth, pp 37-42.

[28] Be warned that Monte Judah, a populist teacher in the Messianic community (as well as one who has made many errant end-time prognostications going back to 1997), has produced a variety of teachings on Hebrews’ so-called problems and discrepancies—which largely fail to take into consideration the author of Hebrews’ widescale usage of the Greek Septuagint in Tanach quotations. Mr. Judah is also not engaged with any contemporary thoughts in current Biblical Studies. If you should ever encounter Mr. Judah’s teachings on the Epistle to the Hebrews, keep in mind this critical evaluation:

“Monte’s arguments against Hebrews demonstrate fundamental misunderstandings of inerrancy and divine inspiration, an ignorance of the Greek text, a low level of common literacy, and a surprising amount of arrogance whereby he assumes that he is a judge appointed over the Scriptures” (Michael Badgley and Tim Hegg, Daniel Lancaster, Boaz Michael. [2005]. Answering the Questions Regarding the Epistle of Hebrews. First Fruits of Zion. Retrieved 22 September, 2005, from <http://ffoz.org/Home/downloads.shtml>).

[29] Ellingworth, 416.

[30] H.F.W. Gesenius: Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, trans. Samuel Prideaux Tregelles (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 130.

[31] Note that the UBSHNT, while largely being a modern Hebrew translation of the GNT, follows the Hebrew of Jeremiah 31:33 in Hebrews 8:10, employing torati. The CJB follows suit, having “my Torah.”

[32] Guthrie, Hebrews, 174.

[33] Bruce, Hebrews, 189, fn #54.

He also points out the Greek of Revelation 21:3, which employs the plural laoi or “peoples,” meaning that Israel proper is not the only beneficiary of the New Covenant promise (Ibid., pp 189-190).

[34] Lane, 47a:209.

[35] deSilva, Hebrews, 285.

[36] Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18; cf. Matthew 19:19; 22:39; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27; Romans 13:9; Galatians 5:14; James 2:8.

[37] Walter C. Kaiser, Toward Old Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 312.

[38] Ellingworth, 414.

[39] Ibid., 418.

[40] LS, 586.

[41] Ibid., 164.

[42] Similarly appearing as “growing old and aging” in Bruce, Hebrews, 187.

[43] Grk. aphanismos; “the condition of being no longer visible…” (BDAG, 155).

[44] Morris, in EXP, 12:78.

[45] Cf. Hegg, Hebrews, 133.

[46] This problem is even further compounded by Messianics who call the Apostolic Scriptures the “B’rit Chadashah,” presupposing that there are Hebrew originals, making the Greek Apostolic Scriptures invalid or at best “faulty translations.”

[47] HALOT, 1:294.

[48] Ibid.

[49] BDAG, 497.

[50] For a further discussion, consult the author’s article “What is the New Covenant?”

HEBREWS 9

COMMENTARY

[1] Now even the first covenant had regulations of divine worship and the earthly sanctuary. [2] For there was a tabernacle prepared, the outer one, in which were the lampstand and the table and the sacred bread; this is called the holy place.

9:1 In spite of what the author of Hebrews has just said about the previous Levitical priesthood “growing old and ageing” (8:13, NEB), he wishes to make some important typological connections between it and the priestly ministry of Yeshua. Hebrews 9 shows us yet another dimension of the complicated spirituality and mind of our writer.

V. 1 begins with the statement “Now the first covenant also had regulations for ministry and an earthly sanctuary” (HCSB). Almost all versions insert “covenant,” with most not indicating it in italics (the notable exceptions being KJV, NKJV, NASU, LITV, YLT), in spite of the fact that diathēkē does not appear in the Greek source text: Eiche men oun [kai] hē prōtē. What was it that had “regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary” (NIV)? Leon Morris validly points out, “The writer has no noun with his adjective ‘first,’”[1] yet most examiners conclude that “covenant” is being referred to. However, as previously examined for 8:7, the issue in view is the “first priesthood/tabernacle/ministry” or “first service,” represented by the Levitical priesthood and its sacrificial system.

Tim Hegg describes, “The repetition of the term ‘first’ in this opening verse not only links it to the final verse of chapter 8, but also helps bolster the interpretation…that the subject at hand is the priesthood—Messiah’s priesthood.”[2] David A. deSilva is probably the only Christian scholar (whom we have been examining) who gets the closest to this view, remarking, “The argument turns from comparison of the ‘staff’ of the two priesthoods…to a comparison of the ‘cultic regulations’ and the sacrifices enacted by these priesthoods.”[3] While he is correct in asserting that our author is discussing two priesthoods, and the Earthly Tabernacle set against the Heavenly Tabernacle, he still falls into the old paradigm of thinking that the “old covenant” is being referred to.

It is notable once again that our author makes a reference to the Tabernacle, and not the Temple. This is likely due to the fact that he is a Diaspora Jew whose principal contact with the sacrificial system was through what he read in the Tanach—and in its Septuagint form at that. Morris notes, for example, that the Tabernacle “would have had a wider appeal to Jews than the temple had. The temple was accessible only to those in Jerusalem; but wherever Jews were, their Scriptures told them all about the tabernacle.”[4]

Contrary to the widespread idea that our author is demeaning the Tabernacle service, the author of Hebrews actually holds it in high esteem. Donald Guthrie explains, “He is impressed by the orderliness of the arrangements within the Levitical cultus, and aims to present this in order to demonstrate the greater glory of the new.”[5] In other words, our writer relies upon his audience’s nostalgia for the Tabernacle and its priestly implements to show them how more profound the priestly work of Yeshua the Messiah is. The term he employs to describe its “regulation” is dikaiōma, meaning “an action that meets expectations as to what is right or just, righteous deed” (BDAG).[6]

Our author’s main appeal is to the original Tabernacle, which would have been much more authoritative for his broad audience, as some likely considered the Second Temple to be nothing more than a sign of a corrupt Saddusaical priesthood. Yet, in spite of the Tabernacle being a sign of presumably “simpler times,” before the Temple was constructed, it is still kosmikos or “of this world, earthly” (LS).[7] The “earthly sanctuary” is inferior to the Heavenly one where Yeshua presently serves.

9:2 What the NASU describes as “a tabernacle prepared, the outer one” is actually skēnē gar kateskeuasthē hē prōtē, or “a tabernacle was prepared, the first” (YLT), describing the first chamber of the Ancient Hebrews’ Tabernacle. Our author will describe how the Tabernacle was prepared, demonstrating an innate knowledge of not only what the Tanach says, but also of contemporary Jewish traditions of his time. He will show the incomplete nature of the Levitical priesthood and how Yeshua’s priesthood can only bring complete redemption. In spite of the common belief that two covenants—and not two priesthoods/tabernacles/ministries—are being referred to in this text, Christian commentators are absolutely correct in suggesting that Yeshua has brought in something better than the Levitical priesthood. William L. Lane summarizes our author’s message quite well:

“The appeal to the cultic appointments and actions in the tabernacle demonstrates the ultimate inadequacy of the Levitical institution and the necessity for the new cultic action of Christ, which brings a definite and better order of salvation with unlimited access to the presence of God.”[8]

The first element listed in v. 2 that is seen in the first chamber of the Tabernacle is the lampstand. The Greek luchnia was employed in the LXX to render the Hebrew menorah. The lampstand was commanded by God to be “in the tent of meeting, opposite the table, on the south side of the tabernacle” (Exodus 40:24; cf. 25:31-40). Pure oil of beaten olives was to be used to light the menorah by the priests in the Tabernacle continually (Exodus 27:21).

The second element listed in v. 2 is “the table and the bread of the Presence” (RSV). This was commanded by God to be placed on “the north side of the tabernacle, outside the veil” (Exodus 40:22). The command to the priests was, “you shall take fine flour and bake twelve cakes with it; two-tenths of an ephah shall be in each cake. You shall set them in two rows, six to a row, on the pure gold table before the LORD...Every sabbath day he shall set it in order before the LORD continually; it is an everlasting covenant for the sons of Israel” (Leviticus 24:5-6, 8), sh’teim esreih challot.

History actually attests that the bread used in the Tabernacle was unleavened. Philo states, “The setting out of twelve loaves—the same number as the tribes—on the sacred table especially guarantees the things which have been said. For they are all unleavened” (On the Special Laws 2.161).[9] The historian Josephus likewise records, “Upon this table, which was placed on the north side of the temple, not far from the most holy place, were laid twelve unleavened loaves of bread, six upon each heap, one above another: they were made of two tenth deals of the purest flour” (Antiquities of the Jews 3.142).[10] The Mishnah later states, “All meal offerings are brought unleavened, except for the leaven[ed cakes] of the thank offerings and the two loaves of bread [of Shabuot], which are brought leavened” (m.Menachot 5:1; cf. b.Menachot 77b).[11]

We need to understand that living in the Twenty-First Century and only reading the Biblical text, may not be enough for us to understand some of the nuances that can be detectable from the Epistle to the Hebrews.

[3] Behind the second veil there was a tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies, [4] having a golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron's rod which budded, and the tables of the covenant; [5] and above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat; but of these things we cannot now speak in detail.

9:3 By referencing how “Behind the second veil there was a tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies,” our author refers to the fact that a major barrier was placed between the first chamber of the Tabernacle, which separated the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies. Lane points out, “These terms do not designate two separate tents but rather one tent divided into a ‘front’ sanctuary and a ‘rear’ sanctuary.”[12] We may need to remind ourselves how skēnē can widely mean “tabernacle,” in its most neutral sense can also mean “dwelling,” actually rendered by the NIV as “room.”

9:4 V. 4 has actually been a cause of some confusion for various readers, because the author of Hebrews says that in the Holy of Holies was “a golden altar of incense,” as this at least appears in a majority of modern English Bibles (i.e., RSV, NASU, NIV, NRSV, ESV, HCSB, CJB). The Torah tells us that the altar of incense (Heb. mizbeiach) was actually to only be in the Holy Place (Exodus 30:1-6), but not in the Holy of Holies. Has our writer misplaced his facts? We have already seen that our author’s primary Bible is the Greek LXX, which has distinct differences from the Hebrew MT, and it is from those differences that many of his arguments about Yeshua are formed. Likewise, the author of Hebrews has a much more cosmopolitan Jewish world view than is commonly perceived. However, in this case it does not take much to see why most Bibles read with “golden altar of incense.”

We first must note what Exodus 40:2-5 tells us about the golden altar of incense, mizbeiach ha’zahav, and where it is to be placed:

“On the first day of the first month you shall set up the tabernacle of the tent of meeting. You shall place the ark of the testimony there, and you shall screen the ark with the veil. You shall bring in the table and arrange what belongs on it; and you shall bring in the lampstand and mount its lamps. Moreover, you shall set the gold altar of incense before the ark of the testimony, and set up the veil for the doorway to the tabernacle.”

The golden altar of incense was to be placed in front of the the Ark of the Covenant just as the veil was placed between them. This is not only because the incense altar would provide a pleasant fragrance for the interior chambers of the Tabernacle, but that it would also be used to regularly cover up the stench of burning animal flesh and blood. This golden altar was not to be inside the Holy of Holies, but rather in front of it:

“Moreover, you shall make an altar as a place for burning incense; you shall make it of acacia wood. Its length shall be a cubit, and its width a cubit, it shall be square, and its height shall be two cubits; its horns shall be of one piece with it. You shall overlay it with pure gold, its top and its sides all around, and its horns; and you shall make a gold molding all around for it. You shall make two gold rings for it under its molding; you shall make them on its two side walls—on opposite sides—and they shall be holders for poles with which to carry it. You shall make the poles of acacia wood and overlay them with gold. You shall put this altar in front of the veil that is near the ark of the testimony, in front of the mercy seat that is over the ark of the testimony, where I will meet with you” (Exodus 30:1-6).

The most common explanation seen for the rendering of “golden altar of incense” appearing in the Holy of Holies, as detailed in the Archaeological Study Bible, is “its close relationship to the inner sanctuary and to the ark of the covenant.”[13] When the high priest would enter into the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur, he would take a shovel full of coals from this altar as a pleasing aroma to God, but obviously he would not move this heavy, bulky piece of equipment. He would rather use a special vessel for transporting coals into the Holy of Holies. This is detailed in Leviticus 16:12, where Aaron is told, “He shall take a firepan full of coals of fire from upon the altar before the LORD and two handfuls of finely ground sweet incense, and bring it inside the veil.”

The Hebrew used here for “firepan” is machtah, meaning “fire-holder, censer, snuffdish” (BDB),[14] rendered in the Greek LXX as thumiatērion or “a vessel for burning incense, a censer” (LS).[15] Not surprisingly, thumiatērion is the actual term that appears in the source text of Hebrews 9:4, and is correctly rendered as “censer” in the KJV, NKJV, and YLT versions. (The notes in the Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible by Zodhiates also indicate “Or, censer.”)[16] This is what the high priest would have taken into the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur, and the author of Hebrews has not made any error here. There is an explanation as to why most Bibles render this with “altar of incense.”

The Torah tells us that “the utensils of the altar, the pails and the shovels and the basins, the flesh hooks and the firepans; he [Bezalel, Exodus 37:1] made all its utensils of bronze” (Exodus 38:3; cf. Numbers 16:39). These items were made of nechoshet, either rendered as “bronze” or “copper” (ATS, NJPS) in our English Bibles. The altar of incense is what was made of zahav or “gold” (Exodus 30:3). Secondly, Bible translators are often influenced by Philo’s usage the term thumiatērion, where he speaks of “three vessels among the sacred furniture, a candlestick, a bath, and an altar of incense [thumiatērion]” (Who Is the Heir of Divine Things? 226).[17] F.F. Bruce, defending the rendering of “altar of incense” for thumiatērion, says “though it might be argued that the special reference here is to Aaron’s censer, which he used on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:12; cf. Num. 16:46), this censer was scarcely distinctive enough to be mentioned separately.”[18] Bruce, noting the lack of Scriptural reference to a golden censer to be used by Aaron, concludes instead that our author, being influenced by Hellenistic Jewish usages of thumiatērion (which probably has some merit with other terms he uses), used it to refer to the altar of incense.

Lane makes similar conclusions concerning thumiatērion, and discludes the rendering of “censer.” He indicates, “The censer was cast in brass, not gold, and there is no mention in the OT of a golden censer. Moreover, there is no Jewish tradition according to which the censer was left in the Most Holy Place…Most significantly, the term [thumiatērion] is used in writings contemporary or near contemporary with Hebrews [such as Philo] to designate the golden altar of incense.”[19]

We should think that “censer” is the correct rendering of thumiatērion, and not “altar of incense,” given the fact that it is used in the Septuagint to render the Hebrew machtah. Yet, we do need to be informed in recognizing the reasoning of those who think that thumiatērion should be rendered as “alter of incense.” There are certainly Jewish traditions that attest to the usage of golden censers on the Day of Atonement. The Mishnah tells us, “Every day he would scoop out the cinders with a silver fire pan and empty them into a golden one. But today he would clear out the coals in a gold one, and in that same one he would bring the cinders in [to the inner sanctuary]” (m.Yoma 4:4).[20]

The second item mentioned in v. 4 by our author is the Ark of the Covenant. This, without any doubt, was placed in the Holy of Holies:

“They shall construct an ark of acacia wood two and a half cubits long, and one and a half cubits wide, and one and a half cubits high….You shall hang up the veil under the clasps, and shall bring in the ark of the testimony there within the veil; and the veil shall serve for you as a partition between the holy place and the holy of holies….He brought the ark into the tabernacle, and set up a veil for the screen, and screened off the ark of the testimony, just as the LORD had commanded Moses” (Exodus 25:10; 26:33; 40:21).

The third item mentioned in v. 4 is “a golden jar holding the manna.” While a golden jar of manna is missing from the Hebrew Torah in Exodus 16:33, it is referenced in the Greek Septuagint of Exodus 16:33:

EXODUS 16:33 (MT)

EXODUS 16:33

Moses said to Aaron, “Take one jar and put a full omer of manna into it; place it before HASHEM for a safekeeping for your generations” (ATS).

And Moses said to Aaron, Take a golden pot, and cast into it one full homer of manna; and you shall lay it up before God, to be kept for your generations (Apostle’s Bible).

v’yomer Mosheh el-Aharon qach tzin’tzenet achat v’ten-shammah melo-ha’omer man v’hanach oto l’fnei ADONAI l’mishmeret l’doroteikhem.

kai eipen Mōusēs pros Aarōn labe stamnon chrusoun hena kai embale eis auton plēres to gomor tou man kai apothēseis auto enantion tou Theou eis diatērēsin eis tas geneas humōn

The MT of Exodus 16:33-34 employs the word tzin’tzenet, simply meaning “receptacle” (CHALOT),[21] which the LXX renders as stamnon chrusoun, meaning “golden pot” (LXE) or “golden urn” (RSV). We see that our author is once again reflecting a tradition evident from his time that the pot of manna was made of gold. Philo confirms that “the memorial of that heavenly and divine food was consecrated in the golden urn” (On the Preliminary Studies 100).[22] Because of Philo confirming that the jar of manna was made of gold, this likely leads many translators to accept thinking that our author uses thumiatērion for “altar of incense.” However, note that the Septuagint first introduces stamnon chrusoun for “golden jar,” and Philo is likely only repeating this. Our author’s usage of thumiatērion likewise should be influenced by the LXX first, before we consider outside sources—and this is what some translators fail to do.

V. 4 presents another possible challenge when it says that “Aaron’s rod which budded” was in the Ark of the Covenant. The Torah only tells us that Aaron’s rod stood before the Ark of the Covenant:

“But the LORD said to Moses, ‘Put back the rod of Aaron before the testimony to be kept as a sign against the rebels, that you may put an end to their grumblings against Me, so that they will not die.’ Thus Moses did; just as the LORD had commanded him, so he did” (Numbers 17:10-11).

The author of Hebrews is fully correct, though, in stating that “the stone tablets of the covenant” (NIV) were in the Ark of the Covenant. This is attested to numerous times in both the Torah and Tanach:

“At that time the LORD said to me, ‘Cut out for yourself two tablets of stone like the former ones, and come up to Me on the mountain, and make an ark of wood for yourself. I will write on the tablets the words that were on the former tablets which you shattered, and you shall put them in the ark’” (Deuteronomy 10:1-2).

“There was nothing in the ark except the two tablets of stone which Moses put there at Horeb, where the LORD made a covenant with the sons of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt” (1 Kings 8:9).

“There was nothing in the ark except the two tablets which Moses put there at Horeb, where the LORD made a covenant with the sons of Israel, when they came out of Egypt” (2 Chronicles 5:10).

When we see the Scriptural testimony of only the Ten Commandments, the Torah, and likewise the receptacle of manna, being placed in the Ark of the Covenant, is the author of Hebrews wrong? Has he gotten his information mixed up? We need to keep in mind the fact that there are Jewish traditions that attest to the fact of other items being associated with the Ark of the Covenant that are not directly mentioned in the Tanach. The Talmud tells us, “At the side of the ark was placed the coffer in which the Philistines sent a present to the God of Israel, as it says, And put the jewels of gold which ye return him for a guilt offering in a coffer by the side thereof, and send it away that it may go, and on this was placed the scroll of the Law, as it says, Take this book of the law, and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord; It was placed by the side of the ark and not in it” (b.Bava Batra 14a).[23] This guilt offering was associated with the Philistines’ theft of the Ark of the Covenant (1 Samuel 5-6), and apparently it was believed important enough that it remained with it.

How much more important would Aaron’s rod have been to the Ancient Israelites? Certainly, it deserves a place of honor and respect. However, in the Rabbinical discussion in the Talmud the Ark of the Covenant would only have enough space after the Ten Commandments to hold something “half a handbreadth, a finger's breadth for each side” (b.Bava Batra 14a).[24] This would likely leave just enough space for a Torah scroll and a small golden urn containing a few ounces of manna to be placed inside it. Certainly, a rod generally the size of a thick yardstick or meter stick could be nestled somewhere in the mix.

Two things that we need to keep in mind about Aaron’s rod are, (1) we do not know what happened to Aaron’s rod after it sprouted (Numbers 17:6-8), and if it were somehow cut down in size, or (2) if when the Ark of the Covenant was stolen by the Philistines they did not somehow break it. If either is the case, it would make sense that when the Ark of the Covenant returned, Aaron’s staff (or what was left of it) was placed inside. One of the things that we have to keep in mind with Hebrews, or for that matter any text of Scripture, is that the author was closer to the events than we are. The author of Hebrews knew of customs and traditions, from the ancient Jewish community, that modern readers do not. We do not discredit the validity or relevance of the text of Hebrews, on the basis of how its author arranges the Tabernacle furniture or the elements contained outside of, or within, the Ark of the Covenant.

9:5 The last detail concerning the Ark of the Covenant is listed in v. 5. Our author writes, “Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover” (NIV). As the Torah records,

“You shall make a mercy seat of pure gold, two and a half cubits long and one and a half cubits wide. You shall make two cherubim of gold, make them of hammered work at the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub at one end and one cherub at the other end; you shall make the cherubim of one piece with the mercy seat at its two ends. The cherubim shall have their wings spread upward, covering the mercy seat with their wings and facing one another; the faces of the cherubim are to be turned toward the mercy seat. You shall put the mercy seat on top of the ark, and in the ark you shall put the testimony which I will give to you. There I will meet with you; and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the testimony, I will speak to you about all that I will give you in commandment for the sons of Israel” (Exodus 25:17-22; cf. Leviticus 16:2; Numbers 7:89).

The keruvim or “cherubim” are often defined to be “Winged creatures of a suprahuman variety….The most that can be said with certainty is that in Scripture the cherubim were celestial beings whose duty in the heavenly hierarchy was to guard and protect” (ISBE).[25] What we do know about the cherubim is that their wings covered the place where the mercy seat was placed, and likewise representations of them were “woven into the fabric of the tabernacle and the veil (Ex. 26:1, 31; 36:8, 35)” (ISBE).[26]

While any inquiring mind would like to sit and speculate on what the components of the Levitical Tabernacle represent in relation to Yeshua’s priesthood, our author stops his audience and says, “we cannot discuss these things in detail now” (NIV). Is this because he was only interested in the “highlights,” so to speak, of the Tabernacle, and intends to move his audience forward showing them the Messiah’s superior ministry? This is what Paul Ellingworth concludes, as he remarks, “[kata meros] means ‘in detail,’ ‘point by point’….The last part of this verse is best understood as a conventional way of cutting short a discussion, though not in form.”[27]

It is also possible that the author of Hebrews did not want to deal with the debate that the Temple was larger than the Tabernacle, in spite of no Divine authorization for particular changes that were made. This was a discussion that the ancient Rabbis either avoided, or could never come to a consensus about.[28] Perhaps a third reason for our author stopping by not going into detail is that his audience was simply not mature enough to handle any more. Remember his previous words that “You have been believers so long now that you ought to be teaching others” (5:12, NLT). Giving them too much information may only confuse them more, when the objective is to get them focused back on Yeshua and His completed work. However, recognizing that the Levitical priesthood and Tabernacle definitely had value and importance—for realizing the Messiah’s priesthood and greater Heavenly Tabernacle—is key for readers to note, as we do not see any disparagement or disrespect issued for the previous service, which surely had to prefigure the work of the Messiah.

[6] Now when these things have been so prepared, the priests are continually entering the outer tabernacle performing the divine worship, [7] but into the second, only the high priest enters once a year, not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance.

9:6 The author of Hebrews proceeds to say, “These preparations having thus been made,” meaning the arrangement of the Tabernacle furniture, “the priests go regularly into the first section, performing their ritual duties” (ESV). He employs the verb forms eisiasin, “continually entering,” and epitelountes, “performing,” both appearing in the present tense. The use of the present tense may be another indication of the Levitical priesthood still operating during the period of Hebrews’ composition (8:4). These priests enter into tēn prōtēn skēnēn or “the first tabernacle” and perform the daily duties.

9:7 The high priest, however, is allowed to enter into “the second room,” tēn deuteran or the Holy of Holies, “and that only once a year” (HCSB) on the Day of Atonement. Our author’s words are fully consistent with the Torah’s instructions:

“This shall be a permanent statute for you: in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall humble your souls and not do any work, whether the native, or the alien who sojourns among you…So the priest who is anointed and ordained to serve as priest in his father's place shall make atonement: he shall thus put on the linen garments, the holy garments, and make atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting and for the altar. He shall also make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly” (Leviticus 16:29, 32-33).

Some might be confused by our author’s statement that the high priest only enters the Holy of Holies once a year, when the Torah specifies that the high priest enters in at least twice on Yom Kippur: first to bring in a firepan full of incense (Leviticus 16:12), and secondly to bring the blood of the bull for the priestly covering and the blood of the goat for the people’s covering (Leviticus 16:14-15). The Mishnah actually allows four entries by the high priest into the Holy of Holies: (1) to bring the censer of incense, (2) to take the blood of the bull, (3) to take the blood of the goat, and (4) to remove the censer (m.Yoma 5:1, 3, 4). All of this should be understood in the context of the high priest not entering into the Holy of Holies at one time once a year, but simply him entering the Holy of Holies on one day out of the year. The author of Hebrews has not said anything that contradicts this Biblical fact.

What is notable about v. 7 is that the high priest does not enter the Holy of Holies ou chōris aimatos, “not without blood.” The high priest must offer up blood before the Lord to cover both his sins and the sins of the priestly house. As Aaron was originally instructed, he “shall offer the bull of the sin offering which is for himself and make atonement for himself and for his household, and he shall slaughter the bull of the sin offering which is for himself” (Leviticus 16:11). The contrast to this is given earlier, where our author has said, “Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people” (7:27, NIV). Yeshua the Messiah as High Priest does not have to do this, because He is perfect and without a sin nature.

Of course, the high priest also must offer up the blood of a goat before the Lord for the sin of the people. Leviticus 16:15 says, “he shall slaughter the goat of the sin offering which is for the people, and bring its blood inside the veil and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it on the mercy seat and in front of the mercy seat.” The author of Hebrews says that this blood was for “the errors of the people” (RSV) or “sins committed unintentionally by the people” (NRSV). The term agnoēma is defined by LS as “a fault of ignorance, error,”[29] with TDNT further saying, “it is not just pardonable lack of information but a failure to understand that needs forgiveness.”[30] Of course, via the introduction of the New Covenant that writes the Torah onto the hearts of the redeemed, born again Believers are to understand God’s commandments more fully with the power of His Holy Spirit, not only so that they might not break them and thus need forgiveness, but also so that they can understand them as His safeguards for His children.

Vs. 1-6 detail the fact that the Tabernacle implements were indeed very important for the atonement of sin and the Ancient Hebrews’ relations with God. But the sacrifices had to be offered continually, and the high priest had to go before the Lord in the Holy of Holies once a year, and perform this over and over. Now that Yeshua has come, a permanent offering has been made, and in Him men and women can have direct access to the Father. As Guthrie correctly puts it, “In spite of all the splendour of the tabernacle furniture, worship under the Levitical order was severely limited. The Israelites could not approach directly; they had to come through their representatives, the priests…The way of approach was certainly not open as it came to be through Christ.”[31] The Levitical priesthood and its service, as important as it was, had limitations that are no longer present in view of the priesthood of Yeshua and His service.

[8] The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing, [9] which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, [10] since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation.

9:8 While some readers may misunderstand what our author is trying to communicate, he fully believes that the Levitical priesthood—having been established by God—was brought about by the work of the Holy Spirit, to bring forward the coming of the Messiah. He certainly says, “The Holy Spirit was showing by this” (NIV). The problem, for many in his audience, is that by teetering in their faith in Yeshua, they still to an extent relied on the animal sacrifices for their atonement—as opposed to the sacrificial work of Yeshua. He writes that “the way into the sanctuary is not yet opened as long as the outer tent is still standing” (RSV). The Greek reads tēs prōtēs skēnēs echousēs stasin, and while often viewed in English as being a verb, stasis is actually a noun. (The form stasin is in the accusative case in v. 8, indicating direct object.) This speaks of a present “standing” (YLT) of the Levitical priesthood in the hearts and minds of much of Hebrews’ audience, meaning that it “had cultic status” (WBC).[32]

Of course, giving a status to the Levitical priesthood for the atonement of sin does not require Hebrews to have been written only to an audience that saw a functioning Temple in Jerusalem. Bruce explains, “The present tense in this principal clause is a historic present, indicating primarily the procedure laid down by the Levitical law rather than the procedure which was still being enacted at Jerusalem while the author was writing.”[33] The crux of the matter is that if someone was relying upon the Levitical priesthood for redemption—after Yeshua the Messiah has come—the revelation of the Heavenly reality cannot be really understood or accessed.

9:9 For those who have received Yeshua, “All this is symbolic” (NEB) or “an illustration” (NIV), meaning that without an operating Levitical priesthood, as the redeemed in Him are to understand it as portraying and typifying the work of the Savior.

The Levitical priesthood cannot bring eternal salvation, and must not be standing in the hearts and minds of those who believe in Yeshua, as though the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices can bring final redemption. Only the priesthood of Yeshua and Heavenly tabernacle should be standing in the hearts and minds of the redeemed for eternal salvation. The author of Hebrews says, “the gifts and sacrifices that the priests offer are not able to cleanse the consciences of the people who bring them” (NLT). Redemption via the Levitical priesthood could only temporarily withhold punishments that were to be meted out upon Ancient Israel. Furthermore, the animal sacrifices and offerings would not be able to cleanse the conscience—perhaps also to be viewed as the thoughts, emotions, and reasoning abilities of anyone. The redemption of one’s thought life can only be brought about by the sacrifice of Yeshua and the work of the Holy Spirit in a person. This undoubtedly makes the priesthood of Yeshua superior to the Levitical priesthood.

9:10 A qualifier is given relating to the purification of a person’s conscience, as the author of Hebrews says that the gifts and sacrifices offered “deal only with food and drink and various baptisms” (NRSV). Many interpreters first make note of his usage of “food” and conclude that this is speaking of the kosher dietary laws. Zane C. Hodges is one who thinks, “The words of Hebrews 9:10 probably refer to sectarians for whom food laws and ceremonial washings retained great importance.”[34] Ellingworth takes a more moderate view, remarking, “Hebrews’ language raises the question whether such regulations remain in force…The strong implication is that they do not; but the author does not say so explicitly. In any case, polemic against any of his readers who may have voluntarily maintained such practices lies beyond his horizon.”[35]

The problem with this point of view is that our author connects three things together: brōmasin kai poumasin kai diaphorois baptismois, “food, drink, and various purification ceremonies” (Good News Bible). Readers cannot simply single out the dietary laws of the Torah or ceremonial washings as being irrelevant in Yeshua’s priestly service, but then overlook “drink.”

As the service of the Levitical priesthood and its regulations is the subject matter here, informed readers should logically expect “food and drink and various washings” to be connected to the priesthood and Tabernacle service. While “food” is commonly signaled out by interpreters, as many think that the kosher dietary laws are now no longer important, Guthrie makes the critical point, “Some difficulty arises from the fact that the Mosaic law laid down no regulations about any drink taboos, unless the Nazirite vow is taken into account (Nu. 6:3).”[36] This is an important fact to consider, because a Nazirite vow can only be kept when a Tabernacle/Temple is operating in Jerusalem. Likewise, the food and washings mentioned by our author can only be observed when a Tabernacle/Temple is operating. But how can this be the case?

The first area listed by the author of Hebrews, “food,” has far less to do with the kosher laws of the Torah, and instead far more to do with the Levities being able to partake of the animal sacrifices. Leviticus 7:1-6 notably states how the Levitical priests were allowed to eat the meat of the guilt offerings offered before God:

“Now this is the law of the guilt offering; it is most holy. In the place where they slay the burnt offering they are to slay the guilt offering, and he shall sprinkle its blood around on the altar. Then he shall offer from it all its fat: the fat tail and the fat that covers the entrails, and the two kidneys with the fat that is on them, which is on the loins, and the lobe on the liver he shall remove with the kidneys. The priest shall offer them up in smoke on the altar as an offering by fire to the LORD; it is a guilt offering. Every male among the priests may eat of it. It shall be eaten in a holy place; it is most holy.”[37]

The second area that our author lists is “drink.” This obviously cannot be connected to the kosher laws, because the Torah’s dietary instructions do not prohibit the consumption of alcohol. But, the Torah does say how priests on duty were forbidden to drink:

“The LORD then spoke to Aaron, saying, ‘Do not drink wine or strong drink, neither you nor your sons with you, when you come into the tent of meeting, so that you will not die—it is a perpetual statute throughout your generations’” (Leviticus 10:8-9).

It is also possible that the reference to “drink” pertains to the option of one taking a Nazirite vow, as the man or woman making the vow had to abstain from alcohol or grapes (Numbers 6:2-4). The same person making this vow also had to offer certain sacrifices when it was completed:

“Then on the eighth day he shall bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons to the priest, to the doorway of the tent of meeting. The priest shall offer one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering, and make atonement for him concerning his sin because of the dead person. And that same day he shall consecrate his head, and shall dedicate to the LORD his days as a Nazirite, and shall bring a male lamb a year old for a guilt offering; but the former days will be void because his separation was defiled” (Numbers 6:10-12).

Also not to be discounted are the many references in the Torah seen to the drink offering, which were to be offered before the Lord at specified times throughout the year.[38]

The third area, “various ceremonial washings” (NIV), is actually a very general statement, likely made in reference to required ritual bathing that those participating in the Tabernacle service had to go through before approaching the altar or any of the holy objects. These various immersions took place to purify someone “from the profane sphere before entering a holy area, from something under a taboo” (ABD).[39] The high priest himself was commanded to bathe before going before the Lord on Yom Kippur:

“He shall put on the holy linen tunic, and the linen undergarments shall be next to his body, and he shall be girded with the linen sash and attired with the linen turban (these are holy garments). Then he shall bathe his body in water and put them on…He shall bathe his body with water in a holy place and put on his clothes, and come forth and offer his burnt offering and the burnt offering of the people and make atonement for himself and for the people” (Leviticus 16:4, 24).

When readers see the statement “food and drink and various washings,” and consider it in the context of an operating Levitical priesthood, they should be able to see how these areas have distinct applications. The author of Hebrews says that these were “regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation.” He repeats his usage of the term dikaiōma from v. 1, with dikaiōmata rendered here as “regulations,” which indicates that these were requirements of godly origin. Yet, with the coming of Yeshua the Messiah onto the scene of history, what is the importance or significance of them? While they are to surely be regarded as a part of God’s revelation in His Word, they are not as important as the One who came to die and offer permanent atonement for human sin.

The Greek term that is commonly rendered as “reformation” actually clarifies things for us very well. The term diorthōsis means “a making straight, restoration, reform” (LS).[40] First and foremost, this “set[ting] things right” (NRSV) or “setting things straight” (Williams New Testament) relates to the coming of Yeshua into the lives of men and women who desperately need spiritual renewal and restoration with God. Secondly, by the time the author of Hebrews made these statements in the First Century, the Saddusaical priesthood had become desperately corrupt and a sign of utter wickedness that could only be corrected by Yeshua’s priesthood definitively coming on the scene.

The priesthood as it existed during the time of Yeshua and the Apostles desperately needed help. Things needed to be set straight. The language used here comes closest to what Peter says when the Holy Spirit is poured out at Shavuot/Pentecost when he speaks about the “restoration of all things” (Acts 3:21). Yeshua coming into the world has indeed set things straight, but this does not mean that God’s people cast aside, for example, something like the kosher dietary laws—even though eating kosher can surely not bring any person eternal salvation. Yeshua Himself says in Mark 7:15, “there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man.” Hegg makes the valid observation, “The obvious point is [simply] that these things, while given by God for the good of His [people], nonetheless were not given to affect a change in one’s heart…In point of fact, to believe these external things do, in fact, change one’s heart, is to hold error and give into idolatry.”[41] The chairou diorthōseōs inaugurated by Yeshua enables cleansing to occur at far more than just a physical or ritual level.

[11] But when Messiah appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; [12] and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

9:11 With the time of setting things straight now present, Yeshua the Messiah “came as a high priest of the good things that have come” (NRSV). Yeshua has come as High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, entering into the Heavenly Tabernacle, which obviously has to be regarded as being far superior to any Earthly Tabernacle, ultimately constructed by mortals.

Yeshua entering into the Tabernacle in Heaven is an important facet of Apostolic teaching. The martyr Stephen proclaimed, “the Most High does not dwell in houses made by human hands” (Acts 7:48). The Apostle Paul told the Athenians, “The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands” (Acts 17:24). Our author’s point in v. 11, more than anything else, is to get His audience to see that the important business of redemption is not consummated in some dwelling on Earth, but is ultimately consummated in Heaven with Yeshua’s priestly work.

Some slight manuscript differences appear in v. 11, which need not get any of us confused. The two main critical Greek New Testament editions today (Novum Testamentum Gracae, 27th Edition; United Bible Societies Fourth Revised Edition)[42] both follow the reading genomenōn, appearing in the present tense. Versions that follow this reading include the RSV (“have come”), NIV (“already here”), NRSV (“have come”), REB (“already in being”), and ESV (“have come”). The NASU stands somewhat alone as it follows the reading genamenōn, appearing in the future tense, and has “to come.” Bruce M. Metzger attests, “Although both readings are well supported,” in fact they sound almost the same to the untrained ear, “on the whole [genomenōn] appears to have superior attestation in the score of age and diversity of text type.”[43]

While these variant readings do not affect one’s reading that much, we should still note them. When the author of Hebrews composed his work, many needed to hear that the priestly service of Yeshua and the good things that come with it were already functioning. They needed to hear this if some of them were at the point of denying the Lord. Certainly, there are many more things to come in the future, as our author testifies further (v. 28). But, the principal thing to come has been that He ministers in Heaven. As our writer puts it, “he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation” (NIV).

9:12 In v. 12 our author refers his readers back to the required sacrifices of Yom Kippur that he previously mentioned in v. 7. The first sacrifice to be offered was of a par or “bull” (Leviticus 16:11) for his sins and those of the priesthood. The LXX renders this with moschos or “calf,” and this is used by the writer of Hebrews. The second sacrifice offered was a goat for the sin of the people (Leviticus 16:15). The blood of both these animals was to be spread upon the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant.

What is critical for us to know here is that Yeshua as High Priest “did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood” (NIV). Because of Yeshua’s shed blood at Golgotha (Calvary), He was able to enter into the Holy of Holies in Heaven and prophetically fulfill the sacrificial requirements of the Day of Atonement and thus provide eternal redemption for all of us who seek it. The term ephapax applies to something “taking place once and to the exclusion of any further occurrence, once for all, once and never again” (BDAG).[44] As Lane so eloquently describes it, “Christ’s sacrifice on the cross requires no repetition or renewal; his exaltation and entrance into the real sanctuary consecrates the eternal validity of his redemptive ministry.”[45]

Of course, with the fact that Yeshua’s entry into Heaven has offered the eternal redemption that the Yom Kippur offering only typifies, a question that is likely on the mind of many Messianics is how this is possible without it occurring on the specific Day of Atonement. One of the things that we have to understand is that the mindset of the ancients is not the mindset of the Twenty-First Century. We can be most affected theologically by the binary, computer montage of examining things in 0s and 1s, but the author of Hebrews and many other Biblical writers can view things somewhat more fluidically. We have to view the appointed times and their prophetic significance in a similar way. Certainly, although Yeshua has prophetically fulfilled the Passover with His sacrifice, Passover has more prophetic fulfillment ahead as Pharaoh typifies the antimessiah/antichrist to come, and the plagues upon Egypt are certainly a forecast of the Tribulation’s judgments. In a similar way, can Yom Kippur be partially fulfilled today? It has to be in order for Yeshua’s priesthood to be valid.

[13] For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, [14] how much more will the blood of Messiah, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

9:13 Vs. 13-14 introduce a qal v’chomer or “light and heavy” argument of the importance of Yeshua’s shed blood, over that of goats and bulls. Neither the blood of bulls or goats could provide internal redemption, but were limited to only providing external redemption. Bruce points out, “‘The blood of goats and bulls’ is a general term covering not only the sacrifices of the Day of Atonement but other sacrifices as well.”[46] Our author introduces the Greek word tauros or “bull,” not used previously in v. 12, which was a specific reference to the Yom Kippur offering. Tauros is generally used in the LXX to render the Hebrew baqar, often rendered as “ox” in our English Bibles.

There is a curious connection, though, with our author’s reference to “the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled.” This act was specifically intended for those who contacted a corpse, so they could become ritually clean again:

“The one who touches the corpse of any person shall be unclean for seven days. That one shall purify himself from uncleanness with the water on the third day and on the seventh day, and then he will be clean; but if he does not purify himself on the third day and on the seventh day, he will not be clean” (Numbers 19:11-12).

It is likely that our author uses general references, to show once again how these ordinances could not bring the complete redemption and total cleansing, that only Yeshua brings.

9:14 Certainly, if some level of “external purity” (NEB) was offered through the usage of the blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of the heifer in a water mixture, our author is right to point out how Yeshua the Messiah’s blood can offer much, much more. He says, “Just think how much more the blood of Christ will purify our consciences from sinful deeds so that we can worship the living God” (NLT). The author of Hebrews describes Yeshua’s offering of Himself as being “without blemish,” connecting his audience to the Torah’s requirements of how animals are to be offered:

“[F]or you to be accepted—it must be a male without defect from the cattle, the sheep, or the goats. Whatever has a defect, you shall not offer, for it will not be accepted for you. When a man offers a sacrifice of peace offerings to the LORD to fulfill a special vow or for a freewill offering, of the herd or of the flock, it must be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no defect in it” (Leviticus 22:19-21).

The term used in the Torah to describe something “without defect” or “without blemish” (RSV, NJPS), is tamim. Tamim has a variety of connotations, notably “complete, unscathed, intact,” “complete, blameless, of people,” “without fault, free of blemish,” and perhaps most important, “perfect…of God” (HALOT).[47] Tamim was rendered in the Septuagint as amōmos, meaning “without blame, blameless” (LS),[48] and this usage is employed by the writer of Hebrews. Because Yeshua is blameless—or perfect as the Son of God—He is able to “purify our conscience from dead works to worship the living God!” (NRSV). Yeshua’s offering of Himself is able to provide that regeneration not only of the heart, but of the mind, so that we might worship God in a greater fullness.

Notice that the critical promise here is that Yeshua will cleanse people from “works that lead to death” (CJB), “sinful deeds” (NLT), or even “the deadness of our former ways” (NEB), nekrōn ergōn. Hodges concludes that these “dead works” seem “to refer to the Levitical rituals,”[49] and hence by extension, the commandments of the Torah or Law of Moses. But this is where we must allow our author’s words to interpret themselves. Earlier he has spoken of “repentance from acts that lead to death” (6:1, NIV) or “repenting from evil deeds” (NLT). These are all the sinful violations of God’s commandments that condemn people as evildoers. Why would the author of Hebrews be saying that God wants to cleanse the keeping of His commandments from the conscience of people—when the essence of the New Covenant is Him writing the Law onto the hearts and minds of the redeemed (8:8-12)?

It is notable, though, that dead works can be performed by one’s perceived obedience of God’s commands. Hegg points out that dead works “are any works which, while doing them, we might think that we are earning God’s grace and favor.”[50] Many in Hebrews’ First Century audience were likely keeping the Torah thinking that it would earn the Lord’s favor—but it could not. Only Yeshua’s offering up of Himself can bring one complete reconciliation with God. Likewise, how many in today’s Messianic community might think that their “Torah observance” will somehow bring God’s grace upon them—and they fail to remember Yeshua’s offering up of Himself? This is a dangerous place in which to find oneself, because it may lead one to rely on an incomplete Levitical system for eternal redemption, when the author of Hebrews says that eternal redemption can only be accomplished through the blood of the Messiah and His priestly service.

Our author attests that the Messiah offered Himself dia pneumatos aiōniou, “through the eternal Spirit.” We see the Spirit operating through Yeshua, as prophesied by Isaiah:

“Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold; My chosen one in whom My soul delights. I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the nations…The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me to bring good news to the afflicted; He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to captives and freedom to prisoners” (Isaiah 42:1; 61:1; cf. Luke 4:17-20).

It is also notable that in v. 14 we see all three, principal members of the Godhead mentioned. We see God, meaning the Father; we see the Messiah, meaning the Son; we see the eternal Spirit or the Holy Spirit. Contrary to anyone believing that the tri-unity of the Godhead was something solely invented by Church leaders of the Third and Fourth Centuries, we see evidence of it right here in the Epistle to the Hebrews, even without the formulation of “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”[51]

[15] For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

9:15 Vs. 15-17 can be a difficult passage for many readers to understand, because they specifically speak of covenant making in the context of how agreements were made in the Ancient Near East. In modern times when we make agreements, we often do so in the form of contracts where two parties agree to a series of stipulations, and in the event that these requirements are not adhered to or followed, some kind of financial restitution is often paid. In Biblical times, however, as modeled to us in the Torah and Tanach, agreements were made when both parties swore a commitment to a series of terms, invoking a curse upon themselves when the terms were not met. Animals would often be sacrificed, and the animal parts would represent the fate of those failing to live up to the terms of the covenant. In the case of the agreement that was made between God and Abraham in Genesis 15:9-21, both the Lord and Abraham were supposed to walk between the animal parts, an indication of what should happen to them if the agreement were violated:

“So He said to him, ‘Bring Me a three year old heifer, and a three year old female goat, and a three year old ram, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.’ Then he brought all these to Him and cut them in two, and laid each half opposite the other; but he did not cut the birds. The birds of prey came down upon the carcasses, and Abram drove them away. Now when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and behold, terror and great darkness fell upon him. God said to Abram, ‘Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years. But I will also judge the nation whom they will serve, and afterward they will come out with many possessions. As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you will be buried at a good old age. Then in the fourth generation they will return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete.’ It came about when the sun had set, that it was very dark, and behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a flaming torch which passed between these pieces. On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, ‘To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates: the Kenite and the Kenizzite and the Kadmonite and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Rephaim and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Girgashite and the Jebusite.’”

Notice how after Abraham killed the animals, that a deep sleep fell upon him, and he did not pass through the animal parts as was expected. On the contrary, we are told that “a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch appeared and passed between the divided animals” (HCSB), this obviously being God. Our author has said earlier that when God made the promise to Abraham, “since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself” (6:13; cf. Genesis 22:17).

The author of Hebrews could likely be using this analogy for his audience, to demonstrate how important it was for Yeshua’s work to have inaugurated the New Covenant. While the agreement between God and Abraham was an agreement that God Himself was entirely responsible for, the agreement between God and Ancient Israel was something that Israel was responsible for as well. We see this detailed in Exodus 24:3-9:

“Then Moses came and recounted to the people all the words of the LORD and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice and said, ‘All the words which the LORD has spoken we will do!’ Moses wrote down all the words of the LORD. Then he arose early in the morning, and built an altar at the foot of the mountain with twelve pillars for the twelve tribes of Israel. He sent young men of the sons of Israel, and they offered burnt offerings and sacrificed young bulls as peace offerings to the LORD. Moses took half of the blood and put it in basins, and the other half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. Then he took the book of the covenant and read it in the hearing of the people; and they said, ‘All that the LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient!’ So Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, ‘Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words.’”

The problem with this agreement is that Israel did not fully live up to it, and thus someone had to die as the covenant was not fully adhered to. The One who died in Israel’s stead was Yeshua the Messiah: God made manifest in human form.

In v. 15, our author communicates, “a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant” (NASU). The source text notes some things that are often lost in most English translations: thanatou genomenou eis apolutrōsin tōn epi tē prōtē diathēkē parabaseōn. The clause of interest for readers here is epi tē prōtē diathēkē, most often rendered as “under the first covenant.” Yet, the common preposition legitimately rendered as “under” is hupo, and what appears here is epi. Lane offers the more appropriate translation in his WBC volume, “a death having occurred for redemption from transgressions committed on the basis of the former covenant,”[52] with epi rendered as “on the basis of.” In a dative clause (indicating indirect object), the preposition epi can be used as a “marker of basis for a state of being, action, or result” (BDAG).[53] Yeshua came to die because of sins committed by people, who obviously violated the Mosaic covenant.

Now that a required death has taken place because of failure to live up to this agreement, the New Covenant can now be inaugurated. The New Covenant is an unconditional agreement made by God, as He simply states, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people” (Jeremiah 31:33). Yeshua the Messiah is the Mediator of that covenant before His Father in Heaven, as belief in His atoning work is what brings people into the New Covenant. The promise of the New Covenant is an “eternal inheritance,” clearly realized as the Lord promises—as a part of the New Covenant—“I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more” (Jeremiah 31:34).

[16] For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. [17] For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives.

9:16 Vs. 16-17 can at times be a cause of considerable debate among Bible translators, as there are perspective issues to be considered. The NASU is the only major version that renders diathēkē as “covenant.” The KJV and NKJV use “testament,” whereas the RSV, NIV, NRSV, ESV, and HCSB all have “will.” The most common explanation given for this passage is that our author introduces a different meaning of covenant that goes beyond the meaning of the Hebrew b’rit seen in Jeremiah 31. While diathēkē is the best equivalent for b’rit, and follows this meaning in the LXX, it does has a wider array of definitions. LS indicates that diathēkē can mean “an arrangement between two parties, covenant” and “a disposition of property by will, a will, testament.”[54] Donald Hagner reflects on diathēkē having multiple meanings in vs. 16-17, concluding, “Playing on the double meaning of the Greek word diathēkē as a covenant and will…the author now takes its meaning in the latter sense. For a will to come into effect, death must occur.”[55]

An argument that is commonly made is that since fallen human beings have not been able to live up to the first covenant, Yeshua the Messiah had to die so that the New Covenant could be inaugurated and its promises be given to us. As Bruce explains, “It is well known that this kind of settlement cannot be ratified as long as its author lives. And so it is with the new diathēkē; its validity depends on the fact that its author has died.”[56] Comparing the New Covenant to a last will and testament, because Yeshua has died, humankind can now receive its inheritance via reconciliation with God.

This interpretation may seem to be relatively sound, but it runs into some problems when placed in an ancient context. Lane disagrees with it, remarking, “A recent review of this argument has demonstrated that it is impossible to translate [diathēkē] in vv 16-17 as ‘will’ or ‘testament’ and to harmonize the writer’s statements with any known form of hellenistic, Egyptian, or Roman legal practice. There is no evidence in classical or papyriological sources to substantiate that a will or testament was legally valid only when its testator died. A will became operative as soon as it was properly drafted, witnessed, and notarized.”[57] It may be that Lane is working from newer information and sources that previous commentators simply have not had, and so the “last will and testament” explanation was the best that could be offered.

V. 16 in the NASU is rendered with, “For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it,” and presents no major issues. This speaks of the death of the one who made the agreement, who fails to live up to it. Yeshua the Son of God took the necessary place for human transgression, and died for the inability for the first covenant to be kept (v. 15; cf. Galatians 4:4-5).

9:17 V. 17, however, presents some translation challenges, when the Greek is more carefully considered. V. 17 is commonly rendered as something like, “For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives.” This reflects the approach of diathēkē representing a last will and testament. Yet, the actual terminology “men are dead” or “when people die” (HCSB), does not appear in the source text.

The first half of the sentence reads diathēkē gar epi nekrois bebaia, which the Brown and Comfort New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament renders with, “for~a covenant over dead bodies [is] ratified.”[58] A smoother translation is seen in YLT, which has, “for a covenant over dead victims is stedfast,” with Lane similarly having, “For a covenant is made legally secure on the basis of sacrificial victims” (WBC).[59]

The term in the NASU rendered “men are dead” is the plural nekrois. It cannot be avoided that any term relating to “men” (Grk. sing. anēr) or “humans” (Grk. sing. anthrōpos) does not appear. If “dead ones” or “those dead” (LITV), is what would appear in mainline English versions, there might be less controversy over interpreting v. 17.

The translation of “dead victims” (YLT) or “sacrificial victims” (WBC), may be regarded as something definitively rooted within Ancient Near Eastern covenanting procedures, where there would be animals slaughtered to give some kind of surety to the covenant. This frequently involved those making the agreement saying that they would become as such dead animals if they did not live up to it. A covenant, when violated, does often seek the death of the violator.

The key verb to be noted, from v. 16—“thanaton anagkē pheresthai tou diathemenou, “it is necessary for~death to be offered of the one having made a covenant” (Brown and Comfort)[60]—is pherō, meaning “carry, bear” or “carry a burden” (BDAG).[61] Those who have violated the first covenant should have to carry or offer the burden of death. What cannot escape our notice is how verb pherō is used in association with Yeshua’s execution on the tree:

“Then they brought [pherō] Him to the place Golgotha, which is translated, Place of a Skull” (Mark 15:22).

“When they led Him away, they seized a man, Simon of Cyrene, coming in from the country, and placed on him the cross to carry [pherō] behind Yeshua” (Luke 23:26).[62]

Yeshua the Messiah, having been incarnated as a human being, paid the penalty that human beings have incurred for themselves, via their violation of God’s covenant. Hegg summarizes it all quite well: “Yeshua, as the Servant of the Lord, takes the covenant penalty upon Himself, and as the quintessential Israelite, accepts the covenant penalty for the nation.”[63] While it is easy to see how Yeshua, the Jewish Messiah, surely came to die for Israel’s violation of the Mosaic covenant—the nations are not at all innocent of their violation of it, either. Isaiah 24:5 reminds us how “The earth is also polluted by its inhabitants, for they transgressed laws, violated statutes, broke the everlasting covenant.” Yeshua’s sacrifice was not just for the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—but was for all of humankind, which itself is regarded by God as being guilty of transgressing His Torah as much as Israel proper.

[18] Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood. [19] For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, [20] saying, “THIS IS THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT WHICH GOD COMMANDED YOU” [Exodus 24:8]. [21] And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood.

9:18 V. 18 probably has a justified usage of “covenant,” appearing in italics in the NASU, as our author connects his audience back to Exodus 24:8, in the context of the Sinai Covenant that was broken by Ancient Israel. (The subject matter here is the “covenant” between God and Israel, as opposed to the “first priesthood/tabernacle/service” that he mentioned earlier [8:7; 9:1].) A major point he will discuss from vs. 18-26 is the relationship of blood to the Sinai Covenant, and now the New Covenant. He opens this part of his argument with the statement, “the first covenant was not put into effect without blood” (NIV), and then proceeds to substantiate this by describing how blood was sprinkled over the people, the Torah instruction, as well as the vessels to be used in the Levitical priesthood.

9:19 A potential issue exists in v. 19 with the statement “when every commandment had been told to all the people by Moses in accordance with the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the scroll itself and all the people” (NRSV). The first part, “he took the blood of the calves and the goats” is inaccurate when viewed in light of Exodus 24:5, which only says that “young bulls” (NASU) were sacrificed as a part this event.

While we cannot exclude the possibility for v. 19 that our author is reflecting upon an ancient Jewish tradition of the blood of goats also being offered, it is also quite true how the reading tōn moschōn [kai tōn tragōn], does not appear in all ancient Greek sources of Hebrews. “[A]nd the goats” notably appears in brackets, in critical editions such as the Novum Testamentum Gracae 27th Edition (1993)[64] and GNT Fourth Revised Edition (1998).[65] Metzger indicates that the UBS committee “decided to enclose the words within square brackets in order to indicate a certain doubt that they belong there.”[66] It may be speculated that copyists over time added “and the goats” to conform to the earlier reading of v. 12. In spite of this, though, most English Bibles read with “the calves and the goats.” The NIV/TNIV is the only major Bible version that follows the correct form “he took the blood of calves,” also followed by Lane’s rendering in WBC, “taking the blood of calves.”[67] The CJB also has, “After Moshe had proclaimed every command of the Torah to all the people, he took the blood of the calves.”

Perhaps a bigger issue is present when our author testifies that Moses took this blood with “water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people.” Exodus 24:6-7 only records that Moses sprinkled the altar and the people:

“Moses took half of the blood and put it in basins, and the other half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. Then he took the book of the covenant and read it in the hearing of the people; and they said, ‘All that the LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient!’”

Of course, what we should first consider is the fact that the author of Hebrews may be combining language that is seen elsewhere in the Torah. Numbers 19:18 may be a place where he appropriates some additional statements:

“A clean person shall take hyssop and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it on the tent and on all the furnishings and on the persons who were there, and on the one who touched the bone or the one slain or the one dying naturally or the grave.”

Secondly, it is not impossible by any means to assume that additional, but less important rituals, were performed by Moses in Exodus 24. The historian Josephus records that in consecrating the Tabernacle Moses first took oil, and then took blood, as they were sprinkled for God’s service:

“After this manner did he consecrate them and their garments for seven days together. The same he did to the tabernacle, and the vessels thereto belonging, both with oil first incensed, as I said, and with the blood of bulls and of rams, slain day by day, one according to its kind. But on the eighth day he appointed a feast for the people, and commanded them to offer sacrifice according to their ability” (Antiquities of the Jews 3.206).[68]

If Josephus can record that oil was used, in addition to blood, then the author of Hebrews can likewise state that scarlet wool and hyssop were used to sprinkle the Torah scroll and the people assembled. It is likely that the author of Hebrews references a non-extant tradition from Second Temple Judaism. I choose to accept that the author of Hebrews has already established himself as a well-informed rhetorician, and he is well-acquainted with the information of Biblical times. The kind of additional details we see added to the record, in the Pentateuch, is not at all substantial enough to disregard Hebrews’ importance within the Biblical canon.

9:20-21 The point made in v. 20 is emphasized from Exodus 24:8, “Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words.” Our author rewords them slightly with, “THIS THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT WHICH GOD COMMANDED YOU,” as his emphasis is on the blood. He then says in v. 21, “In the same way he sprinkled the blood over the tent and all the vessels of divine service” (REB). This is, of course, the logical extension of what was to take place after the people were sprinkled.

Modern readers, in conjunction with their reading of the Hebrew Torah, might need to exhibit a bit of theological and intellectual maturity in their approach to vs. 18-21. There are textual issues to consider, as well as historical issues that we may not have all of the answers to. Certainly, our author’s statements about Moses using scarlet wool and hyssop to sprinkle blood onto the people and the scroll of the Law, and then later sprinkle the Tabernacle’s vessels, is not inconsistent with the character of God. None of us is the author of Hebrews, and he knew the sacrificial system much better than we do. He also had access to information that we do not have. And this is not only true of the information in the Epistle to the Hebrews, but also in other books of the Apostolic Scriptures, and even much of the Tanach itself.

[22] And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. [23] Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

9:22 The author of Hebrews attests to the fact that “with blood almost all things are purified according to the law” (YLT). The RSV, NRSV, and ESV all render this with “under the law almost everything is purified with blood.” However, the Greek phrase normally rendered as “under (the) Law,” hupo nomon,[69] does not appear. Instead, our author uses the terminology kata ton nomon, correctly meaning “according to the Law,” which the NIV extrapolates as what “the law requires.” This is a simple summation of the Torah’s commands regarding purification, and how blood, usually via a sacrifice, is often involved. Yeshua’s offering up of Himself as a sacrifice, providing purification for the redeemed, is necessarily predicated on the significance of the animal sacrifices of the Torah providing some degree of cleansing.

Our author then makes the statement, “without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” What is important to note in his argumentation is that he says “almost everything is purified with blood” (HCSB). The Greek schedon, when used “of Degree,” means “nearly, all but, almost, just” (LS).[70] This might be something difficult to understand, because implicit in ch. 9, is the argument that animial blood, that of bulls and goats—used at any time—cannot offer complete redemption. The shed blood of the Messiah is vastly superior because it offers a permanent redemption that animal blood cannot offer. Yet it cannot be avoided how the shed blood of Yeshua by itself and on its own, cannot offer a person forgiveness. The shed blood of Yeshua offers mortals the purification that they need for sure, but with permanent atonement provided, it must then be acknowledged and received by a person’s faith or trust in the completed action. With permanent atonement available, men and women who acknowledge themselves as sinners in need of permanent cleansing, must ask the Lord for it.

9:23 The purification that the blood of Yeshua offers is immense: it offers people complete reconciliation with God! The author of Hebrews makes the interesting statement, “Thus it was necessary for the sketches of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves need better sacrifices than these” (NRSV). He writes about how the “copies of the things in the heavens,” meaning the Earth-bound replicas of the Tabernacle furniture, required animal blood for ceremonial purification. However, the Heavenly realities they were based upon required a more superior sacrifice, so that they could be fully consecrated. This sacrifice was the offering up of Yeshua. This does not necessarily mean that the Heavenly items were “defiled,” but rather that they needed to go through a similar process of consecration as the items on Earth experienced during the time of Moses. The purification and consecration of the Heavenly Tabernacle occurred subsequent to Yeshua’s ascension into Heaven.

[24] For Messiah did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; [25] nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. [26] Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

9:24-25 When Yeshua entered into Heaven at His ascension, He “did not enter a man-made sanctuary” (NIV). This is because the original holy place on Earth, be it a Tabernacle or a Temple, was “a…copy of the true one.” Note that the NASU has added the adjective “mere” in italics—adding a description that is not seen in the Greek antitupa tōn alēthinōn. While it is true that the Earthly Tabernacle is “only a pointer to the reality” (REB), the addition of something like “mere” or “only” by Bible translators, may be placed to somehow subtract from the fact that the Earthly Tabernacle and Temple did have value. The author of Hebrews does not demean the Earthly Tabernacle in ch. 9, but he does show how highly he regards it, in spite of the fact that the Sanctuary in Heaven is much more important.

The Tabernacle or Temple, as it is seen to readers of the Scriptures, is widely the most that common human reasoning can comprehend of the extra-dimensional dwelling or residence of the Lord. This is where Yeshua is now seated beside the Father, “to appear in the presence of God on our behalf” (RSV). The profundity of this is that “He did not do this to offer Himself many times, as the high priest enters the sanctuary yearly with the blood of another” (HCSB). Yeshua only had to enter into the Holy Place in Heaven a single time to offer the final atonement for people, with His priesthood thus inaugurating the New Covenant.

9:26 If Yeshua’s offering of Himself were not a sufficient sacrifice, as our author stated earlier, “once for all” (v. 12), then He would need to be offered up again, just as the high priest on Earth would have to go again into the Holy of Holies. The community of Israel would surely sin again after the blood of the Yom Kippur offering was spread on the mercy seat by the high priest. But Yeshua entered into the Holy Place in Heaven, having offered up Himself and shedding His own blood for the sins of humanity. As the author of Hebrews astutely testifies, “he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (RSV).

What would these words mean for a largely First Century Jewish audience, likely on the verge of seeing the Second Temple destroyed? Would they be assurance to those who had, even after their conversion of faith, still derived a great deal of comfort or security from knowing that sacrifices were being performed in Jerusalem? Consider the amount of faith a Jew in the Diaspora would have put in the Levitical priesthood, living separated from it, versus a Jewish person living in the Land of Israel who would have encountered it on a much more frequent basis. This is why our author writes that Yeshua’s sacrifice is sufficient to be offered only once.

It is absolutely true, that only those who had received Yeshua into their lives, can see beyond the Earthly shadow of the Levitical priesthood and Tabernacle service, into the Heavenly reality of Yeshua’s priesthood and service, that our author writes about. It is only those who have experienced a spiritual renewal by acknowledging Yeshua’s permanent offering of Himself, who can really know how Yeshua’s service in Heaven is more important than the service of human priests on Earth.

[27] And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, [28] so Messiah also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

9:27 A critical part of redemption that many fail to take note of, or even understand, is judgment. Our author states that “it is appointed for mortals to die once, and after that the judgment” (NRSV). This is obviously a rhetorical point made to emphasize the finality of Yeshua’s sacrifice for human sin (v. 28).

It should not have mattered if our author’s audience was Jewish or non-Jewish, as he commented on a universal truth. A further conclusion to be noted is that physical death without a repentance occurring beforehand, ends a person’s chance for reconciliation with the Creator—a reconciliation that is surely and presently offered by Yeshua’s continual work in Heaven. Our author was undeniably concerned that many in his audience had not really experienced redemption from their sins, and was surely reminding them that once they die, all they can face is some kind of judgment. Would the judgment be a positive one? deSilva summarizes it quite well by stating,

“The maxim about death followed by judgment reinforces the author’s strategic warning that leaving the group does not mean escaping danger, specifically in the form of being held accountable by the God whose Son they spurned. Given the near-universal acceptance of this maxim, which could be accepted from either a Jewish, Christian, or Greco-Roman worldview, the believers should have their eyes fixed on meeting that crisis successfully…”[71]

All of us are going to die because we are not immortal creatures. (The only exception to this is the small few that will never die and who are alive at the Messiah’s appearing [1 Corinthians 15:51]). Once we die, the only judgment that we should face should be a good and positive evaluation of our works performed in the Lord’s service, accomplished by faithful Believers during their time on Earth—not one of eternal punishment.

Our author’s words in v. 27 speak definitively against any kind of reincarnation, where the deceased can later return to life in some other form or body. We may also take it as speaking against any kind of annihilation for the eternally condemned, where the wicked will be resurrected to face the judgment of Yeshua to only then experience obliteration from existence. Human beings are only allowed one time to die physically, and Hebrews 9:27 provides ancillary support to how the “second death” which Revelation talks about, must be viewed figuratively, as everlasting separation or exile from God. Only an eternal punishment that continues forever is a just reward for sin.[72]

9:28 The author of Hebrews did not want to leave his audience on a negative note, though. On the contrary, He says that Yeshua the Messiah “will appear a second time for salvation.” This is “not to bear sin” (NIV), meaning somehow be sacrificed some other time. The issue of Yeshua the Messiah coming again is to continue the Father’s plan of salvation history, in order to establish His Kingdom here on Earth. Along with this will be the future resurrection of the righteous dead.

What our author says here is not new, as the return of the Messiah to Planet Earth is the next major event in salvation history to be anticipated. As Paul writes the Philippians, “our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Yeshua the Messiah” (Philippians 3:20). While he widely expected to die and be with the Messiah (Philippians 1:23; cf. 2 Corinthians 5:8; 2 Timothy 4:6, 18), an intermediate disembodied condition in Heaven with the Lord (cf. 12:23) is not at all the ultimate destination of the redeemed, as Believers are to look forward to what Paul calls “the redemption of our body” (Romans 8:23). Ellingworth emphasizes how, per what the author of Hebrews states, “Salvation, like hope and inheritance, is a gift granted to the believer by anticipation in the present time, but awaits its final fulfillment.”[73]

The return of Yeshua will be the ultimate consummation of a redeemed man or woman’s salvation. The author of Hebrews has momentarily turned back to some of his earlier remarks in chs. 3 and 4, where he spoke of the eternal rest that God offers. This rest was typified on Earth by the weekly Sabbath, but will be realized even more by restored humanity being placed second in Creation to only God Himself. The question, that the author of Hebrews asks his readers, is a very simple yet deep one: Do you want judgment at death or to be part of God’s glorious Kingdom?

Each one of us should want to be a part of God’s Kingdom. We need to understand that a Holy Place in Heaven is operating today in a similar manner to how the Tabernacle and Temple once operated on Earth. What is in Heaven is far more complicated and involved than our mortal brains can fully understand at this point—but it is there. The author of Hebrews wanted his ancient audience to understand that Yeshua’s entering into that Holy Place enables the redeemed to have salvation right now. That salvation will be ultimately consummated when Yeshua comes again, and He “will transform the body of our humiliation that it may be conformed to the body of his glory” (Philippians 3:21, NRSV).

ENDNOTES FOR Commentary on Hebrews 9

[1] Morris, in EXP, 12:80.

[2] Hegg, Hebrews, 155.

[3] deSilva, 291.

[4] Morris, in EXP, 12:80.

[5] Guthrie, Hebrews, 178.

[6] BDAG, 249.

[7] LS, 446.

[8] William L. Lane, Word Biblical Commentary: Hebrews 9-13, Vol. 47b (Nashville: Nelson Reference and Electronic, 1991), 218.

[9] The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged, 583.

[10] The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged, 88.

[11] Neusner, 741.

[12] Lane, 47b:219.

[13] Duane A. Garrett, ed., et. al., NIV Archaeological Study Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 1991.

[14] BDB, 367.

[15] LS, 371.

Cf. 2 Chronicles 26:19; Ezekiel 8:11; 4 Maccabees 7:11 (all LXX).

[16] Zodhiates, Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, 1627.

[17] The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged, 295.

Cf. Life of Moses 2.94; 2.101.

[18] Bruce, Hebrews, 200.

[19] Lane, 47b:215 fn#x.

[20] Neusner, 271.

[21] CHALOT, 308.

[22] The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged, 312.

[23] The Soncino Talmud. Judaic Classics Library II.

[24] Ibid.

[25] R.K. Harrison, “cherubim,” in ISBE, 1:642, 643.

[26] Ibid., 642.

[27] Ellingworth, 431.

[28] Hegg, Hebrews, pp 155-156.

[29] LS, 7.

[30] F. Hauck, “agonóēma,” in TDNT, 18.

[31] Guthrie, Hebrews, 182.

[32] Lane, 47b:214.

[33] Bruce, Hebrews, 209.

[34] Hodges, in BKCNT, 801.

[35] Ellingworth, 444.

[36] Guthrie, Hebrews, 184.

[37] Cf. Deuteronomy 18:1.

[38] Cf. E.E. Carpenter, “Sacrifices and Offerings in the OT: Mosaic,” in ISBE, 4:266-269.

[39] Lars Hartman, “Baptism,” in ABD, 1:853.

[40] LS, 204.

[41] Ibid.

[42] Erwin Nestle and Kurt Aland, eds., Novum Testamentum Graece, Nestle-Aland 27th Edition (New York: American Bible Society, 1993), 575; Kurt Aland, et. al., The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition (Stuttgart: Deutche Bibelgesellschaft/United Bible Societies, 1998), 757.

[43] Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London and New York: United Bible Societies, 1975), 668.

[44] BDAG, 417.

[45] Lane, 47b:239.

[46] Bruce, Hebrews, 214.

[47] HALOT, 2:1749.

[48] LS, 50.

[49] Hodges, in BKCNT, 802.

[50] Hegg, Hebrews, 168.

[51] We are certainly keen to note that the plurality of the Godhead is under attack in many segments of the Messianic movement today. For a further discussion of this subject consult the author’s article “What Does the Shema Really Mean?”

[52] Lane, 47b:229.

[53] BDAG, 364.

[54] LS, 187.

[55] Hagner, in New Interpreter’s Study Bible, 2163.

[56] Bruce, Hebrews, 224.

[57] Lane, 47b:231.

[58] Robert K. Brown and Philip W. Comfort, trans., The New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 1990), 777.

[59] Lane, 47b:229.

[60] Brown and Comfort, 777.

[61] BDAG, 1051.

[62] Pherō is also employed to refer to the risen Savior:

“Then He said to Thomas, ‘Reach [pherō] here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach [pherō] here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing’” (John 20:27).

[63] Tim Hegg, “Covenant or Last Will & Testament?” Messiah Magazine Issue 89, Shemot 5766: p 13.

[64] Nestle and Aland, GNT, 576.

[65] Aland, GNT, 758.

[66] Metzger, 669.

[67] Lane, 47b:229.

[68] The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged, 92.

[69] Romans 6:14-15; 1 Corinthians 9:20 (2x); Galatians 3:23; 4:4-5, 21; 5:18.

[70] LS, 786.

[71] deSilva, 315.

[72] For a further discussion of this issue, consult the author’s article “Why Hell Must Be Eternal.”

[73] Ellingworth, 488.

HEBREWS 10

COMMENTARY

[1] For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near.

The main theme of Hebrews ch. 10 is the finality of Yeshua’s sacrifice for human sin, and how it offers something that the animal sacrifices of the Levitical order could not offer. For some interpreters, ch. 10 begins the last part in the series of our author’s arguments, or ends the section of rhetoric on Yeshua’s priesthood that began in ch. 7.

10:1 Anyone who reads Hebrews 10:1 closely from the NASU should immediately see the addition of the word “only” in italics, indicating that it was not in the original source text: “For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come.” V. 1 actually opens with Skian gar echōn ho nomos tōn mellontōn agathōn, “For the law having a shadow of good things to come…” (KJV). The addition of the term “only” by the NASU translators is entirely unjustified[1] (although to the NASU’s credit you can easily detect this addition, unlike some other versions),[2] and purposefully intends to downplay the significance of the Torah, as though the only thing it can do is foreshadow Yeshua the Messiah and not instruct godly men and women in how to live in holiness.

What can also not escape readers’ notice is how echōn is a present active participle: “having.” What this means is that although the Levitical priesthood and sacrificial system point to Yeshua’s final sacrifice (vs. 5-8)—there are still more good things to come in the unfolding of salvation history. A definite feature of the author of Hebrews’ argument is that while Yeshua is exalted at the right hand of His Father in Heaven, He still has yet to return with all things subjected to Himself (2:8; 10:13; cf. Psalm 8:5-7; 110:1). Nowhere does our author say “the Law had a shadow.”

The Torah is described as having a skia or shadow of the good things to come. We see some parallels to Colossians 2:17, where the Apostle Paul says that the Biblical appointments “are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ” (ESV).[3] The animal sacrifices of the Levitical priesthood, and likewise the appointed times of Leviticus 23, can be rightly viewed as being the outlines or sketch of a drawing, that God wants to show His people. With the arrival of Yeshua, color or substance is added to the drawing, revealing our Heavenly Father’s great masterpiece. Alas, though, too many Christians have chosen to discard the outline that the Torah provides, not realizing that there is still much more of the drawing left to be completed. It will not be entirely completed until the redeemed enter into the Eternal State and New Creation.

The second description, given by the author of Hebrews about the Torah, is that it is said as not having the eikōn, “the very form,” of what it describes. Our writer has previously detailed how the elements of the Tabernacle are to be regarded as Earthly copies of Heavenly originals (8:5; 9:23). Much of what the Torah communicates, in its instruction pertaining to the Levitical priesthood and sarificial system, involves a limited terrestrial shadow of a much fuller Heavenly substance. Because of the terrestrial nature of the Torah’s instructions regarding sacrifice, “it can never perfect the worshipers by the same sacrifices they continually offer year after year” (HCSB).

There is not uniform agreement among examiners, whether or not our author’s reference to the Torah as having a “shadow” and “form” of the good things to come through Messiah Yeshua, are to be taken as synonymous. Paul Ellingworth points out, “In earlier Greek usage, [skia] and [eikōn] were synonyms referring to a lesser reality.”[4] If the analogy to a work of art is accurate, then the Torah provides an Earthly sketch of the Heavenly reality embodied in Yeshua. This would be concurrent with Paul’s teaching in Colossians 2:17 that the “substance” (Grk. sōma), of the appointed times and various Torah practices, is to be found in the Messiah. F.F. Bruce summarizes what our author, and what Paul says, indicating, “both writers think of Christ and his new order as the perfect reality to which the earlier ordinances pointed forward.”[5] As Messianic Believers desiring to see the Torah as pointing to people requiring Yeshua as Redeemer (cf. Galatians 3:24; Romans 10:4), we should have no problem with these words.

Some have noted that there are hints to Platonic influence in our author’s vocabulary, by his usage of tēn eikona tōn pragmatōn, rendered as “the very form of things” (NASU) or “the true form of these realities” (RSV/NRSV/ESV). We see a slight parallel between his words and what is seen in Plato’s Cratylus, in his description of the manufacture of shuttles, or the frame off of which a shoe or article of clothing is made. In Plato’s work, Socrates is accredited with saying, “And whatever shuttles are wanted, for the manufacture of garments, thin or thick, of flaxen, woollen, or other material, ought all of them to have the true form of the shuttle; and whatever is the shuttle best adapted to each kind of work, that ought to be the form which the maker produces in each case.”[6] If indeed our author is employing some Hellenistic philosophical language, he does so only in the broadest of terms, as he makes a general statement on how the true form of things in the Torah is found in Yeshua. This is a statement that anyone in the First Century, Jewish or non-Jewish, needed to understand—and our author is certainly not writing exclusively to Jews in his letter.

The second half of v. 1 states that the Torah “can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near.” This is because the Torah’s sacrifices cannot offer complete perfection, meaning total reconciliation between human beings and their Creator. It is clear that some kind of cleansing could be offered to individuals in the Torah, as is easily attested by Leviticus 16:30: “for it is on this day that atonement shall be made for you to cleanse you; you will be clean from all your sins before the LORD.” However, our author says that a sacrifice offered “year after year” (RSV) does not have the power to permanently perfect, because of the very fact that it must be offered again. At best, only a temporary covering is available for the sinner. David A. deSilva fairly summarizes what our writer is trying to say:

“The author of Hebrews might concede that the rites ‘repair’ the relationship but would assert that they do not particularly improve the relationship…Yom Kippur perpetuated the limited, graded access to God prescribed by Torah, but it never served to breach the barriers that separated Israel from God.”[7]

The Torah on its own “can never bring the worshippers to perfection for all time” (NEB) or “never decisively purge” (WBC)[8] them from their sin. That is why the need for Yeshua is so great, not only in a world today that is fallen and has largely rejected Him, but even in a Messianic community, which at times, can forget or underemphasize who He is and what He has done.

[2] Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? [3] But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. [4] For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

10:2 If the Torah’s sacrifices could have offered permanent atonement, then these sacrifices would have ceased to be offered a very, very long time ago—a minimum of 1,300 years for Hebrews’ original audience. Our author says that “these sacrifices would surely have ceased to be offered, because the worshippers, cleansed once for all, would no longer have any sense of sin” (REB). He employs the term hapax, “once,” which he has used previously to describe the finality of Yeshua’s sacrifice as atonement for sin (9:7, 26, 27, 28). Animal sacrifices are incapable of permanently atoning for a human who is made in God’s image; all they can do are remind someone of how sinful he or she is. Donald Guthrie points out how the sacrificial system “was never able to achieve a complete removal of sins, which could be voluntarily accomplished only by a perfect human, in contrast to an animal, sacrifice.”[9]

While the Day of Atonement motif features prominently from the previous ch. 9, the author of Hebrews, closing his remarks about animal sacrifice, is probably now shifting his speech to a more general view of such sacrifices with Yom Kippur in view, but not exclusively. Ellingworth states, “The author…is thinking here of the total effect of sins on people in their relation to God,”[10] and Yom Kippur was certainly not the only time when important sacrifices were offered, reminding Israel of its sin.

10:3 In any of the animal sacrifices of the Torah, whether performed on the Day of Atonement or not, “a remembrance again [is] made of sins every year” (KJV). Our author employs anamnēsis, “a calling to mind, recollection” (LS).[11] It is employed elsewhere in the Apostolic Scriptures in reference to Yeshua’s Last Sedar meal, and with His followers remembering Him in the bread and wine (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25). When people are given a continual reminder of their sins, they are given two distinct choices, both attested in the Tanach:

1.  People have the option of remembering their mistakes and not repeating them: “Remember, do not forget how you provoked the LORD your God to wrath in the wilderness; from the day that you left the land of Egypt until you arrived at this place, you have been rebellious against the LORD” (Deuteronomy 9:7).

2.  People have the option of persisting in their sinful behavior: “Yet she multiplied her harlotries, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the harlot in the land of Egypt” (Ezekiel 23:19).

10:4 The animal sacrifices offered every year, either at Yom Kippur or at other specified times, can only remind readers of the Scriptures, of how sinful they are in view of a holy God. The author of Hebrews says that these sacrifices are incomplete because “it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins” (NKJV). The term adunatos actually can mean “lacking capability in functioning adequately, powerless, impotent” (BDAG).[12] It would not be a stretch to render our writer’s words as “it is powerless for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” This is not because some temporary covering could come as a result of the animal sacrifices—but permanent atonement cannot be found in them.

Many Jews in the First Century acknowledged that the Temple’s sacrifices could not offer final redemption. Bruce points out, “In the closing years of the Second Temple, there were many pious Jews who, while paying lip-service to the sacrificial cultus and indeed participating in it according to the law, yet realized that this was not the means by which sin could be removed.”[13] The Qumran community, in particular, believed in some form of permanent redemption without the need of animal sacrifices as attested by the following quote from The Community Rule:

“When these become members of the Community in Israel according to all these rules, they shall establish the spirit of holiness according to everlasting truth. They shall atone for guilty rebellion and for sins of unfaithfulness, that they may obtain loving-kindness for the Land without the flesh of holocausts and the fat of sacrifice” (1QS 9.4).[14]

The problem with the quote here in the DSS is not that the Qumran community saw a final redemption without the need for animal sacrifice. It is the fact that it says “They shall atone,” meaning members of their community. It is not impossible to conclude that some of Hebrews’ target audience was falling prey to arguments such as these, which would be very tempting to those seeing the start of the rebellion against Rome. Rather than believe in the final work of Yeshua, how easily could some have thought that final redemption to Israel could be brought (or even fought) via a human work? This is why our author is so disturbed at those who will hear his message: many are forgetting the final atonement of Yeshua.

Of course, Bible readers will encounter statements in the Tanach which acknowledge how animal sacrifices cannot offer final redemption. The author of Hebrews is not simply going to make statements to the effect that “the blood of bulls and goats is powerless to take away sins,” without particularizing some specific examples of those who agree with him.

[5] Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, “SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, BUT A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME; [6] IN WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE TAKEN NO PLEASURE. [7] THEN I SAID, ‘BEHOLD, I HAVE COME (IN THE SCROLL OF THE BOOK IT IS WRITTEN OF ME) TO DO YOUR WILL, O GOD’” [Psalm 40:6-8, LXX].

10:5-6 In vs. 5-7 our writer quotes from Psalm 40:6-8, substantiating his claim that the sacrificial system of the Torah could not bring final redemption (v. 4). He applies these verses as Yeshua speaking them (instead of David), indicating that these were things that He accomplished during His Earthly ministry. Anti-missionaries commonly point out some of the noticeable differences that exist between the Hebrew MT of Psalm 40:6-8, and our author’s quotation here. Once again, we have to keep in mind how the author of Hebrews uses the distinct nuances of the Greek Septuagint, his primary Bible, to make an important theological point about Yeshua. The following is Psalm 40:6-8, as seen in both in the MT and LXX:

PSALM 40:6-8 (MT)

PSALM 40:6-8 (LXX)

Neither feast-offering nor meal-offering did You desire, but You opened ears for me; burnt-offering and sin-offering You did not request. Then I said, “Behold I have come!” with the Scroll of the Book that is written for me. To fulfill Your will, my God, do I desire, and Your Torah is in my innards (ATS).

Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body {ears} hast thou prepared me: whole-burnt-offering and sacrifice for sin thou didst not require. Then I said, Behold, I come: in the volume of the book it is written concerning me, I desired to do thy will, O my God, and thy law in the midst of mine heart (LXE).

zevach u’minchah lo-chaftzta oznayim karita li olah v’chata’ah lo sha’alta. az amar’ti hinnei-va’ti b’megillat-seifer katuv ‘alai. l’asot-retzon’kha Elohai chafatzti v’toratekha b’tok m’ai

thusian kai prosphoran ouk ēthelēsas ōtia de katērtisō moi holokautōma kai peri hamartias ouk ētēsas tote eipon idou hēkō en kephalidi bibliou gegraptai peri emou. tou poiēsai to thelēma sou ho Theos mou eboulēthēn kai ton nomon sou en mesō tēs koilias mou

The Hebrew oznayim karita, while frequently rendered as “My ears you have opened” (NASU), more literally means “thou hast dug open my ears” (JBK). The verb karah, appearing the Qal stem (simple action, active voice), means “to hollow out, dig” (HALOT),[15] so by extension to “dig one’s ears” can mean either to open them, or even prepare them. The main edition of the LXX used today, edited by Alfred Rahlfs, has ōtia de katērisō, meaning “ears prepared.” This would be a somewhat literal translation of the Hebrew MT, but Rahfls notes in his footnotes how the word sōma, meaning “body” appears in both LXX(a) and LXX(b),[16] the two major versions of the Septuagint extant in First Century Diaspora Judaism, which undoubtedly provides an interpretive paraphrase of Psalm 40:6-8. William L. Lane observes, “The Greek translators appear to have regarded the Heb. expression as an example of the part for the whole and translated the text in terms that express the whole for the part.”[17] Our author’s acquaintance with either LXX(a) or LXX(b) seems apparent, as v. 5 says, sōma de katērtisō moi. The author of Hebrews says that Yeshua’s physical body offered up is the acceptable substitute for the animal sacrifices of the Torah.

We see an important parallel between what the Psalmist says and Isaiah 50:4, which may describe the work of Messiah Yeshua: “The Lord GOD has given Me the tongue of disciples, that I may know how to sustain the weary one with a word. He awakens Me morning by morning, He awakens My ear to listen as a disciple.” We also see an important parallel between the Psalmist’s words, “Behold, I come; in the scroll of the book it is written of me” (Psalm 40:8), and Ezekiel 2:9: “Then I looked, and behold, a hand was extended to me; and lo, a scroll was in it.” This is all imagery used to convey that God’s servants are handed a Divine assignment from Him evident in His Scriptures—which would be surely true of the Servant of Servants, sent to Earth to accomplish the Father’s work of final redemption.

Our author details how the Levitical sacrificial system of the Torah was incomplete, describing the general sacrifices, offerings, burnt offerings, and sin offerings that it specifies. As Lane directs us, “In developing this point the writer makes effective use of homeletical midrash, citing an OT text and commenting upon it…to demonstrate that it had been prophesied in Scripture that God would accord superior status to a human body as the instrument for accomplishing his will over the sacrificial offerings prescribed by the law.”[18] There are many references in the Tanach that parallel our author’s summation of the incomplete nature of animal sacrifice:

HEBREWS 10:5-6

PARALLEL TANACH VERSES

Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, “SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, BUT A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME; IN WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE TAKEN NO PLEASURE.”

Samuel said, “Has the LORD as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams (1 Samuel 15:22).

For You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it; You are not pleased with burnt offering (Psalm 51:16).

To do righteousness and justice is desired by the LORD more than sacrifice (Proverbs 21:3).

“What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me?” says the LORD. “I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed cattle; and I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs or goats” (Isaiah 1:11).

What right has My beloved in My house when she has done many vile deeds? Can the sacrificial flesh take away from you your disaster, so that you can rejoice? (Jeremiah 11:15).

For I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, and in the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings (Hosea 6:6).

“I hate, I reject your festivals, nor do I delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer up to Me burnt offerings and your grain offerings, I will not accept them; and I will not even look at the peace offerings of your fatlings. Take away from Me the noise of your songs; I will not even listen to the sound of your harps. But let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream. Did you present Me with sacrifices and grain offerings in the wilderness for forty years, O house of Israel? You also carried along Sikkuth your king and Kiyyun, your images, the star of your gods which you made for yourselves. Therefore, I will make you go into exile beyond Damascus,” says the LORD, whose name is the God of hosts (Amos 5:21-27).

The previous chart demonstrates how God has felt throughout the centuries of Ancient Israel, in regard to many of those who made sacrifices to Him. Isaiah 1:11 may summarize all of these thoughts best, saying, “The multitude of your sacrifices—what are they to me?” (NIV). The problem here is not that God made a mistake in establishing the Levitical priesthood or its sacrificial system, but the people who were to follow it and be served by it, significantly abused it and the sacrifices lost their meaning. Notice that God calls these things “your multiplied sacrifices,” rov-zivchei’khem, placing the burden of proof on those who performed them: human beings. This is why animal sacrifices are not enough to totally satisfy God, and a Greater Sacrifice was required. Lane explains, “the writer of Hebrews recognizes the figure of the transcendent Son of God who became man in order to fulfill the divine purpose for the human family.”[19]

Before we automatically assume that our author’s words are given solely against Jewish Believers who are wavering in their faith in Yeshua, the theme of animal sacrifice equally played a role for many non-Jewish Believers as well. IVPBBC points out, “Everyone in the ancient world, whether they had visited Jerusalem’s temple or not, was familiar with animal sacrifices, which were a standard part of religion.”[20] Ancient Greeks and Romans, who while being pagans, had a far better understanding of the role of animals sacrificed, than modern people do. Some of the non-Jewish Believers in Hebrews’ audience may have been entertaining ideas similar to the Jewish Believers teetering on denying Yeshua, only transferring their experience in the pagan temples to a new experience connected to the Jewish Diaspora view of sacrifice.

Yeshua the Messiah had to come and provide the sacrifice in Himself that the animal sacrifices could not fully offer—and He willingly offered Himself as the Gospels plainly attest:

“Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Yours be done” (Luke 22:42).

“Yeshua said to them, ‘My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work’” (John 4:34).

Our Heavenly Father was not interested in receiving animal sacrifices that were not offered by the proper people with the right attitude—especially when the appointed time came for the Messiah to arrive. Yeshua, the Son, came to perform His Father’s will as the author of Hebrews writes, “Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book” (ESV). Our writer stops short his quote of Psalm 40:6-8, which in v. 8 fully reads as “I delight to do Your will, O my God; Your Law is within my heart.” This is not because the author of Hebrews believes the Torah is unimportant—on the contrary, He emphasizes the significance of the Torah’s instruction to be supernatural transcribed on men and women, as part of the New Covenant previously (8:8-12)—which he will repeat again in vs. 16-17. But his emphasis here is on the willingness for Yeshua to die for fallen humanity in complete obedience to His Father’s will (Grk. thelēma).

Doing the Father’s will for Yeshua did not mean that Yeshua came to abolish the Law, but rather that He came to emulate it properly for His followers (cf. Matthew 5:16-19). It is amazing how many Christian scholars actually see this point. Bruce validly writes that Yeshua’s “life would accordingly be the active counterpart of the written law; the will of God, which was set down in the ‘scroll of the book,’ would be equally manifested in his obedience.”[21] This is interesting because when the Psalmist remarks “in the volume of the book it is written of me” (Psalm 40:8, Amplified Bible), and it is applied to Yeshua, how many people fail to see the Torah’s commandments embodied in the life of Yeshua?

Ellingworth actually remarks, “The psalmist means to replace the old cultic system with a life of obedience to the Mosaic Law.”[22] This is to mean that obedience to God’s Law as an individual is more important than sacrifices offered for God’s corporate people. Yet, Ellingworth and many others, sadly, do not see the author of Hebrews applying Psalm 40:8 as a statement in support of Torah observance. They see our author applying “as a narrower antithesis.”[23] Yet, is this something that can be legitimately supported, given his words of vs. 15-17?

[8] After saying above, “SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS AND WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, NOR HAVE YOU TAKEN PLEASURE in them” [Psalm 40:6] (which are offered according to the Law), [9] then He said, “BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL” [Psalm 40:8]. He takes away the first in order to establish the second. [10] By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Yeshua the Messiah once for all.

10:8 The author of Hebrews includes some partial quotes from Psalm 40:6 in vs. 8-9, only repeating the previous points made in vs. 6-7. He probably does this to emphasize that his key point is that the Father is not that interested in animal sacrifices for the covering of sin, when the perfect sacrifice has been made by Yeshua via His own body. Hebrews ch. 9 has previously just addressed the cultic rituals of the former Levitical priesthood, which our writer summarizes here once again. He does interject the statement that these things “are offered in accordance with the Torah” (CJB), kata nomon, not to somehow say that the Law of Moses is invalid or insignificant, but to more emphasize what was previously communicated in how the Torah has a shadow of the good things to come (v. 1). The Torah’s sacrifices as external rituals, to be sure, are entirely inadequate to offer the final atonement that Yeshua’s sacrifice has definitively provided.

10:9-10 V. 9 can be a cause of considerable confusion for many who fail to read it without any Torah background. The RSV says that God “abolishes first in order to establish second.” With the animal sacrifices of the Torah in view, it is important to recognize how the verb anaireō would mean “to get rid of by execution, do away with, destroy” (BDAG),[24] perhaps involving “to get rid of someone by execution, often with legal or quasi-legal procedures” (Louw-Nida Lexicon).[25] It is only with the Messiah Yeshua’s sacrifice made upon the tree at Gologtha, that the second can actually be established. The Father has effectively “killed” (“takes away,” HCSB) the continued viability of the first order of sacrifices by the death of His Son, so the second order of the Son’s single sacrifice can stand.

The Greek of 9b actually says anairei to prōton hina to deuteron stēsē, with no nouns or pronouns specifically associated with “first” or “second.” Bruce indicates, “The ordinal numbers ‘first’ ([prōtos]) and ‘second’ ([deuteros]) are neuter here; no particular substantive is understood with them. ‘The first’ is the old sacrificial system; ‘the second’ is our Lord’s perfect self-dedication to do the will of God.”[26] The Phillips New Testament paraphrase 9b is not that too far off the mark: “he is dispensing with the old order of sacrifices, and establishing a new order of obedience to the will of God.”

There are various interpreters, who have tended to favor the Torah being a thing of past history for God’s people, yet who still have to recognize that the “first” and “second” of 9b regard the Levitical service and sacrifices contrasted to Yeshua’s service and final sacrifice. deSilva is one who describes, “…a ‘first’ grouping of rites that God neither wants nor finds pleasure in (the animal sacrifices, the ‘blood of bulls and goats’) [is contrasted to] a ‘second’ rite that speaks now of Jesus’ presentation of his own body as the means for effecting God’s will.”[27] Lane offers a good rendering of 9b in WBC as “he does away with the first arrangement in order to confirm the validity of the second.”[28]

The result of Yeshua the Messiah offering up Himself for sinful humanity is quite important indeed: “By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Yeshua the Messiah once for all” (v. 10). Even though the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices may soon be gone for Hebrews’ First Century audience, this would not be substantial justification for them to just completely ignore the Torah and its code of conduct. While he unfortunately uses language such as “superseded” and “abolished,” Bruce’s overall conclusions on v. 9, obviously having to factor in Psalm 40:8, are not at all incorrect. With the completion of Yeshua’s sacrifice, the New Covenant (vs. 16-17) can be enacted within the lives of the redeemed, and they can truly appreciate the value of God’s Torah:

“The sacrifices in which God is said to take no pleasure are the sacrifices prescribed by the ancient cultic law of Israel; now that cultic law is to be superseded by a new order, inaugurated by Christ’s perfect obedience to the will of God…[T]he old order is abolished; in the second the new is established. The terms of the new covenant include the provision that God’s law will henceforth be engraved in his people’s hearts; and it was supremely fitting that this should be preeminently true of him through whose obedience and blood the new covenant has been ratified.”[29]

The Torah is surely to be regarded and highly valued as instruction for all born again Believers, but it must be understood in the light of Yeshua’s final sacrifice for sinners. Those who have received the Messiah into their lives do not need animal sacrifices to cover their sin, and for many within Hebrews’ First Century audience the vitality of the animal sacrifices needed to be effectively killed off (anaireō) in their minds. Vs. 9-10 once again confirm the rightful transfer of the Levitical priesthood and animal sacrifices to Yeshua’s priesthood and final sacrifice, inaugurating the era of the New Covenant.

[11] Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; [12] but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD [Psalm 110:1], [13] waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET [Psalm 110:1]. [14] For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

10:11-13 V. 11 says that “Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices” (NIV), speaking of the fact that the work the Levitical, human priests perform, cannot bring final redemption. This goes back to our author’s previous words in v. 2, because if the animal sacrifices of the Torah could provide a permanent covering, they would only have had to be offered a single time, and then never again. Yet, Yeshua is attested in v. 12a to have “offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins” (RSV). Concurrent with this, our author once again quotes from the venerable Psalm 110:1, indicating that Yeshua has sat down at His Father’s right hand, and is presently waiting to return to Earth to defeat His enemies (vs. 12b-13). Bruce fairly summarizes, “Christ...by his self-oblation has accomplished once for all what generations of Levitical sacrifices had never done...The sacrifice of Christ has purified his people from the moral defilement of sin and assured them of permanent maintenance in a right relationship with God.”[30]

10:14 Yeshua’s single sacrifice has brought a permanent perfection to the saints that the sacrifices offered over and over again by the Levitical priesthood could not bring. This perfection is a permanent action, seen in the perfect verb teteleiōken, whereas being made holy or sanctified is a continual action performed upon Believers by the Spirit, seen in the present passive participle hagiazomenous. The ESV captures the verb tenses a little better: “by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” Ellingworth also might clarify for you what the “perfection” brought actually concerns: “[teleioō] implies the fulfillment of the...goal, namely an access to God which was formerly open only to the high priest.”[31] Our author, somewhat repeating what he has stated earlier (8:8-12), will once again assert how Yeshua’s work has inaugurated the New Covenant (vs. 15-17).

[15] And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying, [16] “THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART, AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM,” He then says, [17] “AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE” [Jeremiah 31:34]. [18] Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.

10:15 The key for the redeemed in Yeshua, to attaining ultimate perfection, is going to be found in being continually sanctified—and in vs. 15-18 the author of Hebrews details the means of how born again Believers are to be sanctified. In fact, he considers it so important for his audience to understand, that he specifies, “The Holy Spirit…testifies to us about this” (NIV). So, what he communicates—particularly in terms of the role that the Torah or Law of Moses is to play in Believers’ lives—cannot be so casually dismissed, as he will repeat Jeremiah 31:33-34. What was promised in the past by God is now to be realized in the present. Lane, quite notably, states, “What was a future expectation in the time of Jeremiah has become a present reality as a result of the event of Christ’s death on the cross.”[32]

10:16-17 Hebrews 10:14-18 repeats a quotation from Jeremiah 31:33-34, even though it is a bit shorter than what was quoted previously in Hebrews 8:7-13. Ellingworth labels this section as “The new covenant again.”[33] Prior to this second quotation of Jeremiah 31:33-34, the author of Hebrews has just asserted that Yeshua’s single offering of Himself has taken away sins (vs. 11-12a), and that He has sat down at the right hand of His Father in Heaven, supreme, waiting for His return to Earth to finally defeat His enemies (vs. 12b-13).

While the previous quotation of Jeremiah 31:31-34 in Hebrews 8:7-13 serves to establish how Yeshua’s Melchizedkian priesthood has inaugurated the era of New Covenant, the quotation we see here further considers how Yeshua’s offering up of Himself has inaugurated the New Covenant and the permanent forgiveness of sins now available for people (v. 14).

Hebrews 10:16-17 only offers selective quotations from Jeremiah 31:33-34, partially because a longer quote has been offered previously (8:8-12). Morris considers how “most commentators think the writer is here quoting from memory and giving the general sense of Jeremiah’s words.”[34] The only major change that is actually made by the author, perhaps writing from memory, is his usage of “with them” (pros autous) instead of “THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND...THE HOUSE OF JUDAH” (8:10). In 16a the author writes, “THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD,” as Yeshua’s single sacrifice has started the era of the New Covenant, the main substance of which is detailed in Hebrews 10:17.

We should not read too much into the author of Hebrews only using “with them” in v. 16. In Ellingworth’s estimation, this may have been done to emphasize the broad-sweeping effects of the New Covenant, lest anyone think that the New Covenant was only promised to Jews and Israelites. He comments, “in v. 16a, [tō oikō Israēl] is replaced by [pros autous], thereby making it easier to apply the text to readers some of whom may be gentiles...There is, however, no discontinuity between the old Israel and the new; indeed, such language is never used in Hebrews.”[35] At the same time, given the fact that non-Jewish Believers are considered a part of the community of Israel (Ephesians 2:11-12; 3:6) in Messiah, and since this is a repetition of a previously quoted passage, the readers or audience already know whom the “with them” (8:10) pertains to. Our author is more concerned about the essential reality of the New Covenant here, and less concerned with the people to whom it was originally promised. The New Covenant affects everyone.

If the author of Hebrews really wanted to express complete discontinuity between Yeshua’s Melchizedkian priesthood, the previous Levitical priesthood, and the Torah or Law of Moses—treating the Law as being totally abolished—then given the shortening of quotations here in vs. 16-17, he could have skipped over the reference seen to “laws” and gone right to the New Covenant’s promise of forgiveness. But this is not something the author of Hebrews does. After affirming the New Covenant that the Lord will make, he affirms what He has spoken: “I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART, AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM” (16b). The fact that the Lord is going to write His laws onto the hearts of His people, immediately after His promise of a New Covenant is asserted, is pretty significant to just overlook. And do recall that the author of Hebrews recognizes that it is the Holy Spirit speaking this (v. 15), as opposed to just a human man like Jeremiah. Bruce further describes,

“The new covenant, according to Jeremiah’s prophecy, not only involved the implanting of God’s laws, together with the will and power to carry them out, in the hearts of his people; it also conveyed the assurance that their past sins and iniquities would be externally blotted out.”[36]

The Levitical priesthood was put in place to deal with the transgression of God’s laws, and so the question can be asked: With permanent atonement now in place by Yeshua’s sacrifice, has God’s standard of holiness in the Torah been nullified as well? Lane considers vs. 14-18 to regard how “the old cultus and the law that prescribed it have been set aside,”[37] although his reference to “the law that prescribed it” could be viewed as only pertaining to the Levitical priesthood and Tabernacle, and not the Torah as a whole. deSilva observes how the previous state of continually offering the Levitical sacrifices, “necessitated the new covenant with its new rites.”[38] But what are those new rites?

According to the author of Hebrews, the rites of the New Covenant compose the “laws” of God. Even if we consider these “laws” to basically be the Torah written onto the hearts of His people, excluding the added commandments regulating the Levitical service (cf. Galatians 3:19)—that is still a considerable bulk of the Law! Yet all deSilva can define as the so-called new rites of the New Covenant is “the inscribing of the way of God upon the heart—[which is] fulfilled in Christ’s ministry.”[39] I do not disagree with this, as Believers surely are to emulate Yeshua’s ministry and obedience to the Father. The problem is that many interpreters and commentators leave out the specifics of what this means, and they fail to define what it means for the “laws” of God to be written on the hearts of the redeemed. The author of Hebrews surely expected “laws” to be principally understood as the Lord’s high standard of ethics and morality delivered in the Torah, and how responsible people are to conduct themselves—especially considering how permanent atonement has been offered, cleansing the conscience (cf. 9:9, 14; cf. 12:24). Further in v. 24, the author will admonish his audience to perform good works, a major part of being made holy or sanctified (v. 14). Such good works of helps and service are those first required of God’s people in the Torah.

Every Hebrews commentator has to deal with the claim that the New Covenant involves the writing of the laws of God onto the hearts of those redeemed by the work of Yeshua, even though what such “laws” really are often remain quite vague for them. About as negative as the comments get in regard to this, is a little disparaging of Jewish tradition as seen by Lane. He thinks, “the people of God are no longer confronted by an exterior law. It may also suggest that God’s word will no longer be carried in phylacteries upon the head and arms (Exod 14:16; Deut 6:8; Matt 23:5) precisely because it is impressed upon the center of human volition.”[40] I do not think any of us can honestly disagree with how the New Covenant does have more of an emphasis of impressing the message of God’s commandments onto the human psyche, than what preceded it in the past when it could at most be placed on durable stone. The challenge is that the Jewish tradition of wrapping tefillin every day is just as outward a rite as is Christian communion, which evangelical commentators are not going to look at negatively. And today, wearing a What Would Jesus Do? bracelet is not quantitatively different from the command to physically bind God’s Word on the hand.[41]

The purpose of the author of Hebrews appealing to the New Covenant promise is that the sacrifices of the Levitical priesthood could not offer the permanent forgiveness that Yeshua’s sacrifice now provides. This is not something in discontinuity with the Torah, precisely because the New Covenant involves the writing of the Torah onto the hearts of God’s people. And, even those, who fall into the paradigm of thinking that the Torah has somehow been done away with or abolished by Yeshua’s Melchizedkian priesthood, still have to recognize how the overall issue being considered is not the Law—but how the Levitical priesthood could not offer permanent atonement for sin via its sacrifices. Guthrie puts it this way:

“It cannot be doubted that since this main section of the epistle ends in this way, the perfection of the offering which Christ has made is intended finally to dispose of the continuous performance of the old cultus. A new era has dawned. A new covenant is in force which makes the Leviticus sacrifices obsolete.”[42]

deSilva similarly has to recognize how the issue discussed is the Levitical sacrificial system:

“The old covenant’s rituals were a perpetual reminder of the restrictions on access to God, and access to the holy place was never broadened to the worshipers no matter how many sacrifices and sin offerings were performed.”[43]

Lane’s thoughts are a bit clearer than Guthrie’s and deSilva’s, even though he works from the incorrect premise of the “Old” and “New Covenant” being analyzed in Hebrews 7:1-10:18, and not the first and second priesthoods. In his words, the author of Hebrews “recognized that the finished work of Christ on Calvary was the actual realization of the divine intention towards which the sacrificial cult and the prophecy were both pointing...The fact that the old sacrifices had been superseded by the unique offering of Christ implied that the old covenant...has been replaced by the promised new covenantal arrangement.”[44]

If Guthrie, deSilva, and Lane had all employed terms like “old priesthood,” and been a little more tactful, then they would do significantly more justice to the words seen in the surrounding cotext of Hebrews ch. 10. Not to be overlooked here would be v. 11, which notes how “Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.” This is to be contrasted to the self-offering of Yeshua, permanently atoning for sin, and inaugurating the New Covenant where God’s Law is written on the heart. Most importantly, Yeshua’s offering and the New Covenant provide the fulfillment of God’s promise, “AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE” (v. 17). By the single sacrifice of Yeshua, sinful humanity’s anomiōn, literally “lawlessnesses,” will be forgotten by the Heavenly Father.

10:18 What is meant by the author of Hebrews, after appealing to the New Covenant promises, saying, “Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin”? He is saying now that Yeshua’s single offering has provided permanent forgiveness, “sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary” (TNIV). The sacrifices of the Levitical priesthood at most would be redundant memorials of what they pointed to in Yeshua’s permanent sacrifice, but with such everlasting atonement offered by Him—should the Temple be destroyed—Hebrews’ audience need not be too overly concerned or worried.

We do need to temper the understanding of animal sacrifices no longer needing to be made for sin with the fact that the Apostles spent a great deal of time around the Temple in the time after the resurrection of Yeshua. Acts 2:46-47, for example, attests that they were still fellowshipping around the Temple complex, participating in the daily prayers:

“Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.”

What we need to keep in mind with these, and other similar references, is that the sacrifices frequently offered at prayer times in the Temple primarily were not sin-related, but rather were various thanksgiving, meal, and praise offerings given to God. David H. Stern points out that “other sacrificial offerings remain part of God’s order even after Yeshua’s death, as proved by Sha’ul’s [Paul’s] activity in the Temple at Ac 21:26 and his own offering of sacrifices of which he himself speaks of at Ac 24:17…The author of this letter does not proclaim the end of the sacrificial system in its entirety, only the end of animal sacrifices for sins.”[45] With this in mind, it may be that in the Millennial Temple, with Yeshua’s direct oversight, that the sacrifices offered are only the thanksgiving offerings, meal offerings, and praise offerings, which do not directly affect one’s status before God in regard to salvation.

In v. 18, the reality provided by the work of Yeshua is ouketi prosphora peri hamartias, “an offering for sins is no longer needed” (CJB). As such, any major changes regarding the Torah in the New Covenant era relate to the sacrificial system and priesthood (7:12). The Messiah’s work has definitely brought about a new spiritual economy. Yet, any changes in relation to the prior order do not at all concern the basic rules of how God wants His people to obey Him—the foremost of which would be the Ten Commandments. These would be some of the principal “laws” in the Torah that are written on the hearts of people by the New Covenant (v. 17), which are contrasted in v. 18 with the “lawlessnesses” that must be forgiven.

The perspective of the Epistle to the Hebrews, written to Believers in the mid 60s C.E., concerns what they would think and do with their faith in Yeshua should the Levitical sacrifices suddenly end. This occurred in 70 C.E. with the destruction of the Temple. Would they really be able to recognize Yeshua’s sacrifice as final for their sins? The author of Hebrews says that they can have confidence in Yeshua’s single offering.

The perspective of those of us living today is different. What will Believers think should animal sacrifices be restored to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem sometime in the future—even if it is just a part of the fulfillment of an important stage in God’s plan? Those of us who are pre-millennialists believe that animal sacrifices will, in fact, be restored to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem one day. Do we believe this because we think that Yeshua’s sacrifice is ineffectual? No. We believe this will occur because of what we read to be unfulfilled Abomination of Desolation prophecies (i.e., Daniel 9:27; Matthew 24:15; 2 Thessalonians 2:4). The prophetic fulfillment of these words requires an operating sacrificial system and Temple in Jerusalem.

These future sacrifices might not be required for the atonement of sins, but are we going to treat them as some kind of an affront to God? The author of Hebrews does not at all have the perspective that animal sacrifices themselves are bad or evil or sacrilegious; he just says that they cannot provide what Yeshua Himself has provided by His single sacrifice. These sacrifices, as he says, are “a shadow of the good things to come” (vs. 1-2ff).

Many of today’s Christians, because of a mis-appreciation of the Tanach or Old Testament, would claim that any animal sacrifices offered on the Temple Mount would themselves actually be an “abomination.” They forget the fact that for almost forty years after the final sacrifice of Yeshua, the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices were still operating, and the Apostles—while looking to their Lord’s single offering as final atonement—did not at all consider an operating Levitical system to be an “abomination.” They also lived in a Mediterranean world where the contemporary Greco-Roman religion also offered animal sacrifices, unlike those of us living today for whom it is quite taboo. Thankfully, though, most pre-millennialists would consider declaring the restoration of sacrifices on the Temple Mount, to be an “abomination,” as actually speaking against the sovereign plan of God as laid out in prophecy—even if they do not fully understand such a plan.

If you struggle with the idea that, in the future, animal sacrifices will be seen on the Temple Mount as a part of end-time prophecy, try to consider the place of many religious Jews who have prayed for the reconstruction of the Temple for many centuries. Once such a Temple and Levitical system are restored, will religious Jews really feel the “forgiveness” of God that such sacrifices are to presumably offer them? Or, will such a restoration of the Levitical system seem somewhat hollow or empty, not really offering them the restitution or spiritual fulfillment for which they have been praying for so long? This is no different than the person who really sets his eyes on something that he really wants quite badly, but then once he is able to get it, the object he wanted is not as impressive as it was thought to be. In a similar vein, consider how the reinitiating of a Levitical sacrificial system may be what it takes to see the salvation of many religious Jews. As we wait for this, let us refine our understanding of the New Covenant, and make sure that those foundational Torah laws of love for God and neighbor, and service for others, are being practiced by us!

[19] Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Yeshua, [20] by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh, [21] and since we have a great priest over the house of God, [22] let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

10:19 Those who have been redeemed and spiritually regenerated through the saving work of Yeshua, “can boldly enter heaven's Most Holy Place because of the blood of Jesus” (NLT), even though such parrēsia or “confidence” does require God’s people to approach Him with respect and not dishonor. People in general being able to approach the Lord, in such a manner, is quite different from the condition present in the pre-resurrection era—especially as the high priest would not linger in the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement. The Mishnah specifically attests, “He did not prolong his prayer, so as not to frighten the Israelites” (m.Yoma 5:1).[46] The high priest would simply enter into the Holy of Holies, perform his necessary duties, and then get out lest the people think that he offended God and God had struck him dead somehow. The high priest would enter the Holy of Holies with a great deal of fear, but Believers should have a confidence, in approaching their Heavenly Father.

10:20 The author of Hebrews testifies that this is a “new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh” (RSV). We must take note of the fact that he employs the term prosphatos, generally rendered as “new,” but what actually means “lately slain, fresh-slain” (LS).[47] In the LXX it is employed to represent something that has occurred “recently”:

“What is that which has been? the very thing which shall be: and what is that which has been done? the very thing which shall be done: and there is no new [prosphatos] thing under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9, LXE).

“[T]here shall be no new [prosphatos] god in thee; neither shalt thou worship a strange god” (Psalm 81:9, LXE).

The first usage, appearing in the Septuagint version of Ecclesiastes, really tells us that there “is nothing recent under the sun.” The second, from Psalms, is an appeal by God to Israel not to adopt any new or “recent” gods, in an admonition not to abandon worship of Him. Our author’s usage of prosphatos likely helps to appeal to the fact that Yeshua the Messiah’s offering of Himself is something that has been offered as “freshly slain,” when compared to the history of the Hebrews. Yeshua is widely a “freshly slain” Messiah in recent memory. Yeshua, having ministered on Earth so recently for Hebrews’ audience, should not all of a sudden be forgotten.

One of the critical memories that our writer likely makes a specific appeal to for his audience, is to remember the tearing of the veil. When Yeshua was crucified on Golgotha (Calvary), the veil separating the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies in the Jerusalem Temple was torn. This is attested in all three of the Synoptic Gospels:

“And the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom” (Mark 15:38).

“And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split” (Matthew 27:51).

“[B]ecause the sun was obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two” (Luke 23:45).

We see some important parallels to this in Paul’s writing of Colossians 1:20-22:

“[A]nd through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven. And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach.”

10:21-22 The result of people having faith, in Yeshua the Messiah, is knowing that “we have a great priest over the house of God” (v. 21), and so he issues the following imperative to his audience: “let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water” (v. 22, NIV).

The atoning work of Yeshua should allow men and women to enter into the presence of God with great confidence. This does not mean that they enter into His presence without respect or reverence, but they should not be “going in and getting out” like the high priest would often do in the Tabernacle/Temple service. deSilva remarks, “The author reminds” his audience “that they, too, have been granted a special, ennobling privilege to come before God as welcome children rather than cringing supplicants standing afar off.”[48]

In order to experience such a condition, though, people need to be transformed by the power of God’s Holy Spirit. This is to first come by having “our hearts purged of bad conscience” (Lattimore). Secondly, people are to have “bodies washed with pure water.” We see a slight parallel between our writer’s words and those of Paul, when he says that the assembly has been made clean “by the washing of water with the word” (Ephesians 5:26). Of course, what we also see is that our author is building upon the typology witnessed in the Tanach regarding ritual cleansing:

“[A]nd the priest shall take holy water in an earthenware vessel; and he shall take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water” (Numbers 5:17).

“Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh” (Ezekiel 36:25-26).

We also see some parallels between our author’s words and the consecration of Levitical priests:

“Then you shall bring Aaron and his sons to the doorway of the tent of meeting and wash them with water…Then you shall take some of the blood that is on the altar and some of the anointing oil, and sprinkle it on Aaron and on his garments and on his sons and on his sons' garments with him; so he and his garments shall be consecrated, as well as his sons and his sons' garments with him” (Exodus 29:4, 21).

“Then Moses had Aaron and his sons come near and washed them with water…So Moses took some of the anointing oil and some of the blood which was on the altar and sprinkled it on Aaron, on his garments, on his sons, and on the garments of his sons with him; and he consecrated Aaron, his garments, and his sons, and the garments of his sons with him” (Leviticus 8:6, 30).

“A person does not enter the courtyard for service, even if he is clean, unless he immerses” (m.Yoma 3:3).[49]

Please note that the author of Hebrews does not describe the members of his audience as “priests,” but he certainly intends for them to serve the God of Israel in the world (vs. 32-34), which would be a priestly calling. He certainly expects members of his audience to have undergone ritual immersion or “baptism” as members of the community of faith, but he places a higher priority on being purged of an evil conscience. This is because water immersion is mostly an outward act symbolizing an inward change. Even members of the Qumran community recognized that ritual cleansing meant nothing without the proper motives, as the following quote from their Community Rule attests:

“He {meaning, the righteous man} shall not be justified by that which his stubborn heart declares lawful, for seeking the ways of light he looks towards darkness. He shall not be reckoned among the perfect; he shall neither be purified by atonement, nor cleansed by purifying waters, nor sanctified by seas and rivers, nor washed clean with ablution. Unclean, unclean shall he be. For as long as he despises the precepts of God he shall receive no instruction in the Community of His counsel” (1QS 3.2-8).[50]

This section from the DSS continues, telling us how one will find redemption:

“For it is through the spirit of true counsel concerning the ways of man that all his sins shall be expiated, that he may contemplate the light of life. He shall be cleansed from all his sins by the spirit of holiness uniting him to His truth, and his iniquity shall be expiated by the spirit of uprightness and humility. And when his flesh is sprinkled with purifying water and sanctified by cleansing water, it shall be made clean by the humble submission of his soul to all the precepts of God” (1QS 3.9).[51]

A Believer in Yeshua should be a little impressed, by the close parallels between what the author of Hebrews says in v. 22, and what we read here from the DSS. The Qumran community rightly recognized that only God’s Spirit can truly cleanse a person, although the act of water immersion is an important part of the purification process—almost as “closure” for the sinner. The author of Hebrews could have been dealing with people in his audience who believed this, but perhaps some were also denying the Lord to go join an offshoot group like the Essenes, in view of the Jewish rebellion against Rome.

While the Essenes’ words here are correct, they are only correct to a point. They only identify “the spirit of holiness uniting” one to God’s truth as being the One who cleanses. The author of Hebrews is more specific and identifies Yeshua the Messiah as the High Priest whose work cleanses people. It is He who has sent the Holy Spirit, just as He said: “When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me” (John 15:26).

[23] Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful; [24] and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, [25] not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.

10:23 The author of Hebrews issues a further imperative to his audience in vs. 23-25, regarding what they should be doing, so as not to forget what the redeemed have available in Yeshua. He first tells them, “Let's keep a firm grip on the promises that keep us going. He always keeps his word” (The Message). The term that he uses to describe “unswervingly” (NIV) is aklinēs, meaning “bending to neither side, unswerving” or “steadfast, regular” (LS).[52] The Jewish Philosopher Philo uses this same term to describe how God’s friends stand by His side:

“And again, the scripture saith in another passage, ‘But stand thou here with me.’ [Deuteronomy 5:31.] For this is an oracle of God, which was given to the prophet, and his station was to be one of unmoved [aklinēs] tranquillity by God, who always stands immovably [aklinēs]; for it is indispensable, that all things which are placed by the side of him must be kept straight by such an undeviating rule” (On the Giants 49).[53]

The emphasis that we see here in Hebrews is that God’s people need to remain faithful. We see a parallel between this admonition and what Paul writes Timothy: “If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself” (2 Timothy 2:13). Many in Hebrews’ audience were becoming faithless in terms of believing in Yeshua and His final sacrifice. Many of us at one point or another in our lives, may lose some confidence in God for a season—but this does not necessarily equate to denying the Lord.

10:24 A definite answer for anyone—especially Hebrews’ original audience—for wanting to regain faith and rectifying a stagnant relationship with the Lord, is to “stir up” (RSV), “spur on” (NIV), or “provoke” (NRSV) themselves to do good works. It is interesting that our author employs the rare word paroxusmos, often meaning “‘provocation’ or ‘irritation’” (TDNT),[54] and frequently used in a negative context. But not all uses of “provocation” need be negative. deSilva points out that “The author may…seek to establish an emulative environment.”[55] “[L]et us consider one another, to incitement of love and of good works” (LITV).

10:25 The challenge for many, in Hebrews’ audience, is that many likely lacked a venue for being in an environment of good works stimulation (v. 24). Our writer chastises them, “Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another” (NIV). His description of “assembling together” has a wide variety of connotations, which today’s Messianic Believers need to take note of.

The most obvious application of v. 25 deals with the need for Believers to be somehow assembling together. Guthrie makes the excellent point, “The New Testament lends no support to the idea of lone Christians [or, Believers]. Close and regular fellowship with other believers is not just a nice idea, but an absolute necessity for the encouragement of Christian values.”[56] It is notable that regular fellowship is not just a “Christian” idea by any means. The Mishnah records how Hillel said, “Do not walk out on the community” (m.Avot 2:4).[57] Assembling together was a very Jewish idea—especially for those Jews living in a predominantly pagan environment. IVPBBC describes, “Diaspora synagogues functioned as community centers, and Jews rarely in attendance would thereby exclude themselves from the active life of their community; given the hostile reception most Jews in many places received from the Gentile community, community cohesion was an important coping response.”[58]

The author of Hebrews does not want the Believers to stop fellowshipping among themselves, because those who stop this will often lose the place where they can be kept spiritually accountable. Those, who were breaking away from fellowshipping with other Believers, would find themselves in danger of being led astray by others.

Readers of. v. 25 need to consider what the term rendered as “assembling together,” episunagōgē, meant in the context of the author of Hebrews employing it. LS simply defines it as “a gathering or being gathered together,”[59] a relatively neutral understanding. Episunagōgē is actually a construct of sunagōgē, meaning “gathering” (or “synagogue”), and the prefix epi. When used with the accusative case (Grk. episunagōgēn; indicating direct object), epi- can mean “on, upon; in; against; over; to, for; around, about, concerning; towards; among (rarely)” (CGEDNT).[60] Given the rare usage of epi- as “among,” this might be an indication that some of Hebrews’ audience were holding meetings in the Jewish Synagogue—as a kind of adjunct onto the synagogue. Of course, we know that the Believers in Corinth first started out as an adjunct at the Corinthian synagogue (Acts 18:1-18), but had to leave as their numbers swelled and controversy of believing in Yeshua increased. Still, many First Century Believers in the Mediterranean—both Jewish and non-Jewish—still attended services at their local Jewish synagogue.

While the Jerusalem Council saw fit to attach its Apostolic decree to how Moses’ Teaching was being declared every week at Jewish synagogues all over the Mediterranean world (Acts 15:19-21), it is also very true that the Jewish and non-Jewish Believers in Yeshua frequented themselves in homes, gathering together to discuss the teachings of Yeshua, worship Him as Lord, and work through the issues that they specially faced as His followers. A need to go to a local synagogue would have been primarily necessary by the need to have access to the Scriptures—in either their Hebrew or Greek Septuagint forms—which would not have been widely available elsewhere. Certainly, while Jewish Believers were by no means encouraged to give up their Jewishness, having strong ties to the Synagogue would not always have been good, if a synagogue were hostile to the message of Yeshua. Many Believers who attended some synagogues were likely harassed about their beliefs in Yeshua, and were dissuaded against Him.

We see much of the same parallel today in various sectors of the Messianic community. Some people live in a place where there is no Messianic congregation or fellowship to attend, and so instead they go to the local Jewish synagogue. Surely, Messianic Believers should feel free to participate in the activities of the local Jewish community—if they are welcome—but the chance that a Messianic Believer will probably receive some kind of harassment for believing in Yeshua, can definitely be present. In too many cases, the Jewish synagogue—which does not believe in Yeshua—has more influence on the naïve Messianic person, than the Messianic person has influence on the synagogue via acts of kindness and mercy. There have been instances when Messianic Believers will deny Messiah Yeshua in an effort to feel “accepted.” It is a sad testimony, when you think that much of this could have been prevented, by there simply being a good Messianic assembly nearby, for such people to be nurtured in the Lord Yeshua and kept accountable for their Messiah beliefs.

The reason that the author of Hebrews writes that his audience should not stop their assembling together as Believers in the Lord Yeshua is quite notable. He says that they must “encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching” (NIV). Many would argue that the expectation of a “near end” is present in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and that our author and those of his generation expected the Second Coming of Yeshua in their lifetimes. We have to keep in mind the fact that Biblically “the Last Days” began with the First Coming of Yeshua (cf. Acts 2:17), and that technically “the Last Days” are much longer than 1948 to the present—as too many American evangelical Christians and Messianics just assume.

Whether we are living in the absolute final days of human history right now is beyond the scope of what the letter to the Hebrews is saying. But applying the words of v. 25 to our present day, what we do know is that Messianic Believers have the responsibility to be in fellowship with others. This is not always possible given the smallness of much of the Messianic community. Fortunately, though, alternatives are available that did not exist in the First Century. Through telephone communications, high speed Internet, podcasting, and now videocasting, people from all over the world can share ideas and fellowship in a way that was not possible or cost-effective a decade ago. These mediums can be an acceptable substitute for congregational fellowship—and are certainly preferred to nothing.

I have also seen v. 25 viewed from the perspective of the “assembling together” to highlight the need for God’s people to gather for the appointed times or Biblical holidays. Surely, as today’s Messianic Believers would affirm that the Biblical holidays represent the pattern of Yeshua’s First and Second Comings—we should especially not forsake the festivals of the Lord given to us in the Torah. We should realize that we are responsible to observe them, because they depict His redemptive plan for humanity, and most importantly the salvation message of Yeshua. Corporately, we should come together at each of the appointed times, and press into God in a very distinct way, desiring Him to reveal Himself to us! These are to be times when we can find ourselves specially bonded together in significant unity as the Body of Messiah.

[26] For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, [27] but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES [Isaiah 26:11].

10:26-27 The need for being in fellowship with other Believers—and more than anything else being accountable to others—is emphasized by our writer’s words in vs. 26-27. He says that “if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins” (ESV). One of the sad results of not assembling regularly with other Believers, in some capacity, is that people can (most) easily fall into sin.

One challenge is that our author’s words can be easily misconstrued as a type of “step on your crack and break your mother’s back” type of sinning, so that the smallest type of offense against God cuts a person off from His presence permanently. There are differences in the Torah between intentional (Numbers 15:27-31) and unintentional sin (Leviticus 4:2, 22), and the Rabbis of the Talmud indicate their belief that once restitution is made for a sin at Yom Kippur, then an offering for that sin can no longer be made:

“Our Rabbis taught: As for the sins which one has confessed on one Day of Atonement, he should not confess them on another Day of Atonement; but if he repeated them, then he should confess them, on another Day of Atonement—And if he had not committed them again, yet confessed them again, then it is with regard to him that Scripture says: As a dog that returneth to his vomit, so is a fool that repeateth his folly” (b.Yoma 86b).[61]

This is more the type of severity that the author of Hebrews is trying to emphasize in his treatise. Any good speaker wanting to effect a change in his audience, sometimes has to use rather severe language. In his words, we do see an appropriation of the themes of Yom Kippur, which any good Jew should have been familiar with, and these traditions largely passed into the early Messianic community. But whereas the Jew without Yeshua may feel required to wait for restitution from Yom Kippur to Yom Kippur—Believers in Yeshua should have the confidence of going into the Holy Place at any time for restitution (v. 19), via prayer and supplication, and in resolving any unfinished business.

When we fail to confess any sin before God as Believers, we do damage to the relationship that we should be having with Him. Certainly, the author of Hebrews wanted his ancient audience to avoid any kind of sinful behavior. The type of sinning described here is hekousiōs, meaning “deliberately, intentionally” (BDAG),[62] but this is to be understood in a very specific context. Lane explains, “Sin that is committed [hekousiōs] clearly implies a rejection of the cultus itself (and of God who provided for it). People who reject the cultus can have no hope of removing the defilement of sin because their rejection expresses open, intentional and voluntary apostasy.”[63]

The type of sin that our author might have in mind is not when a person has inappropriate thoughts of doing ungodly deeds, and then is convicted that he or she should not think this way. This is the type of sin where one commits an act in blatant defiance of God, willfully (if not forcefully) rejecting the means of atonement that He has provided: Messiah Yeshua. When this occurs, the author of Hebrews is right to say that “there can be no further sacrifice for sins” (REB), and also how “a terrifying expectation of judgment” awaits. He offers a partial quote from Isaiah 26:11, in v. 27, to emphasize this point:

“O LORD, Your hand is lifted up yet they do not see it. They see Your zeal for the people and are put to shame; indeed, fire will devour Your enemies.”

Isaiah 26:11-21 in total is primarily concerned with the national resurrection of Israel, and the final defeat of Israel’s national enemies. Yet, it is quoted in v. 27 to refer to an individual judgment that will befall the enemies of God. We should appropriately think, that given Hebrews’ author wanting to dissuade many First Century Jewish Believers from denying the Messiah—how he wants them to realize that if they give up on Yeshua, thinking they are being loyal to the Jewish Synagogue—they will actually find themselves as being in the same category of judgment as previous enemies of Israel (Isaiah 26:13).

[28] Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. [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?

10:28 The severity of being cut off from God is detailed by the author of Hebrews in a very unique way in vs. 28-29. He introduces a critical qal v’chomer or “light and heavy” argument. It opens with the remark “Someone who disregards the Torah of Moshe is put to death without mercy on the word of two or three witnesses” (CJB). This is paralleled in the Torah itself by what is seen in Deuteronomy 17:6:

“On the evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses, he who is to die shall be put to death; he shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness.”

V. 28 is not a statement against the Torah or Law of Moses by our author. On the contrary, he says that “Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses” (NIV), indicating that a severe penalty exists for one who rejects the authority of the Torah. This shows that our author believes the Torah to play a valuable role in the instruction of Messiah followers. The person who rejects the authority of God’s Law and validity of its commandments dies a physical death without mercy on the testimony of multiple witnesses—the most severe punishment that humans can enact on other humans.

10:29 If there is a relatively merciless penalty to be enacted for those who disregard God’s Torah, then “How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?” (RSV). Our author employs some key terms that describe the offenses that are to be punished with something worse than physical death: eternal damnation.

The first is the verb katapateō, “to trample down, trample under foot” (LS),[64] and by extension means treating something as profane. We see this description used of God’s enemies treating His Sanctuary as nothing in Isaiah 63:18: “Your holy people possessed Your sanctuary for a little while, our adversaries have trodden it down.” The Hebrew verb rendered as “trodden” here is bus, appearing in the Pual stem (intensive action, passive voice), and means “to tread down > to desecrate (by illicitly entering)” (HALOT),[65] and is rendered with katapateō in the LXX. Yeshua also speaks of treading down upon holy things in His words on casting pearls before swine: “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample [katapateō] them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces” (Matthew 7:6).

Applied by the author of Hebrews, a greater punishment awaits those who consider Yeshua to be profane and effectively trample Him under foot, than those who simply deny the authority of the Torah. This could mean that these people would just have assumed to walk over our bruised and beaten Savior on His way to Golgotha, perhaps even kicking Him in the gut, than helping Him and showing Him some level of basic human kindness. This is a position none of us dare go if we are true Believers.

The second term employed by our author is koinos, which in the NASU is rendered as “unclean.” However, the normal word used for “unclean” in the Greek Apostolic Scriptures is akathartos, and is employed in the LXX in regard to the dietary laws and what meats are “clean” (Heb. taheir; Grk. katharos) and “unclean” (Heb. tamei; Grk. akathartos). Koinos actually relates to something that is “common” (YLT) “in the sense of what is of little value” (TDNT).[66] “Common” is actually a more serious term to use than “unclean” in this verse, because it means that if one regards Yeshua’s blood as simply being “unrefined” then you have insulted God the Father who sent His Son to die, and the Holy Spirit which provides His grace. Our author’s description of “Spirit of grace” is by no means an accident, as Zechariah prophecies that God’s Spirit of grace is what is to save Israel:

“I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn” (Zechariah 12:10).

Regarding Yeshua’s blood as “common” can also be understood in the context of His blood simply being normal human blood, rather than the blood of God in the flesh. Those who deny Yeshua as God in the flesh, are really no better off than those who deny His Messiahship. Those, who deny Yeshua’s Divinity fail to understand that only a Divine Messiah—and not a human messiah (Psalm 49:7, 15)—can save human beings from their sins.[67] Not surprisingly, it can be easily documented that once someone denies Yeshua’s Divinity as a member of the Godhead, it is not that much longer before he or she denies His Messiahship.

[30] For we know Him who said, “VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY” [Deuteronomy 32:35]. And again, “THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE” [Deuteronomy 32:36]. [31] It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

10:30 The severity of our author’s claim that a worse punishment befalls those who reject God’s Son, than who reject God’s Law, is realized in his quotation from Deuteronomy 32:35. While the wider context of Deuteronomy 32 is given so that Israel realizes that God will punish its enemies, the writer of Hebrews somewhat personalizes it for people who consider Yeshua the Messiah to be meaningless to them. Deuteronomy 32:35 in its entirety reads, “Vengeance is Mine, and retribution, in due time their foot will slip; for the day of their calamity is near, and the impending things are hastening upon them.”

10:31 We also see a partial quote given from the next verse, Deuteronomy 32:36, which in totality reads, “The LORD will judge his people and have compassion on his servants when he sees their strength is gone and no one is left, slave or free” (NIV). Note that some English versions render this with, “The LORD will vindicate” (RSV, NASU, NRSV, NJPS, ESV), but there should be no confusion here. The verb din, appearing in the Qal stem (simple action, active voice) means both “bring justice” and “pass sentence, execute justice” (CHALOT),[68] so “vindicate” is a perfectly valid translation of the Hebrew.

The emphasis that is seen here, from these two partial quotes from Deuteronomy 32:35, 36, is that God will judge His people who rebel against Him—which here is extended to denying His Messiah. It may be summarized best by Amos 3:2, “You only have I chosen among all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.” Yet, do note that our author does not appropriate the role of judge for himself. He does not mention any names of individuals who might be receiving his message as being “unsaved.” He leaves the judgment to God alone.

This does not mean that the author of Hebrews was not concerned about his audience and the condition of their salvation, or lack thereof. On the contrary, he was very concerned as he issues the words, “It is a fearful (formidable and terrible) thing to incur the divine penalties and be cast into the hands of the living God!” (Amplified Bible). The same is the most that any of us can say today as well. While we may see individuals stray on the path of faith, we cannot judge their final condition with the Lord. We can only repeat the warnings given to us in Scripture, and tell them that falling into the vindictive judgment of their Creator will not be a good thing.

[32] But remember the former days, when, after being enlightened, you endured a great conflict of sufferings, [33] partly by being made a public spectacle through reproaches and tribulations, and partly by becoming sharers with those who were so treated. [34] For you showed sympathy to the prisoners and accepted joyfully the seizure of your property, knowing that you have for yourselves a better possession and a lasting one.

10:32 The author of Hebrews gives those among his audience a solution, to overcome their present predicament of being on the verge of denying the Lord. He urges them to “Remember the days gone by” (NEB), meaning time when they were initially saved. He attests that “after you were illuminated, you endured a great struggle with sufferings” (NKJV). Yeshua Himself tells His followers in the Gospels that “Blessed are you when men hate you, and ostracize you, and insult you, and scorn your name as evil, for the sake of the Son of Man” (Luke 6:22; cf. Matthew 5:11), and these Believers no doubt experienced some of the same things. The author of Hebrews tells them, “Remember how you remained faithful even though it meant terrible suffering” (NLT).

10:33 The types of sufferings that those in Hebrews’ original audience first experienced as Believers were quite serious. Our author employs the verb theatrizō, meaning both “to bring on the stage” and “to be made a show of, a gazing-stock” (LS).[69] He says that they had been “publicly exposed to abuse and affliction” (RSV), or “abused and tormented to make a public show” (NEB). He also says that “at other times you stood side by side with those who were so treated” (NIV). The severity of being publicly ridiculed is often bad enough, but many in Hebrews’ audience willingly stood up with others being ridiculed, to often join in their sufferings. This indicates a strong zealousness to a cause, in this case believing in the good news of salvation. It also indicates the sober reality of how anyone dedicating himself or herself so strongly to a cause, can also just as easily decide to leave it.

10:34 Many in Hebrews’ audience “had compassion on the prisoners, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property” (RSV). These Believers had once cared for those in jail. The author does not specify on whether these people were of their own number, or common criminals in need of care, but it does not matter as they took caring for others of less estate very seriously. They also did not become sad or weary when their goods were confiscated because of their faith. They realized that there was “a better and an enduring possession for yourselves in heaven” (NKJV). How and why there were those in Hebrews’ audience, who got to the point where they were ready to throw Yeshua away, is hard to tell. Our writer’s emphasis on the importance of His permanent sacrifice in ch. 10 hopefully served as shock language to many on the verge of denying Him.

When we consider the persecutions that many of the early Believers had to experience, we are forced to deal with the fact that as Messianic Believers, a great many of us who live in North America, we have never even remotely had to endure such things. Likewise, most of us in America, either Messianic or Christian, have never had to be paraded around by government officials and publicly mocked for our religious beliefs. At the same time, not enough in the Messianic community that I know minister to prisoners or stand with those who are being oppressed. Not enough people are concerned with the social justice of those who are unfairly abused, and are willing to stand alongside them when they are harassed. Those who do are too few and far between.

To place our author’s words in some historical context, he is likely referring to the Jewish persecution that took place during the reign of the Emperor Claudius. In 41 C.E. a wave of persecution began as recorded by the Roman historian Dio Cassius:

“As for the Jews, who had again increased so greatly that by reason of their multitude it would have been hard without raising a tumult to bar them from the city, he did not drive them out, but ordered them, while continuing their traditional mode of life, not to hold meetings. He also disbanded the clubs, which had been reintroduced by Gaius [meaning Gaius Julius Caesar]. Moreover, seeing that there was no use in forbidding the populace to do certain things unless their daily life should be reformed, he abolished the taverns where they were wont to gather and drink, and commanded that no boiled meat or hot water should be sold; and he punished some who disobeyed in this matter” (Roman History 60.6.6-7).[70]

By 50-51, this harassment and persecution led to the expulsion of Jews from the city of Rome by Claudius, as the historian Suetonius records, “Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome” (Claudius 25.4).[71] Many examiners think that the reference to “Chrestus” is actually a reference to “Christ,” and thus the disturbance was caused because of people believing in Yeshua the Messiah. While Rome had a huge Jewish population, it was a minority group, and so dealing with the problem by expelling agitated Jews from Rome (whether Believers or not) would have been seen as an easy, although tiresome, solution. In the Book of Acts, Priscilla and Aquila are listed as being two Jews who left Rome at the decree of Claudius:

“After these things he [Paul] left Athens and went to Corinth. And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, having recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. He came to them” (Acts 18:1-2).

The decree issued against the Roman Jews who left would have surely meant a loss of property, and any non-Jewish Believers who were left would certainly have been shaken up. Lane points out that although “The size of the Jewish community in Rome made it impossible to enforce the decree completely…[C]ertainly Jewish and Christian leadership had been affected. Sporadic persecution of those who remained undoubtedly followed.”[72] If this is the type of persecution that the author of Hebrews is referring to, then those among his audience certainly endured something quite severe. Furthermore, because Rome was one of the places where the Jewish Believers experienced persecution, it may rule out this city as a place for Hebrews’ composition. Ellingworth explains, “This passage, in conjunction with 12:4, appears to rule about the place of composition cities such as Jerusalem, or Rome after AD 64, where persecution had resulted in bloodshed.”[73]

Of course, the predicament of being persecuted in the manner of property confiscation is not unique to the Apostolic Scriptures. The Believers in Macedonia also had their property seized (2 Corinthians 8:2), and any true Believer in this time should have remembered Yeshua’s words, “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal” (Matthew 6:19-20).

What the author of Hebrews was trying to get his audience to consider, in these words, is the faithfulness of God throughout their times of trial. Their sincere and tireless devotion to Him has allowed His Spirit to help them through public mockery and the theft of their property at the hands of the state. How on Earth could these people have forgotten these things so quickly? We need to remember that while our writer is primarily composing this to Jewish Believers, non-Jewish Believers are likewise included. Was the lure of a Judaism without Messiah Yeshua so tempting to some? Was the incomplete nature of the animal sacrifices considered to be more concrete in the hearts and minds of certain people? Perhaps we may never know the exact circumstances, but our author wanted his audience to go back to the strong faith that they had once before in Yeshua.

[35] Therefore, do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. [36] For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised.

10:35-36 The author of Hebrews urgently writes his audience, “Do not, therefore, abandon that confidence of yours; it brings a great reward” (NRSV). In remembering the faithfulness that they had prior to their present condition, he honestly tells them “You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised” (NIV). He uses the term hupomonē, “the capacity to hold out or bear up in the face of difficulty, patience, endurance, fortitude, steadfastness, perseverance” (BDAG).[74] In the Apocrypha, hupomonē is used in the specific context of martyrdom, and some examiners have speculated that our writer is appropriating this usage and employing it here. I think it is important that we consider some of the parallels that exist between Hebrews 10:35-36 and in 4 Maccabees:

4 MACCABEES

HEBREWS 10:35-36

For all people, even their torturers, marveled at their courage and endurance, and they became the cause of the downfall of tyranny over their nation. By their endurance they conquered the tyrant, and thus their native land was purified through them (1:11).

You, father, strengthened our loyalty to the law through your glorious endurance, and you did not abandon the holiness which you praised, but by your deeds you made your words of divine philosophy credible (7:9).

And if the aged men of the Hebrews because of their religion lived piously while enduring torture, it would be even more fitting that we young men should die despising your coercive tortures, which our aged instructor also overcame. Therefore, tyrant, put us to the test; and if you take our lives because of our religion, do not suppose that you can injure us by torturing us. For we, through this severe suffering and endurance, shall have the prize of virtue and shall be with God, for whom we suffer (9:6-8).

Although the ligaments joining his bones were already severed, the courageous youth, worthy of Abraham, did not groan, but as though transformed by fire into immortality he nobly endured the rackings (9:21-22).

Just as Noah's ark, carrying the world in the universal flood, stoutly endured the waves, so you, O guardian of the law, overwhelmed from every side by the flood of your emotions and the violent winds, the torture of your sons, endured nobly and withstood the wintry storms that assail religion (15:30-32).

Do not lose you courage, which brings a great reward, for you have need of endurance in order to do the will of God and win the promise (Lattimore).

When we view the various passages that appear in 4 Maccabees about the patient endurance that many Jews experienced during the Seleucid era, bravely dying rather than giving up their faith in God—if these are at all in the mind of the author of Hebrews—then he was trying to get his audience to see that what they have endured may not be as bad as they think. Perhaps some in Hebrews’ audience were weary about enduring for this “faith in Yeshua” that they were claiming to have, and were ready to give it up. Perhaps some Greeks and Romans among them thought that it was better to just be a part of the larger Jewish community, then some fringe Jewish sect that believed Jesus was the Christ.

Do we not have some of the same thoughts present in the Messianic movement today? Some Jews who enter into Messianic Judaism come out of either no religious background or some kind of nominal Reform Judaism, and then leave, denying Yeshua and moving into Orthodox Judaism. Some Christians who enter into the Messianic movement find that their attraction is not to seeing Yeshua in the Torah, but rather to the Torah itself, and then leave denying Yeshua and converting to Orthodox Judaism. Did these people simply not have the experience with God through His Son to know that they can endure through His power? Or, did they willingly give up a belief in Him because they did not want to experience any more public harassment and/or wanted to be part of something more “established”? Thankfully, it is only God’s job to know.

The questions that the author of Hebrews asks in his treatise are true for both its ancient audience and us today. Are any of us willing to throw away the boldness that we should have to enter into God’s presence? Are we willing to throw away the reward of being in God’s restored Kingdom? When one throws away the willing desire to bow before Yeshua, that means that the person will one day be forced to acknowledge Him as Lord (cf. Philippians 2:10-11). Furthermore, if physical death is the penalty that is given on Earth for those who disregard the Torah (v. 28), how much worse a penalty—more severe than physical death—will be given to those who willfully deny Yeshua the Messiah (v. 29)? Each of us needs to take the message of Hebrews’ rather seriously, as today’s Messianic community—given all of its potential—exists very precariously, as the enemy desperately wants to see us have a bad reputation, via any number of negative phenomena that we can list, present within the broad Messianic movement.

[37] FOR YET IN A VERY LITTLE WHILE, HE WHO IS COMING WILL COME, AND WILL NOT DELAY. [38] BUT MY RIGHTEOUS ONE SHALL LIVE BY FAITH; AND IF HE SHRINKS BACK, MY SOUL HAS NO PLEASURE IN HIM [Isaiah 26:20, LXX; Habakkuk 2:3-4, LXX]. [39] But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul.

10:37-38 The author of Hebrews further substantiates the need for his audience to endure, by adapting selections from Isaiah 26:20 and Habakkuk 2:3-4, both from the LXX:

“Go, my people, enter into thy closets, shut thy door, hide thyself for a little season, until the anger of the Lord have passed away” (Isaiah 26:20, LXE).

“For the vision is yet for a time, and it shall shoot forth at the end, and not in vain: though he should tarry, wait for him; for he will surely come, and will not tarry. If he should draw back, my soul has no pleasure in him: but the just shall live by my faith” (Habakkuk 2:3-4, LXE).

The author of Hebrews adopts these two passages and seemingly applies them to Yeshua the Messiah and His Second Coming. He uses it to emphasize his key point that “if anyone shrinks back, I take no pleasure in Him” (REB).

10:39 The author of Hebrews actually expresses some confidence in his audience, telling them “we are not among those who shrink back and are lost; we have the faith to make life our own” (NEB). He urges them to “have faith and keep their souls” (RSV). The penalty of being eternally lost is not worth giving up the work that Yeshua has performed for redeemed men and women. Regardless of what circumstances had led some to the brink of possible apostasy, the author of Hebrews urges those hearing his message to remember the faithfulness that they had, and have the faith that will lead to a great reward in the hereafter. In ch. 11 following, he will go into great detail explaining how his listeners are not at all alone in their trials, as all the great Patriarchs and Matriarchs preceding them have likewise had to endure terrible hardships for the One True God.

ENDNOTES FOR Commentary on Hebrews 10

[1] Many italicized words in English Bible translations are necessary, as it is not uncommon in either Hebrew or Greek for a verb or an article to be understood, and as such was not transcribed by the original author. Still, one needs to be aware of theologically-added terms like “only” in Hebrews 10:1 (NASU) or “mere” in Colossians 2:17 (NASU).

[2] Not using italics for added words, other major versions have “the law has but a shadow” (RSV/ESV), “The law is only a shadow” (NIV), or “Since the law has only a shadow” (NRSV).

[3] Consult the author’s article “Does the New Testament Annul the Biblical Appointments?”

[4] Ellingworth, 490.

[5] Bruce, Hebrews, 235.

[6] Plato: Cratylus, trans. Benjamin Jowett. Accessible online at <http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/cratylus.html>.

[7] deSilva, pp 318-319.

[8] Lane, 47b:253.

[9] Guthrie, Hebrews, 203.

[10] Ellingworth, 495.

[11] LS, 59.

[12] BDAG, 22.

[13] Bruce, Hebrews, 238.

[14] Vermes, 110.

[15] HALOT, 1:496.

[16] Alfred Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979), 2:41.

[17] Lane, 47b:255.

[18] Ibid., 262.

[19] Ibid., 263.

[20] Keener, 669.

[21] Bruce, Hebrews, 242.

[22] Ellingworth, 505.

[23] Ibid.

[24] BDAG, 64.

[25] BibleWorks 8.0: Louw-Nida Lexicon.

Cf. Luke 23:32; Acts 10:39; 13:28 where Yeshua’s execution is detailed.

[26] Bruce, Hebrews, 243 fn#48.

[27] deSilva, Hebrews, 322.

[28] Lane, 47b:254.

[29] Bruce, Hebrews, pp 242-243.

[30] Ibid., pp 246, 247.

[31] Ellingworth, 511.

[32] Lane, 47b:268.

[33] Ellingworth, 512.

[34] Morris, in EXP, 12:102.

[35] Ellingworth, 513.

[36] Bruce, Hebrews, pp 247-248.

[37] Lane, 47b:270.

[38] deSilva, Hebrews, 324.

[39] Ibid., 327.

[40] Lane, 47b:268.

Further, Lane, 47b:268-269 seems to frown on any kind of continued remembrance of the Day of Atonement.

[41] Religious Jews typically only wrap tefillin during their morning prayers. Ironically, those who wear WWJD bracelets often do so all the time, including during their sleep and possibly even when they bathe.

[42] Guthrie, 209.

[43] deSilva, Hebrews, 324.

[44] Lane, 47b:268.

[45] Stern, 705.

[46] Neusner, 272.

[47] LS, 699.

[48] deSilva, 336.

[49] Neusner, 268.

[50] Vermes, pp 100-101.

[51] Ibid., 101.

[52] LS, 27.

[53] The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged, 155.

[54] H. Seesemann, “paroxýnō, paroxysmós,” in TDNT, 791.

[55] deSilva, 341.

[56] Guthrie, Hebrews, 216.

[57] Neusner, 675.

[58] Keener, 671.

[59] LS, 303.

[60] Barclay M. Newman, Jr., A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies/Deutche Bibelgesellschaft, 1971), pp 67-68.

[61] The Soncino Talmud. Judaic Classics Library II.

[62] BDAG, 307.

[63] Lane, 47b:292.

[64] LS, 412.

[65] HALOT, 1:115.

[66] F. Hauck, “koinós,” in TDNT, 447.

[67] Consult the author’s article “Anwering the ‘Frequently Avoided Questions’ About the Divinity of Yeshua” for a further examination of this issue.

[68] CHALOT, 70.

[69] LS, 360.

[70] Cassius Dio: Roman History, trans. anonymous (1914-1927). Accessible online at <http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/home.html>.

[71] Suetonius: De Vita Caesarum—Divus Claudius, trans. Rolfe. Accessible online at <http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/suetonius-index.html>.

[72] Lane, 47b:301.

[73] Ellingworth, 546.

[74] BDAG, 1039.

HEBREWS 11

COMMENTARY

[1] Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. [2] For by it the men of old gained approval. [3] By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

Hebrews chs. 11-13 make up the final part of our author’s treatise, as he encourages his audience to respond the proper way to God. No major subject break is intended between 10:39 and 11:1, although ch. 11 does largely focus on a theme of “faith,” which speaks to us today in the Twenty-First Century every bit as much as it spoke to Hebrews’ original First Century audience. Louis H. Evans summarizes it quite well, when he states that Hebrews 11 “sheer weight of witness and its dynamic and unforgettable definition of faith penetrate the very core of the modern heart.”[1]

11:1 V. 1 opens up the chapter with a statement that needs to be understood by everyone who claims to believe in God. The author of Hebrews testifies how faith is to be “the firm foundation of what we hope for” (NICNT).[2] Throughout ch. 11, he demonstrates that all Messiah followers must have trust in God, regardless of what circumstances they may face. Addressing the concept of “faith” to a First Century audience, he gives specific examples of figures from Biblical history who endured incredible hardships and persevered because they trusted in God. Likewise, if modern Believers face dire circumstances in life, we need to all know that we are neither alone nor unique, because someone in the past has been forced to experience such things as well.

Faith requires people to put their lives completely into the hands of God, no matter what happens. As Donald Guthrie states it, faith involves “all that is beyond man’s normal knowledge or powers of comprehension.”[3] As born again Believers, our trust and confidence in God must be based in the permanent atoning work of Yeshua the Messiah. Every day when we wake up, we must pray for the Lord to give us strength, the assurance that we are performing His work, and the comfort that He will see us through any difficult circumstances. This would have been especially true for Hebrews’ First Century audience, who had either already endured severe persecution caused by the Edict of Claudius, or were getting ready to endure even more severe persecution. William L. Lane remarks that the author of Hebrews “underscores the eschatological, forward-looking character of faith, which invests the realm of objective hopes and promises with solidity.”[4] “To have faith is to be sure of the things we hope for, to be certain of the things we cannot see” (Good News Bible).

11:2 Our writer says that “Indeed, by faith our ancestors received approval” (NRSV). The term hoi presbuteroi more correctly means “the elders” (KJV, YLT, NKJV), and given the content that will follow, it would have to include women such as Sarah (v. 11) and Rahab (v. 31). By our author tracing the steps of those who had great faith, his mainly Jewish audience is admonished that they should likewise have faith. Lane points out, “the impact of this tendency can be traced both in the liturgy and in the preaching of the hellenistic synagogue.”[5] This is evidence that once again our author’s primarily audience is concentrated in the Diaspora and not in the Land of Israel. Some have thought that the style of Hebrews ch. 11 is adapted from Sirach 44:1-50:21 in the Apocrypha. Notice the major parallels between v. 2 and the following opening lines:

“Let us now praise famous men, and our fathers in their generations. The Lord apportioned to them great glory, his majesty from the beginning. There were those who ruled in their kingdoms, and were men renowned for their power, giving counsel by their understanding, and proclaiming prophecies; leaders of the people in their deliberations and in understanding of learning for the people, wise in their words of instruction; those who composed musical tunes, and set forth verses in writing; rich men furnished with resources, living peaceably in their habitations—all these were honored in their generations, and were the glory of their times” (Sirach 44:1-7).

Seeing the faith of the ancients was not just something that was important for Hebrews’ predominantly Jewish audience, but for any of the non-Jews who also heard the letter. Guthrie indicates, “Gentile readers who had taken over the Old Testament as Scripture…would soon learn to recognize the divine stamp of approval on these men of the past.”[6] We need to keep in mind that many of the non-Jewish Believers in the First Century had either been proselytes to Judaism, or God-fearers attending synagogue. These people would have known about greats such as Abraham, Moses, or David. Other non-Jewish Believers would have surely known about them, given the great amount of Messianic comparisons and contrasts present in Apostolic teaching.

Making an appeal to the nostalgia of these figures is something that was not only common to First Century Judaism, but also anyone coming from a strictly Hellenistic background. F.F. Bruce notes, “the literary genre is by no means confined to the Judaeo-Christian tradition; it shares many characteristics with the diatribe of Stoic-influenced rhetoric, which was given to the accumulation of historical or legendary examples of the particular quality under discussion.”[7] Lane adds, “The literary genre of a catalogue of examples was thus well established in hellenistic Judaism…It served defined apologetic and parenthetic purposes, and was used effectively also in the missionary propaganda in which Judaism was engaged.”[8] So, it may be said that our writer uses familiar communication techniques that any non-Jewish Believers in his audience would probably have already encountered; he is only adapting it with Yeshua the Messiah as the focus.

The key, to what our author says here, is that via their faith, the ancients “obtained a good testimony” (NKJV), “received their commendation” (ESV), or “stand on record” (NEB). The Greek verb employed here is martureō, “to confirm or attest someth. on the basis of personal knowledge or belief, bear witness, be a witness” (BDAG).[9] In this case, they “gained approval” through the witness of their lives—some even by dying. Anyone expressing a belief in Yeshua is to have a good witness. The Apostle Paul writes that an elder “must have a good testimony [marturian kalēn] among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil” (1 Timothy 3:7, NKJV). All Believers must demonstrate a faithful witness to their belief in Yeshua the Messiah, whether they face death or not.

Our author, as we should certainly expect, holds the Patriarchs and Matriarchs in very high regard. He is likely trying to comfort his audience on the unforeseen future that awaits them. For many of the Jews receiving this epistle, not knowing what was going to take place with the rising unrest, and the destruction of the Temple soon to occur, would have been very unnerving. They needed to have confidence to place their trust in God, the same as those who had gone before them. The difference this time, however, was that they had a more secure base for their faith because the Messiah had arrived onto the scene of human history.

11:3 Donald Hagner points out that v. 3 “is the first of 18 sentences…that begin with by faith,”[10] and here we see that the author of Hebrews emphasizes perhaps the most critical thing that any person must have faith about. He writes, “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible” (NIV). While some versions will say that “the world was created by the word of God” (RSV), what is specifically employed here is the term rhēma, “that which is said or spoken, a word, saying” (LS).[11] This would mean that at God’s spoken word the universe was created, paralleling the many “and God said” phrases that we see in Genesis 1 (1:1-3, 6, 9, 14, 20, 26) and elsewhere (Psalm 33:6, 9).

While in many places the author of Hebrews does show that he has been exposed to some Hellenistic Jewish philosophy, his remarks in v. 3 run completely contrary to the Hellenistic idea of the universe being created out of chaos or pre-existent matter. The author of Hebrews fully adheres to the Biblical doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, or as Paul Ellingworth puts it, “the visible having come into being out of the invisible.”[12] Lane comments, “It may…have been the writer’s intention to correct a widespread tendency in hellenistic Judaism to read Gen 1 in the light of Plato’s doctrine of creation in the Timaeus,”[13] which may be reflected in Wisdom 11:7 where God’s “all-powerful hand…created the world out of formless matter.” What our writer emphasizes here is best described in 2 Maccabees 7:28:

“I beseech you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed. Thus also mankind comes into being.”

The most significant thing that any person claiming to believe in God must have, is the faith that He even exists. David A. deSilva directs us how, “The author’s interest here is merely to affirm that the material, visible cosmos came into being by means of causes beyond and above the realm of what can be experienced by the senses,”[14] and that he builds upon this to show how this same God who made the universe can be trusted to help His people through difficult times.

From vs. 4-38 onward we see our author describing some of the most important figures in Biblical history and the faith that they had. All of these figures are highly regarded to some degree or another in both Jewish and Christian tradition. How far we can go with understanding their lives and significance can be most extensive, given with what both Scripture attests of them, and what we see in ancient literature and theological writing until today. In attempting to understand what the writer of Hebrews communicates, we will have to do our best to limit ourselves to the specific traditions that he may be making light of to influence his audience. Lane makes the valid point, “The willingness of Jews and Christians to suffer for the undemonstrable astonished pagan observers,”[15] and we will see how the ancients believed in a God that they could not see visibly—but could see via His interjecting Himself into their lives. This kind of faith is now expanded to include God’s Son, Yeshua the Messiah.

[4] By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous, God testifying about his gifts, and through faith, though he is dead, he still speaks.

11:4 The first example of faith, attested by the author of Hebrews, is Abel offering “a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain” (RSV). We see this scene in Genesis 4:2-5:

“Again, she gave birth to his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of flocks, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the LORD of the fruit of the ground. Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and for his offering; but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard. So Cain became very angry and his countenance fell.”

The specific reason why the Lord “paid heed to Abel and his offering, but to Cain and his offering He paid no heed” (NJPS), is because of sinful attitudes that were in the heart of Cain. In spite of God’s warning to Cain for him to master his sin, Cain murders his brother:

“Then the LORD said to Cain, ‘Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.’ Cain told Abel his brother. And it came about when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him” (Genesis 4:6-8).

The author of Hebrews, looking back at what Abel did by sacrificing of his flocks to the Lord, interprets it as being an important act of faith. “Through this he received approval as righteous” (NRSV), but he was then murdered by his own brother. What is critical to note is that our author says “even though he is dead, he still speaks through this” (HCSB), employing the present active indicative lalei, indicating that Abel’s death speaks down to the time of his audience. This is thought at times to be influenced by a tradition recorded in the Pseudepigraphal work Testament of Abraham, where Abel is portrayed as a judge “who first bore witness, and God brought him here [Heaven] to judge” (B11:2).[16] Abel is attested here to be the first person to suffer martyrdom, because of his righteousness.

There are other important references that confirm Abel as being a righteous person. Yeshua the Messiah refutes the Pharisaical leaders with the words, “upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah” (Matthew 23:35, RSV). The Apostle John, encouraging First Century Believers to have love for one another, writes, “For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another; not as Cain, who was of the evil one and slew his brother. And for what reason did he slay him? Because his deeds were evil, and his brother's were righteous” (1 John 3:12).

[5] By faith Enoch was taken up so that he would not see death; AND HE WAS NOT FOUND BECAUSE GOD TOOK HIM UP [Genesis 5:24]; for he obtained the witness that before his being taken up he was pleasing to God.

11:5 The second example, that the author of Hebrews offers of faith, is that of the relatively elusive figure of Enoch. He writes that “By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death” (NIV), and substantiates this with a quotation from Genesis 5:24 in its Septuagint version:

GENESIS 5:24 (MT)

GENESIS 5:24 (LXX)

Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.

And Enoch was well-pleasing to God, and was not found, because God translated him (LXE).

v’yit’haleikh Chanokh et-ha’Elohim v’ei’nennu ki’laqach oto Elohim

kai euērestēsen Enōch tō Theō kai ouk hēurisketo hoti metethēken auton ho Theos

There is not a substantial difference between Genesis 5:18-24 in the Hebrew MT and Greek LXX. However, the Hebrew v’yit’haleikh Chanokh et-ha’Elohim, “and Enoch walked with God,” is extrapolated as kai euērestēsen Enōch tō Theō, “And Enoch was well-pleasing to God” (LXE). Perhaps this is why the NLT paraphrases Genesis 18:24 with “walking in close fellowship with God,” and this has to be the reason why he is attested by our author as having faith.

Enoch appears twice elsewhere in the Apostolic Scriptures, in Luke’s genealogy chart of Yeshua (Luke 3:37), and in Jude 14 where he is attested as saying, “Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones.” It is only in extra-Biblical sources where we see how highly regarded Enoch was. Perhaps the author of Hebrews is alluding to his audience’s knowledge of some of these traditions in emphasizing Enoch’s faith. Regardless of how much theological weight we put into these texts, we still have to acknowledge that Enoch was an example that many First Century Jews looked to.

The Book of Jubilees, believing to record matters that Moses was given during his forty days on Mount Sinai, attests that Enoch “was the first who learned writing and knowledge and wisdom, from (among) the sons of men, from (among) those who were born upon the earth. And who wrote in a book the signs of the heaven according to the order of their months, so that the sons of man might know the (appointed) times of the years according to their order, with respect to each of their months” (Jubilees 4:17).[17]

The traditions we see reflected in the Apocrypha are more consistent with what we see in Hebrews 11:5:

“Enoch pleased the Lord, and was taken up; he was an example of repentance to all generations” (Sirach 44:16).

“There was one who pleased God and was loved by him, and while living among sinners he was taken up. He was caught up lest evil change his understanding or guile deceive his soul. For the fascination of wickedness obscures what is good, and roving desire perverts the innocent mind. Being perfected in a short time, he fulfilled long years; for his soul was pleasing to the Lord, therefore he took him quickly from the midst of wickedness. Yet the peoples saw and did not understand, nor take such a thing to heart, that God's grace and mercy are with his elect, and he watches over his holy ones” (Wisdom 4:10-15).

The controversial Book of 1 Enoch, accredited to Enoch but likely compiled over several centuries (Second Century B.C.E.-First Century C.E.), survives in various Greek and Ethiopic versions. Regardless of the composition of the text, it does historically record how highly both Jews and Christians have considered Enoch:

“Then an angel came to me [Enoch] and said to me, ‘You, son of man, who are born in righteousness and upon whom righteousness has dwelt, the righteousness of the Antecedent of Time will not forsake you’” (1 Enoch 71:14).[18]

The Jewish philosopher Philo likewise has some high remarks for Enoch:

“That which is placed in the next rank after hope is repentance for errors committed, and improvement; in reference to which principle Moses mentions next in order to Enos, the man who changed from a worse system of life to a better, who is called among the Hebrews Enoch, but as the Greeks would say, ‘gracious,’ of whom the following statement is made, ‘that Enoch pleased God, and was not found, because God transported him’ [Genesis 5:24.]” (On Abraham 3.17).[19]

“[F]or these are twofold prizes, which are proposed for twofold successes, first of all for the abandonment of what is disgraceful, and, secondly, for the choice of what is excellent; and the prizes are a departure from home, and solitude. For Moses says, with reference to one who fled from the audacious innovations of the body, and who came over to the interests of the soul, ‘He was not found because God changed his place’ [Genesis 5:24]” (On Rewards and Punishments 3.17).[20]

Regardless of whatever tradition(s) the author of Hebrews may have been specifically referring to, he was likely relying on some of these sentiments to be present among his target audience. Due to the high regard the First Century Jewish community had for Enoch, he would have been an easy example to use of someone who was favored by God. Enoch did not suffer a human’s death, and was simply translated from this world. Our author’s emphasis here is not just that people must believe in God or in His existence, but that they believe that He is concerned with the affairs of humans.

[6] And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

11:6 After mentioning the two pre-Flood examples of Abel and Enoch, our writer now interjects the statement that “No one can please God without faith, for whoever comes to God must have faith that God exists and rewards those who seek him” (Good News Bible). The Greek reads with estin, literally meaning “He is,” but the rendering of “he exists” (RSV, NEB, REB, NRSV, et. al.) is entirely valid. We can see a slight parallel between v. 6 and Jeremiah 29:13, where the Lord says “You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart.” In this case here, those who seek God must believe in His existence. Because mortals on Earth cannot really see God, unlike pagans who tend to worship visible idols, a relationship with Him thus requires a great amount of faith. Without faith people cannot believe that He is real and that He is incapable of interacting with mortals on any kind of intimate level.

[7] By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.

11:7 The example detailed in v. 7 is Noah, who was “warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, [and] in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household” (ESV). The totality of Noah’s life is given in Genesis 5:28-9:29, beginning from his birth to his death sometime after the Flood. V. 7 specifically references that God instructed him to build an ark “to deliver his family” (HCSB), detailed for us in Genesis 6:11-13:

“Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence. God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. Then God said to Noah, ‘The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth.’”

The “things not seen,” mentioned by our author, refer to the inevitable judgment of the world that Noah could not have fully understood. Nevertheless, because he was faithful to God and obeyed Him, he and his family were spared from the flood. Our author employs the verb eulabeomai to describe Noah’s attitude, meaning “to show reverent regard for, reverence, respect” (BDAG),[21] rendered in the NIV as “By faith Noah…in holy fear built an ark.” But how are we to understand the second half of v. 7, which tells us, “By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith” (ESV)?

Some might view the building of the ark as an outward expression of Noah’s faith, thus functioning as some kind of judgment to those who saw him constructing it and did not take heed. Leon Morris notes, “Upright conduct will always stand in condemnation of wickedness (cf. Matt 12:41-42; Luke 11:31-32; 1 John 3:12).”[22] Others might make a connection between Noah’s “condemning” of the world and what Peter writes in 2 Peter 2:5 about Noah being “a preacher of righteousness.” But how far do we take Noah being a “herald” (NRSV)? Do we assume that he actually “preached sermons,” or that he heralded the judgment to come by his good actions? Ellingworth offers us a possible solution, remarking, “It is possible…that Noah is here thought of as judging in an extended sense: the contrast between his righteousness and the sinfulness of most of his contemporaries speaks for itself in silent judgment.”[23]

Regardless of how Noah was an example of righteousness, either through virulent preaching or simply a testimony of faithfulness by building the ark, we know that “Noah was found perfect and righteous; in the time of wrath he was taken in exchange; therefore a remnant was left to the earth when the flood came” (Sirach 44:17).

Interestingly enough, both Hebrews 11:5 and 7 are paralleled in the late First Century work 1 Clement, indicating that our author’s examples of Enoch and Noah found additional application. In this case, we see how Clement of Rome applies Enoch and Noah as being eloquent models of ministry unto the Lord, and he urges the Corinthians he is writing to follow suit:

HEBREWS 11:5, 7

1 CLEMENT 9

By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God…By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith (ESV).

Wherefore, let us yield obedience to His excellent and glorious will; and imploring His mercy and loving-kindness, while we forsake all fruitless labors, and strife, and envy, which leads to death, let us turn and have recourse to His compassions. Let us steadfastly contemplate those who have perfectly ministered to His excellent glory. Let us take (for instance) Enoch, who, being found righteous in obedience, was translated, and death was never known to happen to him. Noah, being found faithful, preached regeneration to the world through his ministry; and the Lord saved by him the animals which, with one accord, entered into the ark.[24]

[8] By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going. [9] By faith he lived as an alien in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, fellow heirs of the same promise; [10] for he was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God.

11:8 The figure of Abraham is quite prominent in Hebrews, as our author has already mentioned him three times (2:16; 6:13; 7:1-9), and the theme of Abraham being an example of great faith is seen in the Pauline Epistles (Romans 4:11-12; Galatians 3:7, 9, 29). Whether or not the author of Hebrews is influenced by Paul’s examples of Abraham in his points is uncertain, as there are many ways one can particularize the faith of Abraham. Vs. 8-19 concentrate on broad themes in the life of Abraham. The first example given by our author is Abraham’s obedience “to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance…not knowing where he was to go” (RSV). This is detailed in Genesis 12:1-3:

“Now the LORD said to Abram, ‘Go forth from your country, and from your relatives and from your father's house, to the land which I will show you; and I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great; and so you shall be a blessing; and I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.’”

If the author of Hebrews is paralleling anyone in first mentioning God’s command that Abraham leave his native country in Mesopotamia, to go somewhere he had never seen, then his words come closest to Stephen in his defense before the Sanhedrin in Acts 7:2-5:

“And he said, ‘Hear me, brethren and fathers! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran, and said to him, “LEAVE YOUR COUNTRY AND YOUR RELATIVES, AND COME INTO THE LAND THAT I WILL SHOW YOU” [Genesis 11:32-12:1, 5; 15:7]. Then he left the land of the Chaldeans and settled in Haran. From there, after his father died, God had him move to this country in which you are now living. But He gave him no inheritance in it, not even a foot of ground, and yet, even when he had no child, He promised that HE WOULD GIVE IT TO HIM AS A POSSESSION, AND TO HIS DESCENDANTS AFTER HIM’ [Genesis 12:7; 13:15; 15:2, 18; 17:8; 24:7; 48:4].”

Furthermore, we should notice strong parallels between Acts 7:2-5 and Hebrews 11:8-10, 12, and what is seen in 1 Clement 7. This indicates that in the late First Century, Clement of Rome was acquainted with the strong appeal to Abraham for an example of great faith, and he may have been influenced by both of these texts:

“Abraham, styled ‘the friend,’ was found faithful, inasmuch as he rendered obedience to the words of God. He, in the exercise of obedience, went out from his own country, and from his kindred, and from his father’s house, in order that, by forsaking a small territory, and a weak family, and an insignificant house, he might inherit the promises of God. For God said to him, ‘Get thee out from thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, into the land which I shall show thee. And I will make thee a great nation, and will bless thee, and make thy name great, and be blessed. And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee; and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.’ And again, on his departing from Lot, God said to him. ‘Lift up thine eyes, and look from the place where thou now art, northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward; for all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever. And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth, [so that] if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.’ And again [the Scripture] saith, ‘God brought forth Abram, and spake unto him, Look up now to heaven, and count the stars if thou be able to number them; so shall thy seed be. And Abram believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness.’ On account of his faith and hospitality, a son was given him in his old age; and in the exercise of obedience, he offered him as a sacrifice to God on one of the mountains which He showed him” (1 Clement 7).[25]

11:9 The principal reason why Abraham had faith is that he did not know where he was going. God simply told him to leave his home country, and he left. The result of this is that “By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country” (NIV). The verb that our writer employs to describe this is paroikeō, “to inhabit a place as a foreigner, be a stranger” (BDAG).[26] This is to emphasize the fact that Abraham, while living in a land promised to him, was still living in a different place. The closest connection that we can probably see with v. 9a is what Peter says about the redeemed in Messiah being strangers in the world:

“Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul. Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may because of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation” (1 Peter 2:11-12).

The Apostle Peter tells his readers that they are “aliens and temporary residents” (HCSB). While Abraham “came home” in a sense, living in the Promised Land, as a human being made righteous by God he was not yet home.

Abraham, and his immediate descendants Isaac and Jacob, “lived in tents” (NIV). This is largely a statement about their condition living in the Promised Land, but some could interpret it as meaning that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all lived together at one point in time. Did this really take place—or is it a reference to them all generically living in tents? It is probably best for us not to make any idle speculation from our author’s words here. Ellingworth validly remarks, “The author is not concerned with chronological detail; he follows a tradition already strong in the OT…of grouping together Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as the authentic founding fathers of Israel.”[27] In our view of v. 9b, we should not go beyond this.

11:10 The most critical statement made here about Abraham is that even though he was living in the Promised Land, our author asserts how he looked beyond Planet Earth “to the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God” (RSV). The Greek is more specific, indicating that this city does not just have “foundations,” but tous themelious, “the foundations” (YLT). God is the One who is the “designer and builder” (ESV) of this city. Tim Hegg validly points out, “The city which Abraham looked for is nothing less than the dwelling of God with man—the final place of His triumph in the work of salvation which He has wrought.”[28]

The city that Abraham is testified as looking for is later said to be the Heavenly Jerusalem (12:22; 13:14), but this is something which is ultimately to come down in the New Creation (cf. Revelation 21:2, 9-27), and the new reality it represents in contrast to the widely transitory reality of the present Creation. God’s involvement in the life of Jerusalem is a theme appropriated from the Tanach (Psalm 147:2; Isaiah 62:5), as there are many references to Jerusalem being the city established by God (Psalm 47:9; 86:1-3, 5; 122:3; Isaiah 14:32 [LXX]; 33:20). This is also a sentiment we see in the Talmud, which records, “R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Johanan: Three were called by the name of the Holy One; blessed be He, and they are the following: The righteous, the Messiah and Jerusalem” (b.Bava Batra 75b).[29] It is possible that the author of Hebrews is extending the fact that the Heavenly Jerusalem is established even more by God than the Earthly one is.

Also to be considered is that when our author writes about “the city with firm foundations” (NEB), he is making a distinct reference to a polis. This gives us a huge hint that Hebrews’ primary audience was probably urban, confirming that the Jews who would read the letter were primarily from the Diaspora, as Diaspora Judaism was focused in the cities. But this does not disclude any non-Jews in Hebrews’ audience as well. Morris indicates, “To cultured men in the first century, the city was the highest form of civilized existence. Nothing served so well the pattern for the ideal community.”[30] The theme of being part of a city was common enough to appeal to a large number of Jews and non-Jews, and may also be detected in Paul’s remark that “our citizenship [politeuma] is in heaven” (Philippians 3:20).

[11] By faith even Sarah herself received ability to conceive, even beyond the proper time of life, since she considered Him faithful who had promised. [12] Therefore there was born even of one man, and him as good as dead at that, as many descendants AS THE STARS OF HEAVEN IN NUMBER, AND INNUMERABLE AS THE SAND WHICH IS BY THE SEASHORE [Genesis 15:5-6; 22:17; 32:12].

11:11 Our author’s words now shift slightly as he considers the figure of Sarah to be a very important example of faith, even though it can be a little confusing to see why.

There is some controversy over how to translate v. 11, and whether or not Sarah or Abraham is the subject. The Greek offers us a challenge, reading with eis katabolēn spermatos. Bruce points out how “the phrase traditionally rendered as ‘to conceive seed’ just does not mean that; it refers to the father’s part in the generative process, not the mother’s. A literal translation would be, ‘for the deposition of seed.’”[31] Most versions will render v. 11 with something like “By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive” (RSV), as Sarra appears in the nominative case (indicating subject) in most critical versions. However, Bruce M. Metzger suggests that it is best to view v. 11 “to be a Hebraic circumstantial clause, thus allowing [Abraam] (ver. 8) to serve as subject of [elaben] (‘by faith, even though Sarah was barren, he [Abraham] received power to beget…’),”[32] thus reading Sarra in the dative case (indicating indirect object).[33] This is why the NIV reads as “By faith Abraham, even though he was past age—and Sarah herself was barren—was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise.”

Even though Abraham is most likely the subject of v. 11, this does not mean that Sarah’s being mentioned is not important, nor that she lacked faith. This can be difficult to see at first, because when told that she would bear a child, “Sarah laughed to herself, saying, ‘After I have become old, shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?’” (Genesis 18:12). Initially, Sarah thought it humorous that an old woman such as herself could bear a child, but it is most probable that she came to share in her husband’s faith, thus being an example to follow. Lane points out that our author “concentrates all attention on the active faith which they became capable of resuming normal sexual relations, in the course of which Abraham was enabled to become a father.”[34] This is an interesting point of view, because in order to have faith that they would even have a child—Abraham and Sarah as old people had to have faith that they could even have sexual intercourse!

Our author, using a unique point of view, has some distinct things in mind pertaining to the “faith” of Abraham and Sarah. The highlight of the Isaac narrative is the fact that Abraham and Sarah were both beyond the age of having children. As an old man Abraham could not easily deposit seed, on top of the fact that Sarah was clearly barren:

“Sarai was barren; she had no child…Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in age; Sarah was past childbearing” (Genesis 11:30; 18:11).

To give us some kind of an idea about how serious the faith of Abraham had to be, Genesis 21:5 attests, “Now Abraham was one hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him.” The Apostle Paul comments on this, “Without becoming weak in faith he contemplated his own body, now as good as dead since he was about a hundred years old, and the deadness of Sarah's womb” (Romans 4:19). Paul says that Abraham’s body was practically “dead and shriveled loins” (The Message). We actually see a double miracle with the conception of Isaac that would have required faith on both Abraham and Sarah’s part. Not surprisingly, the term rendered as either “power” (RSV) or “ability” in v. 11 is dunamis, frequently rendered as “miracle” in the Gospels to describe the power of Yeshua. As TDNT explains, “God’s power operates in the weak and corruptible sphere of human existence. It is thus visible only to faith, but for this very reason is known as divine, not human power.”[35]

11:12 The realization of the faith of both Sarah and Abraham was the fulfillment of God’s promise to them, as “there sprang descendants as numerous as the stars in the heavens or the countless grains of sand on the seashore” (REB). This is adapted from various passages seen in Genesis:

“And He took him outside and said, ‘Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them.’ And He said to him, ‘So shall your descendants be.’ Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness” (Genesis 15:5-6).

“[I]ndeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies” (Genesis 22:17).

Moses later attests in Deuteronomy 1:10 that “The LORD your God has multiplied you, and behold, you are this day like the stars of heaven in number,” indeed indicating that God was faithful to His promise to Abraham to multiply his descendants. Moses further states, “Your fathers went down to Egypt seventy persons in all, and now the LORD your God has made you as numerous as the stars of heaven” (Deuteronomy 10:22). The Tanach records continuing fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham, saying that “Judah and Israel were as numerous as the sand that is on the seashore in abundance; they were eating and drinking and rejoicing” (1 Kings 4:20). The author of Hebrews likewise recognized the faithfulness of God to His promise, because he can say they “considered Him faithful who had promised.” Unfortunately, though—as a definite testimony to faithlessness—the Lord Himself would also warn Ancient Israel: “you shall be left few in number, whereas you were as numerous as the stars of heaven, because you did not obey the LORD your God” (Deuteronomy 28:62).

[13] All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. [14] For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a country of their own. [15] And indeed if they had been thinking of that country from which they went out, they would have had opportunity to return. [16] But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them.

11:13 In vs. 13-16 our writer briefly interjects his own comments while talking about Abraham. He remarks that the individuals thus far “all died in faith, not having received what was promised, but having seen it and greeted it from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth” (RSV). What is the promise that they were all looking forward to? Abraham and Sarah were able to get a foretaste of God’s promise to them that they would have a son, and thus have many physical descendants. But this is not the promise that is being referred to, because not all of these figures (Abel, Enoch, Noah) were given a promise of physical descendants. What these figures have in common is that they “were foreigners and nomads here on earth” (NLT). Their promise, as detailed in v. 10, was to inherit a heavenly city built by God.

The idea, that the Patriarchs and Matriarchs were aliens, is something that is seen several times in Genesis (17:8; 23:4; 28:4). In fact, “The Jewish people in the Diaspora saw themselves only as ‘sojourners’ among the nations” (IVPBBC),[36] basing this belief on texts such as Genesis 23:4 and Leviticus 25:23:

“I am a stranger and a sojourner among you; give me a burial site among you that I may bury my dead out of my sight” (Genesis 23:4).

“The land, moreover, shall not be sold permanently, for the land is Mine; for you are but aliens and sojourners with Me” (Leviticus 25:23).

11:14 The author of Hebrews is not using language that his largely Jewish audience would have been unfamiliar with. But, he does make key connections that they might have missed. The Patriarchs and Matriarchs had to have faith in God in the promise of redemption coming to the people of the world through a Savior, and that this would ultimately consummate in a grand redemption. None of these figures partook of the New Creation that will only be realized when the righteous enter into the Eternal State. V. 14 particularizes these ideas to an extent, as our writer says “Those who use such language show plainly that they are looking for a country of their own” (NEB). While terms like “country” and “city” can be used interchangeably—more likely is that a capital city Jerusalem, and a country Earth ruled by God from this city, are what are in view.

11:15 The place, that our author refers the Patriarchs and Matriarchs looking to, is not of this Earth, as he states, “If they had been remembering that land they came from, they would have had opportunity to return” (HCSB). Even though Abraham was called out of Mesopotamia into a Promised Land—it was still a place on Earth. Morris comments, “All these...wholeheartedly accepted God’s word. Had they been earthly minded, they could have gone back to Mesopotamia. But their hearts were set on their heavenly home, and they did not go back. Singlemindedly they walked the path of faith.”[37]

11:16 The author of Hebrews is quite correct by saying, “Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them” (NIV). Describing the future country and city that God has prepared, this is notably not Heaven, ouranos, but rather is something epouranios, “celestial, heavenly” (BDAG),[38] with epouranios being an adjective. This has to be viewed as nothing less than the presumed Heaven-Earth merger in the coming New Creation (Revelation 21:1-10).

Interestingly, the author of Hebrews will later observe how the spirits of the righteous deceased are presently in the Heavenly Jerusalem with God and a company of angels (12:23). Yet, what is in view here in v. 16, and the country that they did not inherit—and neither have we fully inherited at the present time—is “of Heaven.” The reign of Heaven will surely be present on Earth when Yeshua rules during the Messianic Age or Millennial Kingdom. Yet, the country anticipated will actually not be fully inherited by any of the righteous until it comes down from the sky at the end of the Millennium, the Eternal State begins (Revelation 21:2, 10), and a new sort of existence and reality is able to be experienced by the redeemed with the New Jerusalem, New Heavens, and New Earth (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:28).

[17] By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son; [18] it was he to whom it was said, “IN ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS SHALL BE CALLED” [Genesis 21:12]. [19] He considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead, from which he also received him back as a type.

11:17 The author of Hebrews now shifts his language on faith to a series of examples that are interspersed with references to suffering and death. He continues his remarks about Abraham, saying, “By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was ready to offer up his only son” (RSV). Abraham was commanded by God to take his son of promise and offer him up as a sacrifice:

“He said, ‘Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you’” (Genesis 22:2).

Abraham does as the Lord requests, but is stopped at the last moment before the offering can be made:

“He said, ‘Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me’” (Genesis 22:12).

11:18 Our author’s partial quote of Genesis 21:12 gives readers good cause to consider the faith of Abraham in performing this act of obedience:

“But God said to Abraham, ‘Do not be distressed because of the lad and your maid; whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her, for through Isaac your descendants shall be named.’”

The Lord’s promise that “in Isaac your seed shall be called” (NKJV) indicates the gravity of Abraham holding the knife about to kill his only son. Not only was Abraham asked to offer up his only son, but he had to surrender his entire future to God. Now, it is notable that Abraham did have other sons (Genesis 25:1-2, 5-6), but this son is monogenēs, meaning “only, unique” (CGEDNT).[39] The binding of Isaac, often referred to as the Aqedah in Jewish theology, is traditionally viewed in Judaism as the classic example of martyrdom. Furthermore, there is no indication in the Genesis narrative that Isaac ever resisted Abraham binding him, in spite of mixed Jewish and Christian speculations that Isaac’s age ranged anywhere from 23-37.[40] If indeed true, than Isaac could have easily overpowered Abraham, by now well over 100, and escaped.

What is perhaps more intriguing than Isaac’s age are the various Jewish and Christian traditions that perhaps attest that Isaac was eager to be sacrificed:

“[A]nd another reminded them, ‘Remember whence you came, and the father by whose hand Isaac would have submitted to being slain for the sake of religion’” (4 Maccabees 13:12).

“Now Isaac was of such a generous disposition as became the son of such a father, and was pleased with this discourse; and said, ‘That he was not worthy to be born at first, if he should reject the determination of God and of his father, and should not resign himself up readily to both their pleasures; since it would have been unjust if he had not obeyed, even if his father alone had so resolved.’ So he went immediately to the altar to be sacrificed” (Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 1.232).[41]

“Isaac, with perfect confidence, as if knowing what was to happen, cheerfully yielded himself as a sacrifice” (1 Clement 13:3).[42]

Lane thinks that “the writer [of Hebrews] has been influenced by the rich Jewish Aqedah tradition”[43] in his mentioning of Isaac being offered up by Abraham, and this may indeed be a secondary thought of his. While his primary emphasis is on the actions and faith of Abraham, Isaac did offer himself. Concurrent with this, properly handling persecution is a theme that our author may wish to convey to his audience, and the act of emulating Isaac’s death was considered very important in First Century Judaism. 4 Maccabees 16:20 attests, “For his sake also our father Abraham was zealous to sacrifice his son Isaac, the ancestor of our nation; and when Isaac saw his father's hand wielding a sword and descending upon him, he did not cower.” This was to be an example followed when circumstances demanded it.

11:19 What we undeniably see in v. 19 is a connection made to Yeshua the Messiah willingly offering himself up as a sacrifice for sinful humanity. Our author writes that Abraham “considered God to be able even to raise someone from the dead, from which he also got him back as an illustration” (ESV). The story of Abraham binding Isaac, and almost killing him, is a picture of the ultimate sacrifice offered by Yeshua on the tree. The author of Hebrews actually uses the term parabolē or “parable” to describe the Aqedah narrative, meaning that it is “figuratively speaking” (RSV, NIV, NRSV, ESV), an “illustration” (HCSB), or that “in a foreshadowing [Abraham] did receive him back” (WBC).[44] Just as Abraham gets ready to kill his son, an angel tells him, “Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me” (Genesis 22:12). Abraham did not kill his son, but almost did.

Isaac did not die, but the scene of his almost being sacrificed, certainly prefigured the execution and resurrection of Yeshua. Bruce remarks that “as far as Abraham’s resolution was concerned, Isaac was as good as dead, and it was practically from the dead that he received him back when his hand was arrested in midair and the heavenly voice forbade him to proceed further.”[45] Yeshua’s words, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad” (John 8:56), help to validate our author’s understanding that Abraham simply “received [Isaac] in a figure” (KJV). The whole Aqedah scene helps Bible readers to understand the crucifixion and resurrection of Yeshua much better.[46]

But is our author’s scope limited to just the offering up of Yeshua and His resurrection? Perhaps not. While extremely important, he connects these concepts to the present situation of his audience. Ellingworth interjects the possibility that “[kai en parabolē] suggests some reference beyond Isaac himself, and Hebrews’ interest in the resurrection of believers (relatively greater than his direct interest in the resurrection of Jesus) suggests that this is the reference here.”[47] In other words, the parable might be summarized as:

Abraham had great faith that his son Isaac could be raised from the dead if he killed him. This foreshadowed the sacrifice and resurrection of Yeshua. So, if any of you willingly are martyred for one another, as Isaac’s sacrifice often speaks to us, do not at all fear death because you will be resurrected just like Yeshua.

We might actually see a parallel between our author’s words here and what Paul writes in Romans 4:16-17:

“For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, (as it is written, ‘A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS HAVE I MADE YOU’ [Genesis 17:5]) in the presence of Him whom he believed, even God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist.”

Some examiners conclude that the author of Hebrews, possibly writing the Roman Believers, is only reemphasizing what Paul has already told them. If this is true, then having the faith of Abraham and Isaac, and emulating Yeshua to the point of death, would have called into focus Paul’s words that God is One who can “give life to the dead.”

[20] By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau, even regarding things to come.

11:20 Continuing from the example of Abraham, the author of Hebrews prescribes “faith” to the Patriarch Isaac, testifying that “By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau and spoke of things to come” (NEB). This is all he specifies in the text concerning the faith of Isaac. We must turn to Genesis 27:27-40 to examine the prophecies of Isaac, which demonstrate his “faith”:

“So he came close and kissed him; and when he smelled the smell of his garments, he blessed him and said, ‘See, the smell of my son is like the smell of a field which the LORD has blessed; now may God give you of the dew of heaven, and of the fatness of the earth, and an abundance of grain and new wine; may peoples serve you, and nations bow down to you; be master of your brothers, And may your mother's sons bow down to you. Cursed be those who curse you, and blessed be those who bless you.’ Now it came about, as soon as Isaac had finished blessing Jacob, and Jacob had hardly gone out from the presence of Isaac his father, that Esau his brother came in from his hunting. Then he also made savory food, and brought it to his father; and he said to his father, ‘Let my father arise and eat of his son's game, that you may bless me.’ Isaac his father said to him, ‘Who are you?’ And he said, ‘I am your son, your firstborn, Esau.’ Then Isaac trembled violently, and said, ‘Who was he then that hunted game and brought it to me, so that I ate of all of it before you came, and blessed him? Yes, and he shall be blessed.’ When Esau heard the words of his father, he cried out with an exceedingly great and bitter cry, and said to his father, ‘Bless me, even me also, O my father!’ And he said, ‘Your brother came deceitfully and has taken away your blessing.’ Then he said, ‘Is he not rightly named Jacob, for he has supplanted me these two times? He took away my birthright, and behold, now he has taken away my blessing.’ And he said, ‘Have you not reserved a blessing for me?’ But Isaac replied to Esau, ‘Behold, I have made him your master, and all his relatives I have given to him as servants; and with grain and new wine I have sustained him. Now as for you then, what can I do, my son?’ Esau said to his father, ‘Do you have only one blessing, my father? Bless me, even me also, O my father.’ So Esau lifted his voice and wept. Then Isaac his father answered and said to him, ‘Behold, away from the fertility of the earth shall be your dwelling, and away from the dew of heaven from above. By your sword you shall live, and your brother you shall serve; but it shall come about when you become restless, that you will break his yoke from your neck.’”

This narrative, which is known to anyone who studies the Torah, reveals that Isaac, through his faithfulness to God, “invoked blessings for the future on Jacob and Esau” (NRSV). Although some of us may wonder how either Jacob or Esau can be blessed for their baseness, Isaac does promise both of them that they will at least be fruitful. The author of Hebrews does not focus on any of the debates about the sins of Jacob or Esau; he only states that Isaac had a great faith to see what would befall them in the future, wishing them his best. Certainly, a part of being able to look into the future is turning one’s two sons over to the will of the Lord.

[21] By faith Jacob, as he was dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, and worshiped, leaning on the top of his staff [Genesis 47:31, LXX].

11:21 The Patriarch Jacob is appropriately mentioned as one who was able to see into the future, as any good Jew of the First Century would have known the Genesis 48-49 narrative of Jacob blessing his twelve sons, and Hebrews’ non-Jewish audience would have been familiar with this as well. This is summarized for us in Genesis 47:28:-31:

“Jacob lived in the land of Egypt seventeen years; so the length of Jacob's life was one hundred and forty-seven years. When the time for Israel to die drew near, he called his son Joseph and said to him, ‘Please, if I have found favor in your sight, place now your hand under my thigh and deal with me in kindness and faithfulness. Please do not bury me in Egypt, but when I lie down with my fathers, you shall carry me out of Egypt and bury me in their burial place.’ And he said, ‘I will do as you have said.’ He said, ‘Swear to me.’ So he swore to him. Then Israel bowed in worship at the head of the bed.”

Readers need to be aware of a rather minor point, where the author of Hebrews says that Jacob “leaned on the top of his staff” (NIV). This is another subtle difference we see between the Hebrew MT and Greek LXX versions:

GENESIS 47:31 (MT)

GENESIS 47:31 (LXX)

And he said, “Swear to me.” And he swore to him. Then Israel bowed at the head of the bed (NJPS).

And he said, Swear to me; and he swore to him. And Israel did reverence, leaning on the top of his staff (LXE).

v’yomer hishav’ah li v’yishav’a lo v’yish’tachu Yisrael al-rosh ha’mittah

eipen de omoson moi kai ōmosen autō kai prosekunēsen Israēl epi to akron tēs hrabdou autou

Readers need to note the differences presented by the MT and LXX. The Hebrew MT reads with rosh ha’mittah or “head of the bed,” whereas the Greek LXX has epi to akron tēs hrabdou autou, “on the top of his staff.” These differences may come from the fact that the vowel markings for the Hebrew MT are Medieval in origin, and without them the Hebrew word for “staff,” matteh, is spelled with exactly the same consonants, mem, tet, and heh, as mittah or “bed.” The LXX follows the point of view that Jacob was leaning on his staff as he blessed his sons, and the NIV follows this reading in its rendering of Genesis 47:31:

“‘Swear to me,’ he said. Then Joseph swore to him, and Israel worshiped as he leaned on the top of his staff” (Genesis 47:31, NIV).

This is a rather subtle change that is easy for one to note. The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible comments, “Our present Hebrew vocalization (mittah) is translated as ‘bed,’ while the Greek Septuagint and the Epistle to the Hebrews follows a different vocalization (matteh), which is translated as staff.”[48] The differences we see here are quite minor. As the Archaeological Study Bible remarks, “Whether Jacob was leaning on his staff or lying on his bed is not essential to the argument in Hebrews. Citing the text in the form known to the author’s contemporary readership would not have diminished its validity but rather would have made it easier for the audience to recognize a Scriptural citation.”[49] If anyone has used v. 21 with comparison to Genesis 47:31 as a reason to discredit the reliability of Hebrews, a person does not have to go far for an adequate explanation of the differences.

What is perhaps more interesting is that while our author mentions Jacob in the overall context of him blessing his twelve sons, the specific individuals that are mentioned are “the sons of Joseph,” or Ephraim and Manasseh. Why did Jacob need faith in order to bless these two boys? Was it because they were half-Egyptian, and also sons of Asenath, daughter of the priest of On (Genesis 46:20)? Did Jacob need “faith” to bless Ephraim and Manasseh because of his adopting them as “sons,” and not treating them more as grandsons? This account is recorded in Genesis 48:9-20:

“Joseph said to his father, ‘They are my sons, whom God has given me here.’ So he said, ‘Bring them to me, please, that I may bless them.’ Now the eyes of Israel were so dim from age that he could not see. Then Joseph brought them close to him, and he kissed them and embraced them. Israel said to Joseph, ‘I never expected to see your face, and behold, God has let me see your children as well.’ Then Joseph took them from his knees, and bowed with his face to the ground. Joseph took them both, Ephraim with his right hand toward Israel's left, and Manasseh with his left hand toward Israel's right, and brought them close to him. But Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it on the head of Ephraim, who was the younger, and his left hand on Manasseh's head, crossing his hands, although Manasseh was the firstborn. He blessed Joseph, and said, ‘The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, the God who has been my shepherd all my life to this day, the angel who has redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and may my name live on in them, and the names of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and may they grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.’ When Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand on Ephraim's head, it displeased him; and he grasped his father's hand to remove it from Ephraim's head to Manasseh's head. Joseph said to his father, ‘Not so, my father, for this one is the firstborn. Place your right hand on his head.’ But his father refused and said, ‘I know, my son, I know; he also will become a people and he also will be great. However, his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his descendants shall become a multitude of nations.’ He blessed them that day, saying, ‘By you Israel will pronounce blessing, saying, “May God make you like Ephraim and Manasseh!”’ Thus he put Ephraim before Manasseh.”

The author of Hebrews does not explore any of the controversies or debates that these words from Jacob involve. All he simply says is that “It was by faith that Jacob, when he was old and dying, blessed each of Joseph's sons” (NLT). Jacob certainly needed a great faith to pronounce these profound blessings upon Ephraim and Manasseh, for any number of reasons. Hegg makes the important observation, “Jacob, the once proud and self-reliant man, was, at the end of his life, characterized as one who leaned on something or someone. The independent one had come through life’s struggles and learned to walk by faith, i.e., to depend on God.”[50] An important expression of that faith is seen in the closing chapters of Genesis when he not only blesses his twelve sons and prophesies their futures, but when he also blesses Joseph’s sons. Jacob also demonstrated a great deal of faith anticipating the Exodus of his descendants to their home country, saying, “Behold, I am about to die, but God will be with you, and bring you back to the land of your fathers” (Genesis 48:21).

[22] By faith Joseph, when he was dying, made mention of the exodus of the sons of Israel, and gave orders concerning his bones.

11:22 The last of the Patriarchal examples given by our author is Joseph. He writes, “By faith Joseph, at the end of his life, made mention of the exodus of the Israelites and gave instructions about his burial” (NRSV). This is detailed for us in Genesis 50:24-25:

“Joseph said to his brothers, ‘I am about to die, but God will surely take care of you and bring you up from this land to the land which He promised on oath to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob.’ Then Joseph made the sons of Israel swear, saying, ‘God will surely take care of you, and you shall carry my bones up from here.’”

The author of Hebrews says that by giving “instructions about what should be done with his body,” the Patriarch Joseph spoke “of the departure of the Israelites from Egypt” (Good News Bible). This is easily confirmed by Joseph saying, “I am about to die. But God will surely come to your aid and take you up out of this land to the land he promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” (NIV). Surely, in order to say this Joseph needed to have great faith in believing that the Lord would be true to His promise to deliver Israel.

Some commentators have speculated that the author of Hebrews may have had more in mind in his mentioning of Joseph in v. 22. The Pseudepigraphal Testament of Simeon records a tradition extant among some Jewish communities of the First Century connected to the burial of Joseph:

“The bones of Joseph the Egyptians kept in the tombs of the kings, since their wizards told them that at the departure of Joseph’s bones there would be darkness and gloom in the whole land and a great plague on the Egyptians, so that even with a lamp no one would recognize his brother” (8:2).[51]

This is interesting to consider, because while embalmed and buried by the Egyptians (Genesis 50:26), Joseph seems to have foreseen a time when he would be remembered again (cf. Exodus 1:8). His body’s departure from Egypt would signal great judgment upon it as a power. Surely, the emphasis upon Joseph’s “faith” is much greater when we consider this being involved with his internment.

[23] By faith Moses, when he was born, was hidden for three months by his parents, because they saw he was a beautiful child; and they were not afraid of the king's edict.

11:23 The remainder of Hebrews ch. 11 from vs. 23-38, deals with post-Partriarchal figures, beginning with Moses. V. 23 can be a little confusing, because it is not clear as to whose faith is being referred to. The author of Hebrews writes, “By faith Moses was hidden by his parents for three months after his birth, because they saw that the child was beautiful; and they were not afraid of the king's edict” (NRSV). Mōusēs or “Moses” appears in the nominative case, indicating that it should function as the subject. But was it the faith of Moses that saved him from the king’s decree—or was it the faith of Moses’ parents? Perhaps we need to examine the narrative in Exodus that will give us more clues:

“The woman conceived and bore a son; and when she saw that he was beautiful, she hid him for three months. But when she could hide him no longer, she got him a wicker basket and covered it over with tar and pitch. Then she put the child into it and set it among the reeds by the bank of the Nile” (Exodus 2:2-3).

From the Hebrew MT, Exodus 2:2-3 tells us that it was Moses’ mother who was responsible for hiding him and setting him afloat on the Nile River. In Hebrews 11:23, our author says that “his parents” were the ones who hid him. This is a noticeable difference that appears in the Greek LXX version of Exodus 2:2-3, which also includes Moses’ father[52] as being a participant:

“And she conceived, and bore a male child; and having seen that he was fair, they hid him three months. And when they could no longer hide him, his mother took for him an ark, and besmeared it with bitumen, and cast the child into it, and put it in the ooze by the river” (LXE).

We should all be familiar with the severity of Pharaoh’s decree that all newborn males among the Hebrews in Egypt be killed:

“[A]nd he said, ‘When you are helping the Hebrew women to give birth and see them upon the birthstool, if it is a son, then you shall put him to death; but if it is a daughter, then she shall live.’…Then Pharaoh commanded all his people, saying, ‘Every son who is born you are to cast into the Nile, and every daughter you are to keep alive’” (Exodus 1:16, 22).

In spite of this decree, the author of Hebrews says that Moses’ parents did allow him to be killed, “because they saw that he was no ordinary child” (NIV). This may be a reflection from the Jewish philosopher Philo’s teaching on Moses:

“Accordingly as the child Moses, as soon as he was born, displayed a more beautiful and noble form than usual, his parents resolved, as far as was in their power, to disregard the proclamations of the tyrant. Accordingly they say that for three months continuously they kept him at home, feeding him on milk, without its coming to the knowledge of the multitude” (Life of Moses 1.9).[53]

V. 23, while being the first in a series of verses detailing the life of Moses (vs. 23-28), while mentioning Moses, really emphasizes the faith of Moses’ parents in them recognizing God’s chosen servant in their son. It was by the faith of Moses’ parents that he was saved from death, and ultimately able to deliver the Israelites from their slavery into freedom. V. 23 would thus concern the presence of faith surrounding Moses as an infant, demonstrated by the proper actions of his parents.

[24] By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, [25] choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, [26] considering the reproach of Messiah greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward.

11:24 Vs. 24-26 describe the faith of Moses, but in a rather unique way compared to what one might first expect. While we later hear about the Passover and parting of the Red Sea (vs. 28-29), our author has more to say about Moses being a prince of Egypt.

The author of Hebrews starts out by saying that “It was faith that made Moses, when he had grown up, refuse to be called the son of the king's daughter” (Good News Bible). What he more correctly says is that Moses “having become great” (YLT) refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter. The Greek megas genomenos literally means “became great,” and is employed in the LXX version of Exodus 2:11. The Hebrew of Exodus 2:11 is similar:

EXODUS 2:11 (MT)

EXODUS 2:11 (LXX)

Now it came about in those days, when Moses had grown up, that he went out to his brethren and looked on their hard labors; and he saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his brethren.

And it came to pass in that length of time, that Moses having grown, went out to his brethren the sons of Israel: and having noticed their distress, he sees an Egyptian smiting a certain Hebrew of his brethren the children of Israel (LXE).

v’yehi b’yamim ha’heim v’yigdal Mosheh v’yeitzei el-echayv v’ya’re b’siv’lotam v’ya’re ish Mitzri makeh ish-Ivri m’echavyv

egeneto de en tais hēmerais tais pollais ekeinais megas genomenos Mōusēs exēlthen pros tous adelphous autou tous huoius Israēl katanoēsas de ton ponon autōn hora anthrōpon Aiguption tuptonta tina Ebraion tōn heautou adelphōn tōn huiōn Israēl

The Hebrew of Exodus 2:11 reads with the verb gadal, appearing in the Qal stem (simple action, active voice). It can mean “to grow (up), to become strong,” “to be great,” “to become great, wealthy,” and “to be great, important” (HALOT).[54] The LXX rendering of megas genomenos for yigdal is justified—but what does it mean for Moses “having grown” (LXE). Is this only a reference to Moses having become an adult? Or, is it also a reference to Moses having acquired significant status in the court of Pharaoh?

David H. Stern makes the important observation, “Jewish tradition maintains that as the adopted child of Pharaoh’s daughter he may…have been in line for the throne.”[55] This is likely reflected in Stephen’s defense before the Sanhedrin, where he attests “Moses was educated in all the learning of the Egyptians, and he was a man of power in words and deeds” (Acts 7:22). Philo says that Pharaoh’s daughter desired male offspring, to inherit at least some of her father’s wealth and power:

“Now the king of the country had an only daughter, whom he tenderly loved, and they say that she, although she had been married a long time, had never had any children, and therefore, as was natural, was very desirous of children, and especially of male offspring, which should succeed to the noble inheritance of her father's prosperity and imperial authority, which was otherwise in danger of being lost, since the king had no other grandsons” (Life of Moses 1.13).[56]

Refusing “to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter” would have by no means been an easy task. It is probable that writing to a large Diaspora Jewish population, our author is alluding to some important traditions reflected in Philo that describe Moses in the court of Pharaoh. He would have been surrounded by unbelievable power and wealth, as well as corruption. In spite of this, though, some of the extant First Century traditions that Philo alludes to, hold Moses as a pristine member of Egyptian royalty:

“But Moses, having now reached the very highest point of human good fortune, and being looked upon as the grandson of this mighty king, and being almost considered in the expectations of all men as the future inheritor of his grandfather's kingdom, and being always addressed as the young prince, still felt a desire for and admiration of the education of his kinsmen and ancestors, considering all the things which were thought good among those who had adopted him as spurious, even though they might, in consequence of the present state of affairs, have a brilliant appearance; and those things which were thought good by his natural parents, even though they might be for a short time somewhat obscure, at all events akin to himself and genuine good things….For, as he had abandoned the chief authority in Egypt, which he might have had as the grandson of the reigning king, on account of the iniquities which were being perpetrated in that country, and by reason of his nobleness of soul and of the greatness of his spirit, and the natural detestation of wickedness, scorning and rejecting all the hopes which he might have conceived from those who had adopted him, it seemed good to the Ruler and Governor of the universe to recompense him with the sovereign authority over a more populous and more powerful nation, which he was about to take to himself out of all other nations and to consecrate to the priesthood, that it might for ever offer up prayers for the whole universal race of mankind, for the sake of averting evil from them and procuring them a participation in blessings” (Life of Moses 1.32, 148).

How “honorable” or even “pure” Moses actually was when he lived in the court of Pharaoh is difficult for any of us to determine. While later becoming the man who would lead the Ancient Israelites out of bondage, prior to his discovering his true identity as a Hebrew, he surely worshipped Egyptian gods in the Egyptian temples, and possibly had numerous affairs with Egyptian women. Moses was still a human like anyone else, and he no doubt committed sins. As an important member of the Egyptian court, he likely performed many great deeds and indeed “became great.” What is interesting is that Moses did this on his own accord, rather than on the accord of being considered Pharaoh’s grandson.

11:25 While Moses was a great prince of Egypt, there was still something inside of him that enabled him to recognize that he was not “of them,” and this is likely the reason why he did not want to be known as “the son of Pharaoh’s daughter.” When the right time came, Moses recognized that he was a Hebrew and acted accordingly. The decisive action he took was to kill the Egyptian mistreating the Hebrew slaves (Exodus 2:11-12). In spite of his being a prince of Egypt, who if approached about the Egyptian’s death could probably have gotten away with it, Moses recognized that he did something quite severe. It was the catalyst God used to have him recognize himself as a Hebrew. At such a point, Moses chose “to suffer hardship with the people of God rather than enjoy the transient pleasures of sin” (NEB). When the proper time came, he left the sinful life of the Egyptians to go into the desert and begin the difficult transition from prince to prophet.

By the world’s standards, Moses gave up a great deal to begin a new life that was beset with nothing but hardship, a stubborn and complaining people, and the necessity to constantly intercede on behalf of the people before God. This is why our author writes, “he considered reproach for the sake of the Messiah to be greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, since his attention was on the reward” (v. 26, HCSB).

11:26 The reference we see in v. 26 to “the treasures of Egypt”—something that Moses gave up with—can be viewed in any number of important ways. Using wealth as a means of independence from God is something spoken against in the Tanach (Psalm 49:6; 52:7; Ezekiel 28:5). Moses himself would later admonish the Israelites, “In the wilderness He fed you manna which your fathers did not know, that He might humble you and that He might test you, to do good for you in the end. Otherwise, you may say in your heart, ‘My power and the strength of my hand made me this wealth’” (Deuteronomy 8:16-17). Furthermore, as a member of Egyptian royalty, Moses would have been very wealthy. It should be worthwhile to note the thousands of pounds of gold that were discovered in King Tutankhamen’s (“King Tut”) tomb—and he was a relatively minor king of Egypt. Had Moses stayed in his position, he may have been given much more. deSilva summarizes all of these ideas quite well, stating,

“What is central to the author’s depiction of Moses’ faith is his renunciation of a place of honor in the world’s eyes and his choice of solidarity with the people of God even if such association brought a radical loss of worldly status and any potential for advancement.”[57]

To a far lesser degree, this would not only have been true of Moses, but anyone in Hebrews’ First Century audience who had given up a prominent position or business to follow the Lord. When the example of Moses is considered, it is because “he was looking to the reward,” something that was beyond his life on Earth.

The reason that our author gives for Moses not seeking after the treasures and power of Egypt is most interesting. He actually writes that Moses “considered abuse suffered for the Christ greater wealth” (RSV). How could Moses have considered the hardships he endured, to actually be experienced on behalf of Yeshua the Messiah—especially considering that the Messiah had not yet arrived on the scene of history? The main answer to this question lies not in the life of Moses, but in how the writer of Hebrews chooses to examine the life of Moses.

Moses, living at least twelve centuries prior to the First Coming of Yeshua, had an incomplete understanding of His work. But, the author of Hebrews cements that what Moses did in delivering Israel foreshadowed the work of Yeshua, and Moses’ actions performed were as though they were performed directly for Yeshua. Yeshua Himself notably attested that Moses “wrote about Me” (John 5:46). This is certainly true as Moses refers to a Star coming out of Jacob (Numbers 24:17-19), and a future Prophet like himself coming to Israel (Deuteronomy 18:15, 18-19). Morris summarizes how for the author of Hebrews, “He saw Christ to be the same yesterday as he is today (13:8); so it is much more probable that he thought of him as identified with Israel in OT times (cf. 1 Cor 10:4)….When Moses suffered, he suffered with Christ—the same Christ whom the writer is encouraging his readers to identify with.”[58]

[27] By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured, as seeing Him who is unseen. [28] By faith he kept the Passover and the sprinkling of the blood, so that he who destroyed the firstborn would not touch them.

11:27 Continuing his comments about Moses, our writer says that “By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the king's anger; he persevered because he saw him who is invisible” (NIV). The flight from Egypt referred to here is Moses’ escape to Midian at age 40 after he killed the Egyptian:

“Now it came about in those days, when Moses had grown up, that he went out to his brethren and looked on their hard labors; and he saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his brethren. So he looked this way and that, and when he saw there was no one around, he struck down the Egyptian and hid him in the sand. He went out the next day, and behold, two Hebrews were fighting with each other; and he said to the offender, ‘Why are you striking your companion?’ But he said, ‘Who made you a prince or a judge over us? Are you intending to kill me as you killed the Egyptian?’ Then Moses was afraid and said, ‘Surely the matter has become known.’ When Pharaoh heard of this matter, he tried to kill Moses. But Moses fled from the presence of Pharaoh and settled in the land of Midian, and he sat down by a well” (Exodus 2:11-15).

This same event is repeated in Stephen’s defense before the Sanhedrin, and nicely parallels what the author of Hebrews is saying:

“But when he was approaching the age of forty, it entered his mind to visit his brethren, the sons of Israel. And when he saw one of them being treated unjustly, he defended him and took vengeance for the oppressed by striking down the Egyptian. And he supposed that his brethren understood that God was granting them deliverance through him, but they did not understand. On the following day he appeared to them as they were fighting together, and he tried to reconcile them in peace, saying, ‘Men, you are brethren, why do you injure one another?’ But the one who was injuring his neighbor pushed him away, saying, “WHO MADE YOU A RULER AND JUDGE OVER US? YOU DO NOT MEAN TO KILL ME AS YOU KILLED THE EGYPTIAN YESTERDAY, DO YOU? [Exodus 2:13-14]’ At this remark, MOSES FLED AND BECAME AN ALIEN IN THE LAND OF MIDIAN [Exodus 2:15], where he became the father of two sons” (Acts 7:23-29).

For whatever reason, when Moses killed the Egyptian, the Pharaoh was enraged. Moses did not try to make any kind of excuse for his action, which someone in high power would have been expected to do. Moses’ life was sought by Pharaoh probably not for killing an Egyptian civil servant—but for the reason he killed. But Moses, because he had awakened to who he was as a Hebrew, did not fear the human anger of Pharaoh. Instead, by faith, he persevered and was able to see “the invisible God” (Good News Bible).

In referring to the “unseen” or the “invisible,” the author of Hebrews employs some common First Century Jewish terminology that is used to refer to God. The Apostle Paul refers to God as being “invisible” in several of his letters:

“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).

“He [Yeshua] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation” (Colossians 1:15).

“Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen” (1 Timothy 1:17).

Our author’s usage of “invisible” to refer to God reveals him, and the Apostle Paul as well, to be among the well-trained of First Century Jewish society. Lane comments, “God is never described in the LXX as [ho aoratos], ‘the invisible One.’ In educated circles in Judaism and early Christianity, however, the adjective [aoratos], ‘invisible,’ was broadly applied to God as one of his attributes.”[59] Any speculation as to the author of Hebrews being the Alexandrian Apollos is well-founded from facts like these. Christologically, of course, the linkage of v. 27, with Moses having the invisible God—and Yeshua being the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15)—cannot go unnoticed. With our author having previously stated how Moses actually suffered on behalf of the Messiah (v. 26), the pre-existence of Yeshua can probably be inferred from these statements.

11:28 Connected to Moses’ having the Invisible God reveal Himself to him, “It was faith that made him establish the Passover and order the blood to be sprinkled on the doors” (Good News Bible). The whole establishment of Passover is given in Exodus 12:1-30, and all Bible readers should astutely know how the Passover sacrifice is connected to the sacrifice of Yeshua.[60] However, there is a slight controversy over what our author says in v. 28 about the Passover and the “sprinkling of blood.” There is debate because earlier in Hebrews, our writer refers to the sprinkling of blood in connection with the Yom Kippur sacrifice (9:7). How are we to interpret his words about Moses instituting Passover and sprinkling blood?

We do know that “blood” was involved with the commemoration of the first Passover. God commanded, “Moreover, they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and on the lintel of the houses in which they eat it” (Exodus 12:7). The issue as it relates to Hebrews 11:28 is whether or not our author is making a link beyond Passover to the Day of Atonement. The Apostle Paul, for example, considered Yeshua’s sacrifice at Golgotha (Calvary) to fulfill the requirement of the Passover (1 Corinthians 5:7). The author of Hebrews further considers this sacrifice to fulfill the requirement of Yom Kippur (ch. 9). While in v. 28 his emphasis is clearly on the establishment of Passover, by using “sprinkling of the blood” instead of “putting” or “spreading the blood,” our author may be linking Yeshua’s Passover sacrifice to the Yom Kippur offering in a very subtle way. Hegg points out, “it may well be that he does not want to detract from the parallels he has already made between Yeshua and Yom Kippur.”[61]

In view of v. 28 specifically, it is best that we view the author’s reference to “sprinkling of the blood” to the Passover. Ellingworth concurs, “in the present verse the reference is to dipping a bunch of hyssop…in blood and smearing or sprinkling it around the doors of the Israelites’ houses, Ex. 12:22. The preceding [kai, ‘and’] marks a very strong link, almost ‘with’…since the blood was that of the Passover sacrifice and an essential condition for the Lord ‘passing over’ the Israelite families.”[62]

[29] By faith they passed through the Red Sea as though they were passing through dry land; and the Egyptians, when they attempted it, were drowned.

11:29 The faith of Moses is now actually transferred to the faith of the Israelites as they saw the mighty acts of God and the deliverance through the Red Sea (Exodus 14-15). The Amplified Bible renders v. 29 as, “[Urged on] by faith the people crossed the Red Sea as [though] on dry land, but when the Egyptians tried to do the same thing they were swallowed up [by the sea].” Even though the Ancient Israelites doubted the leadership of Moses a great deal of the time and complained, apparently they had enough faith believing in God when they were delivered through the Red Sea. It surely makes one wonder how much this generation would regret rebelling against Moses, being foolish to give up the Promised Land. In a similar way, people giving up Yeshua among Hebrews’ audience gave up much more than the Promised Land—they gave up being a part of God’s restored humanity. This indicates that while faith is something that someone must have, it can be easily dispensed with. The key is to hold on to it with all of one’s being!

[30] By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they had been encircled for seven days.

11:30 The remainder of our author’s examples of faith are all post-Exodus (vs. 30-38), with the first being the faith of the Israelites when the city of Jericho was conquered (Joshua 2, 6). He says, “It was by faith that the people of Israel marched around Jericho for seven days, and the walls came crashing down” (NLT). deSilva makes the important comment, “Trusting in the promise of God, Joshua’s troops spent seven days marching around the city—truly an exercise in stupidity to the disbeliever. Yet, the person who trusts God’s promise obeys him and honors his commands even if ‘common sense’ says that this is no way to win a battle.”[63] This scene is recorded in Joshua 6:9-11:

“The armed men went before the priests who blew the trumpets, and the rear guard came after the ark, while they continued to blow the trumpets. But Joshua commanded the people, saying, ‘You shall not shout nor let your voice be heard nor let a word proceed out of your mouth, until the day I tell you, “Shout!” Then you shall shout!’ So he had the ark of the LORD taken around the city, circling it once; then they came into the camp and spent the night in the camp.”

Not surprisingly, the faith of the Israelites and God’s defeat of Jericho would be a battle cry to many others, as we see when Judas conquers the city of Gilead during the Maccabean era:

“But Judas and his men, calling upon the great Sovereign of the world, who without battering-rams or engines of war overthrew Jericho in the days of Joshua, rushed furiously upon the walls. They took the city by the will of God, and slaughtered untold numbers, so that the adjoining lake, a quarter of a mile wide, appeared to be running over with blood” (2 Maccabees 12:15-16).

Hopefully, at this point in our author’s treatise, those thinking about giving up on Yeshua are seeing the need to have faith in Him, and are being reassured that they can endure through His power—especially when those who came before them were able to endure.

[31] By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish along with those who were disobedient, after she had welcomed the spies in peace.

11:31 In v. 31, the author of Hebrews actually references not only the second woman among “the elders” (v. 2), but a non-Israelite. He says, “It was faith that kept the prostitute Rahab from being killed with those who disobeyed God, for she gave the Israelite spies a friendly welcome” (Good News Bible). We know from Joshua that Rahab acknowledged the God of Israel as the True God, hearing of His acts performed in Egypt—requiring a great deal of faith on her part:

“I know that the LORD has given you the land, and that the terror of you has fallen on us, and that all the inhabitants of the land have melted away before you. For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red Sea before you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites who were beyond the Jordan, to Sihon and Og, whom you utterly destroyed. When we heard it, our hearts melted and no courage remained in any man any longer because of you; for the LORD your God, He is God in heaven above and on earth beneath” (Joshua 2:9-11).

Some Jewish traditions hold that Rahab married Joshua and mothered eight priests (b.Megillah 14b), but whether or not this actually happened can never be known. What can be known is that a non-Israelite woman—and a prostitute at that—could become such a woman of faith. James the Just cites Rahab as an example of one justified by her works (James 2:25), and here in v. 31 we see Rahab lauded for her faith. Clement of Rome possibly builds upon our author’s words, referencing Rahab as the ideal example of hospitality:

“On account of her faith and hospitality, Rahab the harlot was saved. For when spies were sent by Joshua, the son of Nun, to Jericho, the king of the country ascertained that they were come to spy out their land, and sent men to seize them, in order that, when taken, they might be put to death. But the hospitable Rahab receiving them, concealed them on the roof of her house under some stalks of flax” (1 Clement12).[64]

Perhaps the key in understanding Rahab as an example of faith is that she “received the spies in peace” (YLT, NRSV). Rahab wished shalom or total harmony upon the Israelite spies, and for this reason was spared by God. She did not simply extend good tidings to them as a common greeting to save herself, but was sincerely concerned about their well being.

[32] And what more shall I say? For time will fail me if I tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets, [33] who by faith conquered kingdoms, performed acts of righteousness, obtained promises, shut the mouths of lions, [34] quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from weakness were made strong, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight.

11:32 Vs. 32-34 have a great deal of information to summarize on the importance of faith. The author of Hebrews is quite candid when he says, “I do not have time” (NIV), and then quickly names off a list of important figures in the history of Israel. Our writer makes usage of important rhetorical devices by commenting, “Why should I say more?” (Lattimore). Lane indicates, “The transition from one version of the exemplary list to another is achieved with a rhetorical question…This is a common homiletical and literary idiom for indicating that time and space are limited.”[65]

It is at this point in Hebrews ch. 11 that our author makes a distinct shift from the Torah and Book of Joshua, to the histories of the Tanach. Although the Torah has frequently been given a very high status in Judaism, either of the First Century or today, it is not to be given this status at the expense of the Prophets and Writings. The author of Hebrews assumes that most of his audience knows enough about these figures to realize how important they were and the contributions they have made for people regarding “faith.” But how many of us as Messianic Believers have focused so much on the Torah at times, that we forget the histories of the Tanach? While our overall comprehension of the Apostolic Scriptures today is in need of help, our understanding of the Prophets and Writings may need even more serious help.

Gideon is the first of the figures listed in v. 32 who is to be noted for his faith, whose story is largely seen in Judges chs. 4-8. Gideon pleaded to the Lord about the oppression of the Midianites against Israel. Gideon was greatly concerned about the infection of idolatry into sectors of Israel, and wondered, “‘Did not the LORD bring us up from Egypt?’ But now the LORD has abandoned us and given us into the hand of Midian” (Judges 6:13). Gideon was nicknamed “Jerub-Baal,” meaning “Let Baal contend with him” (Judges 6:31, NIV), as he helped smash down Asherah poles and altars to Baal in Israel. Against a much larger force, the Lord delivered the Midianites into Gideon’s hand with a company of only three-hundred (Judges 7:7; 8:4). The ultimate result of this was that “the land was undisturbed for forty years in the days of Gideon” (Judges 8:28). Gideon, while perhaps doubting the Lord at first, nevertheless obeyed Him, and by his faith is shown to be one whom God favored throughout his life.

The second figure listed in v. 32 is Barak, a Naphtalite who is told by Deborah to take ten thousand down Mount Tabor to defeat the chariots of Sisera (Judges 4:4-7). Judges 4:14-16 records, “Barak went down from Mount Tabor with ten thousand men following him. The LORD routed Sisera and all his chariots and all his army with the edge of the sword before Barak; and Sisera alighted from his chariot and fled away on foot. But Barak pursued the chariots and the army as far as Harosheth-hagoyim, and all the army of Sisera fell by the edge of the sword; not even one was left.” While Barak was very hesitant to follow Deborah’s command, first saying “If you go with me, I will go; but if you don’t go with me, I won’t go” (Judges 4:8, NIV), he nevertheless obeyed and Israel’s enemies were defeated. Judges 5 in its entirety is a song of victory about the defeat of Sisera’s chariots, the result being “the land was undisturbed for forty years” (Judges 5:31). This is another example of how obedience to God, even if one is hesitant, will bring His favor.

The third name listed in v. 32 is Samson, whose story is told in Judges chs. 13-16. Although Samson did act according to the flesh on more than a few occasions, he is largely remembered as one who was empowered by the Spirit of God (Judges 13:24; 14:6, 19). Judges 15:14 specifically tells us, “When he came to Lehi, the Philistines shouted as they met him. And the Spirit of the LORD came upon him mightily so that the ropes that were on his arms were as flax that is burned with fire, and his bonds dropped from his hands.” He was known for great strength and whose victories over the Philistines came as God’s gift (Judges 15:18; cf. 16:17, 28).

The fourth figure listed in v. 32 is Jephthah, who was a great warrior of Gilead written about in Judges 10:6-11:32. He was fiercely devoted to the God of Israel, and believed that the Lord would demonstrate the same strength against the Ammonites that He did against the Egyptians. He is listed in 1 Samuel 12:11 as providing safety for Ancient Israel: “Then the LORD sent Jerubbaal and Bedan and Jephthah and Samuel, and delivered you from the hands of your enemies all around, so that you lived in security.”

The last two characters specified in v. 32 would not be unfamiliar to any good First Century Jew or non-Jew associated with the Synagogue, even if he or she had a nominal understanding of the Tanach Scriptures: David and Samuel.

11:33 Readers can safely assume that the following descriptions of v. 33 largely apply to the previously mentioned David and Samuel, from v. 32, “who through faith conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, received promises” (RSV). We have ample testimony from the Tanach that King David conquered kingdoms (2 Samuel 5:6-25; 8:1-14; 10:1-19; 12:26-31). In fact, the kingdom that his son Solomon inherited from him stretched “from the River to the land of the Philistines and to the border of Egypt” (1 Kings 4:21). It is also notable that among the prophets Samuel is the only one mentioned by name or is mentioned first, a practice that extends throughout the Bible (Acts 3:24; 13:20; cf. Psalm 99:6; Jeremiah 15:1). He is accredited with administering justice or God’s righteous acts (1 Samuel 12:3-5), something also performed by King David (2 Samuel 8:15). All of the characters listed in v. 32 “obtained [God’s] promises” to one degree or another, likely referring to the circumstances of rest experienced in the Promised Land (Joshua 23:14; 24:8-13; 1 Kings 5:4; 2 Chronicles 20:30).

11:34 Moving on from here, vs. 33b-34 mention a series of miraculous occurrences, but do not mention any specific names. The author of Hebrews summarizes that, by faith, certain individuals “stopped the mouths of lions, quenched raging fire, escaped the edge of the sword, won strength out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight” (RSV). Shutting the mouths of lions is a likely reference to the Prophet Daniel spared from the lions’ den (Daniel 6). Daniel’s companions Shadrach, Meshach, and Abendego were saved from the fiery furnace (Daniel 3). Numerous figures escaped the sword, including: David (1 Samuel 17:45-49), Elijah (1 Kings 19:2-18; 2 Kings 1), Elisha (2 Kings 6:31), and Jeremiah (Jeremiah 26:7-24; 36:19, 26). Likewise, numerous figures also received strength, including: Samson (Judges 16:21-30), Hannah (1 Samuel 1), and Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:6-10). The last two descriptions of “They became strong in battle and put whole armies to flight” (NLT), is likely a summarization of what has already been listed, in addition to many more miraculous deeds that would have been too numerous for our author to list.

Taking a brief pause from what has been mentioned, how would Hebrews’ original audience have handled this listing of Israel’s greats? Would they have realized that any difficult times, they were facing for the sake of Yeshua, were no different than anything that those who had gone before them had experienced? Would they have the faith to endure?

[35] Women received back their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better resurrection; [36] and others experienced mockings and scourgings, yes, also chains and imprisonment. [37] They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were tempted, they were put to death with the sword; they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill-treated [38] (men of whom the world was not worthy), wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and holes in the ground.

11:35 Vs. 35-38 finish our author’s motif of the great examples of faith that he wanted his audience to remember. These references, as seen previously in vs. 33-34, are general. They likely include both Biblical and extra-Biblical figures in Israel’s history that Hebrews’ First Century audience would have been familiar with. Modern readers need to pay careful attention to these things, as they may not be as familiar with them.

The author of Hebrews first references “Women received back their dead, raised to life again” (NIV). While not specifying any particular woman or group of women who received their dead, we can make several valid assumptions. The first possible reference is to the widow of Zaraphath, who had her son returned to her by the work of the Prophet Elijah (1 Kings 17:17-24). The second possible reference is to the widow at Nain, whose dead son Yeshua raised to life (Luke 7:11-17). The third possible reference is to Yeshua’s raising of Lazarus, whose sisters informed Him of his death (John 11:1-44). Note that women receiving back their dead may not just be a passing remark concerning figures in the Tanach, but for Hebrews’ audience a statement made for them to consider the more-recent powerful acts of the Messiah.

The second reference our writer makes is, “Others were tortured, refusing to accept release, in order to obtain a better resurrection” (NRSV). Most commentators are agreed that the author of Hebrews is referring to the Maccabean martyrs who fought against the Seleucid oppression of the Land of Israel. Their service is detailed in the Apocrypha in the Books of 1, 2, 3, and 4 Maccabees. 2 Maccabees 6:11 specifically tells us, “Others who had assembled in the caves near by, to observe the seventh day secretly, were betrayed to Philip and were all burned together, because their piety kept them from defending themselves, in view of their regard for that most holy day.” Many of them were so dedicated to God that they would not violate the rituals of Shabbat, things that even Orthodox Jews today would violate in order to save their lives. The story of the seven brothers in 2 Maccabees ch. 7, in particular, records how each one of them expected to be resurrected. The first brother is recorded as telling his captors, “You accursed wretch, you dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life, because we have died for his laws” (2 Maccabees 7:9). Yeshua the Messiah, of course, upheld the Pharisaic doctrine of resurrection in His teachings (Mark 12:26).

Our author makes these comments about martyrdom and resurrection because some in his audience could soon face death because of their beliefs in Yeshua.

11:36 In v. 36, the author of Hebrews writes how “Others suffered mocking and scourging, and even chains and imprisonment” (RSV). While not specified, this is probably referring to the Prophet Jeremiah who first suffered mockings and scourgings (Jeremiah 20:2, 7-8), and then was later put in prison (Jeremiah 37:15-16). In v. 37 our author first states that “Some died by stoning” (NLT), which is most probably a reference to the death of the Prophet Zechariah (2 Chronicles 24:21).

11:37 Our writer comments about is how these previous figures “were sawn in two.” This is a likely reference to the traditional death of the Prophet Isaiah. The Talmud testifies to Isaiah being sawn in two:

“‘I know’, thought Isaiah, ‘that whatever I may tell him he will not accept; and should I reply at all, I would only cause him to be a wilful [homicide]’. He thereupon pronounced [the Divine] Name and was swallowed up by a cedar. The cedar, however, was brought and sawn asunder. When the saw reached his mouth he died. [And this was his penalty] for having said, ‘And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips’” (b.Yevamot 49b; cf. b.Sanhedrin 103b).[66]

The death of Isaiah by being sawn in two is also recorded in the Second Century B.C.E. Pseudepigraphal work Martyrdom of Isaiah:

“Because of these visions, therefore, Beliear was angry with Isaiah, and he dwelt in the heart of Manasseh, and he sawed Isaiah in half with a wood saw. And while Isaiah was being sawed in half, his accuser, Belkira, stood by, and all the false prophets stood by, laughing and (maliciously) joyful because of Isaiah” (5:1-2).[67]

The last series of descriptions, given by our author in v. 37, is likely another reference to the Maccabees. He speaks of those who “went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, ill-treated…wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and holes in the ground” (vs. 37b, 38b). This is summarized well in 2 Maccabees 5:27, which tells us, “But Judas Maccabeus, with about nine others, got away to the wilderness, and kept himself and his companions alive in the mountains as wild animals do; they continued to live on what grew wild, so that they might not share in the defilement.” Interestingly enough, Clement urged the Believers in Rome in the late First Century to emulate this example. He writes, “Let us be imitators also of those who in goat-skins and sheep-skins went about proclaiming the coming of Christ” (1 Clement 17:1),[68] and then references the Prophet Elijah as one to follow.

11:38 Coming to the end of seeing all of these great examples of faith, our writer makes the candid remark that “humanity was not worthy of them” (WBC).[69] The term axios “pert. to having a relatively high degree of comparable worth or value, corresponding, comparable, worthy” (BDAG).[70] In view of what these figures endured, “the world didn't deserve them!” (The Message). Ellingworth makes the important point, “[kosmos] is used here, not neutrally of the universe or the world as God’s creation…but of the world and everything in it as opposed to God.”[71] These men and women had complete trust and confidence in the God of the Universe to be true to His promises, and they were true to Him even if it cost them their lives. They stood against the evil tides of the world that came against them, and through their faith, prevailed.

V. 37 specifically references many of the persecutions that the late First and early Second Century Believers would all endure at the hands of the Roman Empire, so it was by no coincidence that the author of Hebrews writes his audience about it. While early on in ch. 11 he refers to familiar characters like Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses, and the great deeds that God performed through them, he also must refer to the terrible things that have occurred to the faithful. He wants his audience to be encouraged to believe and have faith in Yeshua, substantiating his thoughts with examples of spiritual triumph. But, he also shows his audience the hard truth that followers of the God of Israel have had to endure persecution and death. If any among his audience were to eventually face persecution for believing in Yeshua, what they would have to experience was not unlike what others have had to experience before them. The author of Hebrews was urging his audience not to make a mistake, and overlook those who had gone before them.

[39] And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, [40] because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.

11:39 Our writer’s comments on the importance of faith end with his summarization that these men and women, regardless of the circumstances they faced, “were all commended” (NIV). In spite of their great faith, though, he observes, “yet none of them received all that God had promised” (NLT). The reason that our author says this is because it is “only in company with us should they reach their perfection” (NEB). This is his statement that only faith in the Messiah, be it the Messiah who has come—or the Messiah who was coming—will bring ultimate perfection. This perfection not only includes the resurrection from the dead (v. 35), but inclusion in the Messiah’s Kingdom itself, fully manifested after His Second Coming. It is notable that the promises that God gave to the figures of the Tanach, more commonly referred to as the “Old Testament saints,” are the same promises that Believers in Yeshua today are to experience. God, having a single people, has a single plan for their corporate redemption. Lane validly remarks,

“In Hebrews the concept of perfection, as related to the believing community, consistently has in view the totality of Christ’s ministry on their behalf, in his death and heavenly exaltation. His high priestly work secures for them in the present unrestricted access to God, which fulfills the promises of the new covenant…This advantage, in turn, is the pledge of their ultimate transfer to the actual presence of God in the heavenly sanctuary.”[72]

11:40 Throughout Hebrews ch. 11, we see that our writer holds all of the great figures of the Tanach in very high esteem. However, he does clearly state, “God had foreseen something better for us” (RSV). The greatest fulfillment of anything that the saints of the Tanach could portray for us is seen in God’s Son, Yeshua. Yeshua Himself says, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?” (John 11:25-26). Only the Messiah, God in the flesh, could have said this. Neither Abraham nor Moses nor David could have said this—only Yeshua. In fact, the consummation of the age is spoken of in v. 40, as the author references how, “apart from us they would not be made perfect,” a definite reference to the future resurrection and complete perfection of the entire, corporate company of redeemed—when the God’s people from all ages can finally be brought together and they can all enter into the Messianic Kingdom (cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:17).

It took great faith, though, for an Abraham or a Moses or a David or your average Israelite or Jew to believe in a Messiah to come who would redeem them. It is by that faith that we can consider the Patriarchs and Matriarchs “saved.” But consider this: they had to have faith in Someone who was coming. From the arrival of Yeshua until today, we only have to believe that He did come. How much more difficult was it for those who preceded Yeshua to believe in Him, versus those who came after Him? Do you not think that those who reject Yeshua after Him will face far greater consequences than those who rejected the idea of a Redeemer to come before Him?

deSilva makes some very poignant observations by stating, “They,” Hebrews’ audience, “are closer to the goal than any of the exemplars of faith ever were, and they have seen the means whereby God brings the promise to its ultimate fulfillment. Their gratitude and loyalty should be all the greater since God has given them a special place in the fulfillment of his promise to all the people of faith.”[73] deSilva asks the additional question, “Will they, at the very end of the relay race,” now knowing about the Redeemer, “drop the baton that has been passed to them in plain sight of the many who have already run the race so well and honorably?”[74] Certainly, if faith brought spiritual victory to those living before Yeshua’s arrival—how much more will faith bring victory to those living after His arrival?

ENDNOTES FOR Commentary on Hebrews 11

[1] Evans, 191.

[2] Bruce, Hebrews, 276.

[3] Guthrie, Hebrews, 226.

[4] Lane, 47b:315.

[5] Lane, 47b:317.

[6] Guthrie, Hebrews, 226.

[7] Bruce, Hebrews, 278.

[8] Lane, 47b:317.

[9] BDAG, 617.

[10] Hagner, in New Interpreter’s Study Bible, 2165.

[11] LS, 717.

[12] Ellingworth, 568.

[13] Lane, 47b:332.

[14] deSilva, 386.

[15] Lane, 47b:316.

[16] E.P Sanders, “Testament of Abraham,” trans., in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol 1, 900.

[17] O.S. Wintermute, “Jubilees,” trans., in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol 2, 62.

[18] E. Isaac, “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” trans., in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol 1, 50.

[19] The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged, 412.

[20] Ibid., 665.

[21] BDAG, 407.

[22] Morris, in EXP, 12:116.

[23] Ellingworth, 579.

[24] The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Libronix Digital Library System 1.0d: Church History Collection.

[25] Ibid.

[26] BDAG, 779.

[27] Ellingworth, 583.

[28] Hegg, Hebrews, 207.

[29] The Soncino Talmud. Judaic Classics Library II.

[30] Morris, in EXP, 12:118.

[31] Bruce, Hebrews, 296.

[32] Metzger, 672.

[33] Bruce, Hebrews, 296 fn#104; Lane, 47b:344-345 fn#k.

[34] Lane, 47b:354.

[35] W. Grundmann, “to be able,” in TDNT, 191.

[36] Keener, 675.

[37] Morris, in EXP, 12:121.

[38] BDAG, 388.

[39] CGEDNT, 118.

[40] Bruce, Hebrews, 305 fn#153.

[41] The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged, 43.

[42] The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Libronix Digital Library System 1.0d: Church History Collection.

[43] Lane, 47b:360.

[44] Ibid., 343.

[45] Bruce, Hebrews, 304.

[46] It cannot go overlooked in the ISR Scriptures (1998), commonly used among Sacred Name Only advocates in the independent Messianic movement, Hebrews 11:17, 19 reads, “By belief, Aḇraham, when he was tried, offered up Yitsḥaq, and he who had received the promises offered up his only brought-forth son… reckoning that Elohim was able to raise, even from the dead, from which he received him back, as a type.” One teaching based on this rendering can be quoted as saying, “The text is clear. He was offered, and then raised back to life by Elohim [God].”

There are several problems with this view, two of which are only solved by an examination of Greek verbs. V. 17 includes two usages of the verb prospherō, “to present, offer, give” (LS, 699). Its first usage, pertaining to Abraham having “offered up Isaac,” is prosenēnochen, appearing in the perfect active indicative tense, describing an action that has already taken place: “had offered.” Those who are totally unacquainted with the Isaac narrative in Genesis could conclude that Abraham actually offered him up as a sacrifice. However, the second rendering of “offered,” appearing in ISR, KJV, and NKJV is unjustified. The Greek verb form prosepheren in v. 17b appears in the imperfect active indicative tense. While describing a past action, that past action is not “offered,” but is more accurately “was offering” (LITV, HCSB), being imperfect. This is also rendered as “was ready to offer up” (RSV, NRSV), “was about to sacrifice” (NIV), and “was in the act of offering” (ESV).

Abraham “offered” up Isaac; but this was an action that took place in his mind—not in the physical world—as Abraham was resolved to sacrifice his son. V. 17b tells us that he was only in the process of killing him. The command from God was, “Do not lay a hand on the boy…Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son” (Genesis 22:12, NIV). While Isaac’s participation in this event prefigures Yeshua’s death and resurrection for us, the connection is typological; Issac did not die as a part of this “rehearsal.” Only “a ram caught in the thicket by his horns” (Genesis 22:13) was killed at this event.

[47] Ellingworth, 604.

[48] Zodhiates, Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, 72.

[49] Archaeological Study Bible, 1995.

[50] Hegg, Hebrews, 214.

[51] Kee, “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol 1, pp 787-788.

[52] There is a temptation to consider Moses’ parents to be Amram and Jochebed as detailed in Exodus 6:20: “Amram married his father's sister Jochebed, and she bore him Aaron and Moses; and the length of Amram's life was one hundred and thirty-seven years.” However, as K.A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament (Madison, WI: InterVarsity, 1966), pp 54-55 legitimately summarizes,

“Exodus 6:16-20 is not a full genealogy, but only gives the tribe (Levi), clan (Kohath) and family-group (Amran by Jochebed) to which Moses and Aaron belonged, and not their actual parents (also not named in Exodus 2). The Amramites are shown as being already numerous at the Exodus (cf. Nu. 3:27,28), so Amran must be considered as having lived much earlier….The statement that ‘Jochebed bore to (Amram) Aaron and Moses’ in Exodus 6:20 does not prove immediate descent: in Genesis 46:16-18, the children that Zilpah ‘bore’ to Jacob include great-grandsons.”

Cf. Walter C. Kaiser, The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable and Relevant? (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001), 70.

[53] The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged, 460.

[54] HALOT, 1:179.

[55] Stern, 712.

[56] The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged, 460.

[57] deSilva, 406.

[58] Morris, in EXP, 12:126.

[59] Lane, 47b:375.

Lane further indicates that “Philo, for example, uses [aoratos] more than a hundred times.”

[60] Consult the author’s article “The Last Sedar and Yeshua’s Passover Chronology.”

[61] Hegg, Hebrews, 218.

[62] Ellingworth, pp 617-618.

[63] deSilva, 415.

[64] The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Libronix Digital Library System 1.0d: Church History Collection.

[65] Lane, 47b:382.

[66] The Soncino Talmud. Judaic Classics Library II.

[67] M.A. Knibb, “Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah,” trans., in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol 2, 163.

[68] The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Libronix Digital Library System 1.0d: Church History Collection.

[69] Lane, 47b:380.

[70] BDAG, 93.

[71] Ellingworth, 632.

[72] Lane, 47b:393.

[73] deSilva, 424.

[74] Ibid.

HEBREWS 12

COMMENTARY

[1] Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, [2] fixing our eyes on Yeshua, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. [3] For consider Him who has endured such hostility by sinners against Himself, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.

12:1 Ch. 12 shifts the scene, from speaking of figures from Israel’s past, to our author now discussing his audience’s present experience. The author of Hebrews will be exhorting his readers and listeners on the theme of discipline, and will ask them to consider the sufferings of Yeshua on their behalf. William L. Lane makes the important point, “The Greek text exhibits elegant, genuinely oratorical word order, sonorous instances of effective word play, the use of alliteration, and carefully balanced clauses…These stylistic and linguistic features display a concern for rhetorical effect…The result is lively and animated discourse.”[1] As you will likely see, there is a great deal of material that readers get to consider in these short 29 verses.

Hebrews’ audience is first admonished, “we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses” (NIV). It is notable that our writer does not employ the term nephelē, often referring to a single “cloud,” but instead nephos, “a cloud, mass or pile of clouds” (LS),[2] which is synonymous to “host” (WBC).[3] Lane states, “The metaphorical use of the word [nephos], ‘cloud,’ to describe a crowded group of people is a common classical figure.”[4]

The cloud of witnesses may be compared to spectators in the stands at an athletic competition. This group of witnesses composes “testifiers” of God’s power and work in the lives of His people, and how their example of faith should surround those seeking to be faithful. There may be some parallels between what is seen in ch. 12 about Believers in Yeshua being admonished to endure on the path of faith, and the example of the Maccabean martyrs in 4 Maccabees 17:10-24, which may be summarized as, “Truly the contest in which they were engaged was divine, for on that day virtue gave the awards and tested them for their endurance. The prize was immortality in endless life…The tyrant was the antagonist, and the world and the human race were the spectators…The tyrant himself and all his council marveled at their endurance, because of which they now stand before the divine throne and live through blessed eternity” (4 Maccabees 17:11-12, 14, 17-18).

Concerning these verses from 4 Maccabees, F.F. Bruce makes the poignant remark, “there are several echoes in the present context of our epistle. The martyrs contend in a context in which the pagan king is their antagonist; and true religion wins the victory by their endurance; the universe and the whole race of mankind are the spectators, while Virtue occupies the president’s box. The prize with which the martyrs are crowned is eternal life.”[5] This is not only the basic story of the Maccabean martyrs, but also of many who have had to endure persecution, and even death, for the faith.

Considering the testimony of those who have gone on, our author can then tell his audience, “we must throw off every encumbrance, every sin to which we cling, and run with resolution the race for which we are entered” (NEB). A few examiners have suggested that he is actually telling First Century Jewish Believers to throw away a life of Torah obedience, but if this were the case, then why would he likewise possibly be referring to 4 Maccabees—anything but an anti-Torah text? David A. deSilva points out that 4 Maccabees “promotes an ongoing commitment to Jewish values…by claiming that Torah is the best teacher of the virtues prized even by the Greco-Roman world.”[6] If the author of Hebrews is appropriating these ideas, then he uses them in the context of describing, to primarily a Jewish, but also a non-Jewish, audience, the critical need to endure with God because the world is watching.

Using an athletic theme as his frame of reference, our writer says to throw off every “weight” (KJV, RSV). The Greek ogkos simply means “bulk, size, mass,” but could also refer “metaph. [to] weight, trouble” (LS).[7] As an athlete trained for a marathon in ancient times, he would make sure that he would shed any excess weight that would impede proper performance. Leon Morris indicates, “Athletes carried nothing with them in a race…and the writer is suggesting that the Christian should ‘travel light.’”[8] Spiritually, Believers are admonished to remove what The Message paraphrases as “spiritual fat.” This would require Messiah followers, being trained up in Him, to remove superfluous things that hinder their ability to compete in the race of life. Take important note of the fact that the author of Hebrews links the pronoun “we” to his readers; he is competing along with them in this race and does not remove himself from the training.

As Messianic Believers, each of us has had to shed things as we have adopted new things. We have adopted things with which we were not raised. Jewish people who have come to faith in Yeshua have certainly changed their lives, by virtue of the fact that they recognize Him as the Messiah and accept the testimony of Him as true. Many have had to work beyond, and are still working beyond, prejudices that they grew up with toward Christianity. Likewise, many non-Jews in the Messianic movement have had to work beyond stereotypes about Judaism and the Jewish people, as well as recognize the limitations of their different Christian backgrounds. I believe that if we can recognize one another as fellow members of the Body of Messiah, and keep Him as our focus, that we will be miraculously empowered to perform God’s work in the world.

But how many of us forget to remain fit? How many of us forget the fact that the training never ends? Every good baseball player goes to batting practice every day, and every good basketball player shoots hoops every day as well. Any military officer is engaged with the battle plans and histories of previous wars, so should a war ever come, he is prepared for action. Anyone in any field of work has to watch his or her physical and mental condition, so the important decisions can be made without any second thoughts when they come.

It is notable that a few, in our Messianic faith community, might consider the allusion by our author to athletic contests to be full of “Hellenistic paganism.” Historically, it is true that there were often pagan rituals involved in Greek games, and many of the athletes even competed naked (1 Maccabees 1:10-15). However, to assert that our author is appealing to these practices is a bit much, as he only uses the concept of a race in a general sense to appeal to the human experience. Appealing to athletic competition also appears to be common throughout Diaspora Judaism of the First Century. Lane informs us, “The frequency with which it occurs in hellenistic-Jewish sources, especially Philo and 4 Maccabees, suggests that it was a commonplace in synagogue preaching throughout the Greek-speaking Diaspora.”[9] In fact, the allusion to athletic contexts similar to what we see in the Roman world are made several times in the Midrashim:

“VOICE OF THY BROTHERS BLOOD CRIETH UNTO ME FROM THE GROUND. R. Judan, R. Huna, and the Rabbis each commented. R. Judan said: It is not written, ‘Thy brother's blood’ (dam-singular), but ‘Thy brother's bloods’ (deme-plural): i.e. his blood and the blood of his descendants. R. Huna observed: It is not written, ‘Surely I have seen yesterday the blood (dam) of Naboth, and the blood (dam) of his sons,’ but, ‘Surely I have seen yesterday the bloods (deme) of Naboth, and the bloods (deme) of his sons’ (II Kings IX, 26), which means, his blood and the blood of his descendants. The Rabbis said: It is not written, ‘His own servants conspired against him for the blood (dam) of the sons of Jehoiada,’ but,...‘For the bloods of (deme) the sons of Johoiada’ (II Chron. XXIV, 25), namely, his blood and the blood of his descendants. R. Simeon b. Yohai said: It is difficult to say this thing, and the mouth cannot utter it plainly. Think of two athletes wrestling before the king; had the king wished, he could have separated them. But he did not so desire, and one overcame the other and killed him, he [the victim] crying out [before he died], ‘Let my cause be pleaded before the king!’ Even so, THE VOICE OF THY BROTHER'S BLOOD CRIES OUT AGAINST ME. It [the blood] could not ascend above, because the soul had not yet ascended thither; nor could it go below, because no man had yet been buried there; hence the blood lay spattered on the trees and the stones” (Genesis Rabbah 22:9).[10]

“[F]or the wealth I had, how could I have built all this country for my glory?’—for it says, The king spoke and said: Is not this great Babylon, etc.  (ib.27). ‘Now if I squander all my wealth, there will be no glory left me.’ So he locked his coffers. When he said this, a voice from heaven answered him, as it says, While the word was in the king's mouth, there fell a voice from heaven (ib. 28). What enabled him to dwell securely for twelve months? Charity. Well, if this is what it does for the wicked, then how much more does it do for Israel? Hence ’ Keep ye justice and do righteousness’ (Isa. LVI, 1). It is like a man who came to a city where he heard that a gladiatorial exhibition was about to be held.’ He asked a gladiator, ‘When will the show take place?’ He replied: ‘It is far off yet.’ Then he asked the one who was to give the show and he replied: ‘Soon.’ He then said: ‘Did I not ask the gladiator this, yet he said, “It is far off”?’ He replied: ‘Is this your sense, to ask the gladiator? Is he then anxious for me to stage the gladiatorial exhibition, knowing as he does that he may be slain when he descends into the arena?’ Similarly, when Israel asked Balaam: ‘When will salvation come?’ He replied: ‘I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not nigh’  (Num. XXIV, 17). Said the Holy One, blessed be He, to them’” (Exodus Rabbah 30:24).[11]

Both of these quotations should reveal that the author of Hebrews did not go beyond Jewish cultural norms of the broad First Century. Competition is a theme that anyone should be able to easily identify with.

What is most important for readers to keep in mind is what the “race” of life actually involves. The Greek term employed in v. 1 is agōn, which is “gener. a struggle against opposition, struggle, fight” (BDAG).[12] It is by no coincidence that this is the root for our English word “agony,” because the life of faith is often something that involves pain. It is difficult to separate our author’s usage of agōn as “race” from the varied usages that Paul employs, including: “conflict” (Philippians 1:30), “struggle” (Colossians 2:1), “opposition” (1 Thessalonians 2:2), and “fight” (1 Timothy 6:12; 2 Timothy 4:7). deSilva observes that a theme being emphasized in the “race” metaphor is that “a person willingly chose to endure physical discomfort, to submit to the reproaches of a trainer, to curb luxury, and to turn aside from many delights enjoyed by the nonathlete or the fully participating member of the dominant culture.”[13] The same should be easily said of anyone who chooses to follow Yeshua the Messiah. The call to “run with perseverance” (NIV) is common throughout the Apostolic Scriptures,[14] and those who run the marathon of faith must continually see that they are able to perform well.

12:2 V. 2 begins with the words aphorōntes eis, “looking (in)to,” as the author of Hebrews places a high priority on this audience focusing their attention upon Yeshua. Donald Guthrie says that it “implies a definite looking away from others and directing one’s gaze towards Jesus. It suggests the impossibility of looking in two directions at once.”[15] Understanding Yeshua the Messiah as the center of faith is a theme that can never be overstated. Tim Hegg makes the valid point, “The word translated ‘fixing our eyes’ or ‘looking’ is a present participle, emphasizing that this is a constant action, not something done once. Our constant attention and focus as we run is upon Yeshua.”[16] Do we as Messianics ever make the mistake of taking our attention off Yeshua? If any of today’s evangelical Christians have been guilty of not fully looking to the example of Jesus and His Lordship to guide their lives, then it is safe to say that various Messianic people have placed other things at the center of their faith, from time to time.

The need to always look to God is a theme that is present all the way at the beginning of Genesis, but in v. 2 is probably influenced by the example of the Maccabean martyrs. They looked to God and endured tortures to the point of death:

“O mother, who with your seven sons nullified the violence of the tyrant, frustrated his evil designs, and showed the courage of your faith!...Here lie buried an aged priest and an aged woman and seven sons, because of the violence of the tyrant who wished to destroy the way of life of the Hebrews…Eleazar was the first contestant, the mother of the seven sons entered the competition, and the brothers contended” (4 Maccabees 17:2, 9, 13).

This fits very well with our author’s description of Yeshua as “the pioneer” (NRSV) or “the founder” (ESV) of faith, “who, for the sake of the joy that lay ahead of him, endured the cross, making light of its disgrace, and has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God” (NEB). Yeshua, as the Leader and as the example His followers are to emulate, endured the hardships that His experiences on Earth dealt Him—to the point of dying on a Roman cross. Now He has been exalted at the right hand of His Father in Heaven. But Yeshua is not only the example for those who live after His death and resurrection; He is the example par excellence even for people who endured hardships before His First Coming. As Bruce observes, “Our author’s answer might well be that they did not really go before him; he went before them as truly as he has gone before us,”[17] notably as it was “Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt” (Jude 5, ESV).[18]

Yeshua the Messiah, in His humanity, is the perfect embodiment of faith that His followers are to emulate when they face difficult circumstances. He is represented by the author of Hebrews as the teleiōtēs, “one who brings someth. to a successful conclusion, perfecter” (BDAG).[19] Partaking of the human experience, Warren A. Quanbeck points out that He “needed the utmost of courage and stamina for his strenuous ministry. He has broken the trail for us, and he also enables us to follow his path. His mission in life required great personal effort. He needed motivation, even as we do. His motivation was the joy of doing God’s will.”[20] As our author has already stated, “Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—I have come to do your will, O God’” (10:7, NIV; cf. Psalm 40:7-8). Such obedience to the Father not only involved keeping His Law, but most notably being humiliated and unjustly executed.

Keep in mind how to the Romans, the cross (Grk. stauros) was a sign of great shame. The Senator Cicero would write, “Let the very mention of the cross be far removed not only from a Roman citizen’s body, but from his mind, his eyes, his ears” (Pro Rabirio 5).[21] Yeshua the Messiah died as though He were a common criminal, and endured something that was considered to be a complete curse to almost all outsiders. deSilva notes, “The form of execution called crucifixion was calculated to leave the victim utterly stripped of dignity and worth in the eyes of the world. It was the vilest, most degrading death possible, as the crucified was hung up before all the world precisely as an example of how not to act.”[22]

It boggles the human mind how such suffering and death can be considered a joy, yet Yeshua as the example emulated joy in His sufferings. He prayed, “these things I speak in the world so that they may have My joy made full in themselves” (John 17:13). After being crucified and resurrected, He was exalted to the right hand of His Father, a theme our author has already touched (1:3; 8:1; 10:12). Yeshua promises to share His authority with those who endure on Earth and overcome life’s temptations, as He promised the assembly at Laodicea, “He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne” (Revelation 3:21). Paul Ellingworth summarizes it quite well: “the author wishes to end his period with an emphatic affirmation of the permanent triumph of Christ, and thus perhaps by implication of the permanent effects of that triumph for believers.”[23]

12:3 The author of Hebrews asks his audience, some of whom may be teetering on denying the Lord, “Think of all the hostility he endured from sinful people; then you won't become weary and give up” (NLT). The implications of the verb analogizomai are severe, as it can mean “to reckon up, sum up” or “to calculate, consider” (LS).[24] He is, in essence, asking his audience to calculate the cost of believing in Yeshua, wanting them to understand that the momentary loss of comfort, status, or even rights on Earth is far outweighed by the future rewards they will experience in glory. Again, the theme of present suffering being outweighed by future restoration in God’s Kingdom is a common one seen throughout the Apostolic Scriptures.[25] Yeshua endured unbelievable suffering for fallen humanity, most of which only a few of Hebrews’ audience had to even partially experience. Yeshua’s tenacity in enduring hardships is the perfect embodiment of Isaiah 40:28-31:

“Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth does not become weary or tired. His understanding is inscrutable. He gives strength to the weary, and to him who lacks might He increases power. Though youths grow weary and tired, and vigorous young men stumble badly, yet those who wait for the LORD will gain new strength; they will mount up with wings like eagles, they will run and not get tired, they will walk and not become weary.”

While Yeshua the Messiah is represented as Divine as depicted in the Epistle to the Hebrews (1:3-4, 6, 8-11), we need not limit our approach of the Messiah to exclusively this. While Yeshua is God, He is also the ultimate human being, being the example for redeemed men and women to follow. If we are able to truly count the cost of believing in Him, He will share His authority as the reigning King with us.

[4] You have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood in your striving against sin; [5] and you have forgotten the exhortation which is addressed to you as sons, “MY SON, DO NOT REGARD LIGHTLY THE DISCIPLINE OF THE LORD, NOR FAINT WHEN YOU ARE REPROVED BY HIM; [6] FOR THOSE WHOM THE LORD LOVES HE DISCIPLINES, AND HE SCOURGES EVERY SON WHOM HE RECEIVES” [Proverbs 3:11-12].

12:4 In describing the spiritual condition of much of his audience, the author of Hebrews observes, “In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood” (RSV). It is possible that “sin” here should be understood as “sinners,” as Yeshua previously in v. 3 contended with “sinners.” This would make “sin” out to be more a force than an ideology that the audience was confronting. However, a critical part of this letter, which readers need not forget, is the fact that its audience is relatively spiritually immature (5:12-6:2), so it is probably best to understand “sin” as a reference to both sinners to contend with and the power of sin that can be present. Either way, we do not get the full impression that too many in Hebrews’ audience had to really die for their faith. But, it was a coming reality that our writer is preparing them for.

Commentators such as Lane view v. 4 as essentially or figuratively saying, “You have not done your utmost.”[26] He compares it to the sport of boxing, which “was the supreme test of the pentathlon, and bloody wounds were commonplace.”[27] This is important to consider, because shedding blood need not always be a reference to death, but equally so need not disclude the possibility of death. Ellingworth indicates, “it is fair to assume that the author and his readers know of [Believers] elsewhere who have died for their faith.”[28] Any way it is approached, our writer’s reference to “shedding blood” is most definitely a way of saying, “You have yet to experience any real physical pain.” Experiencing physical or bodily harm for the faith as a theme is seen in the Books of Maccabees in the Apocrypha:

“So, committing the decision to the Creator of the world and exhorting his men to fight nobly to the death for the laws, temple, city, country, and commonwealth, he pitched his camp near Modein” (2 Maccabees 13:14).

“Here lie buried an aged priest and an aged woman and seven sons, because of the violence of the tyrant who wished to destroy the way of life of the Hebrews. They vindicated their nation, looking to God and enduring torture even to death” (4 Maccabees 17:9-10).

It may be our author’s wish that his mainly Jewish audience remember the martyrdoms of those who have preceded them. Dying for the ways of God is now extended to including dying or enduring physical harm for the sake of the gospel of salvation.

Some people in Hebrews’ audience were in danger of giving up their belief in Yeshua, for any number of reasons. In ch. 12 our author addresses the concerns of those who may have to experience pain for the Messiah. Some may have believed that giving up on Yeshua would have been easier for them than enduring some momentary pain. These words speak true not only in the First Century, but to anyone thinking of reneging on the Lord. Louis H. Evans, Jr., a Presbyterian, astutely remarks, “His severe warnings to his readers of the possibility of apostasy unnerve us who have been raised in a Calvinistic theology.”[29] To those who think that personal salvation cannot be willfully given up by an individual, our author writes some severe words, which Arminians or Wesleyans generally have had an easier time understanding. (How we develop a distinct Messianic point of view on this will be something fascinating for us to embark upon.)

12:5-6 While readers may see some disturbing statements here, the author of Hebrews actually demonstrates some hope toward his audience. He writes, “You have forgotten the exhortation which addresses you as sons” (REB), and proceeds to say that what they are presently experiencing comes directly from God. Not only is this discipline from God—but it is actually an example of His Divine love.[30] Substantiating this, he quotes from Proverbs 3:11-12, primarily in its Septuagint version. You will notice that the differences between the Hebrew MT and Greek LXX are not substantial, but are notable:

PROVERBS 3:11-12 (MT)

PROVERBS 3:11-12 (LXX)

My son, do not reject the discipline of the LORD or loathe His reproof, for whom the LORD loves He reproves, even as a father corrects the son in whom he delights.

My son, despise not the chastening of the Lord; nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: for whom the Lord loves, he rebukes, and scourges every son whom he receives (LXE).

musar ADONAI b’nei al-tim’as v’al-taqotz b’tokach’to. ki-et asher ye’ehav ADONAI yokiach u’k’av et-ben yirtzeh

huie mē oligōrei paideias Kuriou mēde ekluou hup’ autou elegchomenos hon gar agapa Kurios paideui mastigoi de panta huion hon paradechetai

In the first part of the v. 12, the Hebrew MT says ye’ehav ADONAI yokiach, “For whom the LORD loves, He rebukes” (NJPS). The Greek LXX renders this as hon gar agapta Kurios paideui, “for whom the Lord loves, he rebukes” (LXE). The difference is in the second half of v. 12. The Hebrew MT reads with u’k’av et-ben yirtzeh, “As a father the son whom he favors” (NJPS). The Greek LXX differs from this, as it reads mastigoi de panta huion hon paradechetai, “and scourges every son whom he receives” (LXE). This reading is what passes into Hebrews 12:5b-6:

“My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor be weary when reproved by him. For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives” (ESV).

This same reading from the Greek LXX is used by Philo in a similar context to the author of Hebrews:

“And it is from this consideration, as it appears to me that one of the disciples of Moses, by name the peaceful, who in his native language is called Solomon, says, ‘My son, neglect not the instruction of God, and be not grieved when thou art reproved by him; for whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.’ [Proverbs iii. 11.] Thus, then, scourging and reproof are looked upon as good, so that by means of it agreement and relationship with God arise. For what can be more nearly related than a son is to his father, and a father to his son?” (On the Preliminary Studies 177).[31]

The emphasis we see in Hebrews, and interestingly enough also in Philo, from the LXX reading of Proverbs 3:11-12, is not that the Lord does not love His children. Rather, by disciplining His children and also giving them necessary scourgings, it should lead to good behavior. This is what the author of Hebrews urges his audience to understand in light of their present difficulties—and what we, by extension, need to more understand should we ever face hardship today.

[7] It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? [8] But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. [9] Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? [10] For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness.

12:7 The reason that our writer gives, for the discipline that his audience experiences, is that “your suffering shows that God is treating you as his children” (Good News Bible). The term that he uses for either “discipline” or “chastening” (NKJV) is paideia, which our author likely uses with some Maccabean influence. In this case, “Correction may take the form of direction as well as chastisement. In rabbinic statements chastisement presupposes guilt. Those on whom it falls should scrutinize their actions or ascribe it to neglect of the law” (TDNT).[32] In Hebrews, discipline by God is extended beyond disobedience to His commandments, and now includes people disregarding the message of the gospel. Ellingworth makes some important further remarks on how imperative paideia is to understanding our author’s message:

“[Paideia and paideuō] are characteristic of the OT wisdom literature, especially Proverbs and Sirach; but the idea of discipline through suffering runs, for example, through the book of Judges…In Hebrews, as in Proverbs, [paideia] is explicitly seen as including unpleasant elements; indeed, the theme is introduced because the readers are experiencing the pain of persecution.”[33]

The theme that our writer is building upon is God disciplining His people, as any father or mother would naturally discipline their own children. The proper rearing of children is a principal part of the Torah, known to anyone who reads or hears it:

“And when your children say to you, ‘What does this rite mean to you?’…And it shall be when your son asks you in time to come, saying, ‘What is this?’ then you shall say to him, “With a powerful hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt, from the house of slavery”’” (Exodus 12:26; 13:14).

“You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up” (Deuteronomy 6:7).

Parents are commanded in Exodus to tell their children about the significance of the Passover meal and how it represents God’s deliverance. Likewise given is the command to “impress” (NJPS), “recite” (NIV), or “repeat” (HCSB) the commands of God to one’s children in daily affairs. But even though these regulations are given in the Torah, and were no doubt followed by many in Hebrews’ audience, there are some serious limitations to consider. deSilva makes the important conclusion that “the discipline of earthly parents…is sometimes on the mark, and sometimes off the mark. Training under earthly parents is also short-lived. The expression that it lasts ‘for a few days’ may suggest the incompleteness of this preparation.”[34]

12:8 It is likely from this point of view that our author asserts, “If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons” (RSV). The Book of Proverbs asserts several times that the reason God’s people are disciplined is because of love,[35] specified previously by our writer in vs. 5-6. With this in mind, if one is not disciplined during the time of his or her faith experience, then is it valid to ask whether or not someone is a true Believer? We actually see a ray of hope in our author’s treatise in v. 8, because he tells his audience that if they have not experienced some kind of discipline or chastening from the Lord, then they are not His. In spite of some on the verge of denying the Lord, they will experience His discipline and it will result in a good many of them not forsaking Him.

A person who does not receive the discipline or rebuke of the Lord is described as a nothos, “a bastard, baseborn child,” one who is “spurious, counterfeit, supposititious” (LS).[36] A person who does not receive any kind of chastening from the Lord is, in no uncertain terms, a “bastard” (KJV) or “mamzer” (CJB). This can present a great dilemma for many in the Body of Messiah, because what are we to consider of a person who claims to believe in Yeshua, yet never experiences any kind of difficulty, spiritual discipline, or submits to any kind of spiritual training? Bruce actually renders v. 8 as, “if you have no part in the discipline which is shared by all, then you are bastards and not trueborn sons” (NICNT).[37]

I do think we need to each be very careful in our estimation of what supernatural “discipline” is from God, lest we ourselves think that because if we are not persecuted today as Believers and experience physical pain, that we are not “saved.” The Lord can discipline us in many different ways, not withstanding physical harm. All we need to experience is the removal of His shalom or total peace and harmony from our lives, and we can be disciplined by Him. Likewise, the Lord can discipline us by instilling in us critical values and skills that we may need for His service. To a degree, discipline does not need to be a negative thing. Military officers or enlisted personnel in training are strictly disciplined, even if they follow orders to the letter. They experience a disciplined regimen of life so that they can perform their duties well.

12:9 In v. 9 the author of Hebrews introduces another qal v’chomer, a “light and heavy” argument, which would have been known in the Greco-Roman world as a fortiori. He states how more important it is that his listeners obey God than their human parents, writing, “we paid due respect to the earthly fathers who disciplined us” (NEB). Some examiners feel that these words were directed less to Hebrews’ Jewish audience, and instead were primarily written to non-Jews hearing Hebrews’ message. Morris indicates, “we should not read back modern permissive attitudes into our understanding of this passage. The Roman father possessed absolute authority. When a child was born, he decided whether to keep or discard it. Throughout its life he could punish it as he chose. He could even execute his son and, while this was rarely done, the right to do it was there.”[38] Using this as an historical frame of reference, our writer is not leaving out any non-Jews from his audience, emphasizing that God as Father has the right to discipline His children, even though He will not discard then.

Through the discipline of the Lord, His children “should…submit…readily to our spiritual Father, and so attain life” (NEB). The author of Hebrews uses an interesting description in v. 9, referring to God as tō patri tōn pneumatōn, “the Father of Spirits.” A.M. Stibbs notes this as “a reference to God as the Creator of the human spirit,”[39] to be contrasted against the “fathers of our flesh” (KJV). We see similar terminology used a few places in the Tanach and Apocrypha:

“But they fell on their faces and said, ‘O God, God of the spirits of all flesh, when one man sins, will You be angry with the entire congregation?’” (Numbers 16:22).

“Let the Lord God of spirits and of all flesh look out for a man over this congregation” (Numbers 27:16, LXE).

“But when he arrived at the treasury with his bodyguard, then and there the Sovereign of spirits and of all authority caused so great a manifestation that all who had been so bold as to accompany him were astounded by the power of God, and became faint with terror” (2 Maccabees 3:24).

12:10 Our author’s reference to God as “the Father of spirits” could be so that his audience can transition from seeing that the Lord is primarily concerned about the discipline of their spirituality, which should then result in proper conduct in the world reflecting upon Him. He first reflects on the inability for human parents to fully do this, remarking, “our earthly fathers disciplined us for a few years, doing the best they knew how” (NLT). However, “God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness” (NIV). The Lord disciplines and trains His children so that they might be set-apart unto Him, and empowered to perform His tasks in the world—the key thrust of the Torah.

One of the most difficult things to understand is, that if God’s children are to “be partakers of his holiness” (KJV), that being holy, or separated, is not an instantaneous process. Consider that when Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch, Luke records that they “were strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying, ‘Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God’” (Acts 14:22). The advantage with God being the Father, versus a human parent, is that whereas any training and discipline from a human father or mother is temporary, God’s discipline is always present. As Lane remarks, “The clear implication is that it is impossible to share in God’s holiness apart from the correction administered through disciplinary sufferings…The concept of correction through discipline is thus related to the formation of godly character.”[40]

When we receive Yeshua into our lives, the Lord begins a great work in us, but it obviously has a way to go. Bruce explains it very well: “the holiness mentioned here is…the goal for which God is preparing his people—that entire sanctification which is consummated in their manifestation with Christ in glory.”[41] One day our Earthly journey is going to end, and if we have been continuing in our relationship with the Lord, submitting to His Instruction and obeying Him, demonstrating godly works in the world, the ultimate end of partaking in His holiness is that we “will see Him just as He is” (1 John 3:2).

[11] All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness.

12:11 It is very true that “Discipline, to be sure, is never pleasant” (REB). This is a concept paralleled from both the Apostles Peter and Paul:

“Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening to you; but to the degree that you share the sufferings of Messiah, keep on rejoicing, so that also at the revelation of His glory you may rejoice with exultation. If you are reviled for the name of Messiah, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you” (1 Peter 4:12-14).

“For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison, while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal” (2 Corinthians 4:17-18).

Many of us do not enjoy the spiritual discipline that the Lord has had to give us. This is true of any generation, be it prior to Hebrews’ composition, during, or after it. But it is something that all of us must endure. The result of God’s discipline is that “in the end it yields for those who have been trained by it the peaceful harvest of an honest life” (NEB). Interestingly enough, the verb gumnazō can mean “to train naked” (LS).[42] While in an exclusively Hellenistic context the verb relates to how athletes would often train without any clothing, I find it interesting that our author uses this verb to describing God’s “training” of His children. Consider that when God disciplines His people, we can literally be “stripped naked” in front of Him, just as Adam and Eve were when they ate the forbidden fruit. God knows what our human sins are, no matter how hard we may try to hide them from Him. This fits nicely with our author’s previous statement that the Word of God causes “everything [to lie] naked and exposed to the eyes of the One with whom we have to reckon” (4:13, NEB). When He trains us, we can definitely be stripped down, only later to find that His desire is that we be clothed in white robes washed in the blood of Yeshua (Revelation 7:14).

Enduring the discipline of God is something that is very important. The Apostle Paul writes the Thessalonicans that they endured persecution so that they could be an example for other Believers to emulate:

“[K]nowing, brethren beloved by God, His choice of you; for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction; just as you know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake. You also became imitators of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much tribulation with the joy of the Holy Spirit, so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia” (1 Thessalonians 1:4-7).

The Talmud records how “R. Akiba observed, ‘Suffering is precious’” (b.Sanhedrin 101a).[43] This is because obedience to God is thought to bring healing to a person, whereas disobedience is to bring pain. The remedy for one being in pain is clearly obedience, and then God can offer healing:

“R. Abba said to Rabbah b. Mari: it is written, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians, for I am the Lord that healeth thee. But since He hath brought no [disease], what need is there of a cure?-He replied: Thus hath R. Johanan said: This verse is self-explanatory, because the whole reads, and he said, if thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God: thus, if thou wilt hearken, I will not bring [disease upon thee], but if thou wilt not, I will; yet even so, I am the Lord that healeth thee” (b.Sanhedrin 101a).[44]

Another theme that the author of Hebrews is likely considering in v. 11 is the fact that many in his audience would likely face martyrdom for their beliefs in Yeshua. The Apocryphal text Wisdom of Solomon records how God will reward those who die for Him by being given dominion over the nations:

“Having been disciplined a little, they will receive great good, because God tested them and found them worthy of himself; like gold in the furnace he tried them, and like a sacrificial burnt offering he accepted them. In the time of their visitation they will shine forth, and will run like sparks through the stubble. They will govern nations and rule over peoples, and the Lord will reign over them for ever” (Wisdom 3:5-8).

We see a similar message in Yeshua’s words to the assembly at Thyatira:

“Nevertheless what you have, hold fast until I come. He who overcomes, and he who keeps My deeds until the end, TO HIM I WILL GIVE AUTHORITY OVER THE NATIONS [Psalm 2:8-9]” (Revelation 2:25-26).

The discipline of the Lord is frequently not something that is enjoyed. But, the discipline of the Lord is to mold His people into having proper character, and will also enable them to receive great rewards in the hereafter.

[12] Therefore, strengthen the hands that are weak and the knees that are feeble, [13] and make straight paths for your feet, so that the limb which is lame may not be put out of joint, but rather be healed.

12:12 In v. 12 we see a fairly common description of those who slack off, and who are in desperate need of acquiring strength. The author of Hebrews admonishes his audience to “strengthen your tired hands and weakened knees” (HCSB). This is likely his own rewording of Isaiah 35:3, where restored Israel is told, “Strengthen weak hands and give support to failing knees” (ATS).[45] This theme is present in a selection of notable Tanach passages that discourage spiritual and/or physical laxness, as demonstrated by the chart below:

HEBREWS 12:12

PARALLEL TANACH VERSES

Therefore, strengthen your feeble arms and weak knees (NIV; cf. Isaiah 35:3).

Therefore all hands will fall limp, and every man's heart will melt (Isaiah 13:7).

Because of the noise of the galloping hoofs of his stallions, the tumult of his chariots, and the rumbling of his wheels, the fathers have not turned back for their children, because of the limpness of their hands (Jeremiah 47:3).

The king of Babylon has heard the report about them, and his hands hang limp; distress has gripped him, agony like a woman in childbirth (Jeremiah 50:43).

All hands will hang limp and all knees will become like water (Ezekiel 7:17).

And when they say to you, “Why do you groan?” you shall say, “Because of the news that is coming; and every heart will melt, all hands will be feeble, every spirit will faint and all knees will be weak as water. Behold, it comes and it will happen,” declares the Lord GOD (Ezekiel 21:7).

In that day it will be said to Jerusalem: “Do not be afraid, O Zion; do not let your hands fall limp” (Zephaniah 3:16).

The theme of a person needing to be strengthened, in regard to his or her position to God, is common throughout the Tanach. Sirach 25:23 in the Apocrypha adds, “A dejected mind, a gloomy face, and a wounded heart are caused by an evil wife. Drooping hands and weak knees are caused by the wife who does not make her husband happy.” This sentiment could have been known by many in Hebrews’ audience—and should have been heeded if a man or woman had an unbelieving spouse. Furthermore, Philo compares the spiritually weak and inept person to the one who could not have endured the wilderness during the Exodus, and who thinks that returning to Egypt is his best option:

“[A]nd then he tempted him.’ [Exodus xv. 23.] For the invisible trial and proofs of the soul are in laboring and in enduring bitterness; for then it is hard to know which way it will incline; for many men are very speedily fatigued and fall away, thinking labor a terrible adversary, and they let their hands fall out of weakness, like tired wrestlers, determining to return to Egypt to the indulgence of their passions” (On the Preliminary Studies 164).[46]

12:13 The scene of vs. 12-13 is given with the backdrop of a wearied athlete who is out of shape, out of his or her game, and in desperate need of physical discipline. The audience our author is writing to needed to remember the race in which they were to compete, and make certain steps forward. He tells them, “make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be dislocated, but healed instead” (HCSB). They needed to put one foot in front of the other in the marathon of faith, so that they did not slip and become seriously injured. The Message has an interesting paraphrase of v. 13: “Clear the path for long-distance runners so no one will trip and fall, so no one will step in a hole and sprain an ankle. Help each other out.”

While our writer uses athletic imagery to admonish his audience to spiritually change, there is some debate about who the “lame” in v. 12 are to be considered. Stibbs remarks, “The lame were possibly those halting between Christianity and Judaism,”[47] concluding that those who were tripping on the race of faith were those looking behind them at their previous way of life in Judaism, somehow wanting to go back and possibly being run over in the process. Other interpreters may go farther, and conclude that what is seen in v. 12 is made to disparage Judaism and the Torah. But, the furthest contrast could only have been between those who were becoming spiritually feeble because they could not decide between a Judaism without Yeshua, and a Messianic faith with Him at the epicenter. They were tripping over themselves on the marathon of faith, and being injured in the process.

The answer to those in Hebrews’ audience becoming injured, in the competition of life, was for them to put their attention back onto Yeshua, One who can supernaturally heal them and enable them to run. A Tanach passage that our author may have been considering is Proverbs 4:25-27:

“Let your eyes look directly ahead and let your gaze be fixed straight in front of you. Watch the path of your feet and all your ways will be established. Do not turn to the right nor to the left; turn your foot from evil.”

For the most part, Hebrews’ audience was composed of Jews who had grown up in Diaspora Jewish synagogues, and regularly participated in the Sabbath and appointed times, and were part of a tightly-knit Jewish community. Then Yeshua came into their lives, and much of this changed. With the Jewish revolt in the Land of Israel on the horizon, many in Hebrews’ audience may have thought that it would be better to join with their fellow Jews then be stuck in some outside sect. This is why they were told to look forward. Was giving up an eternity with Yeshua worth some momentary relief on Earth? We know, because we live two millennia later, that any relief would have only been momentary, as anti-Semitism rose dramatically in the Roman Empire after 70 C.E. Our writer’s direction to his audience was to be strengthened and continue.

[14] Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord.

12:14 Some commentators think that Hebrews 12:14-13:21 forms the last part of our author’s treatise, as he is “winding down” his message. While the statements that he makes are no less serious than what he has already stated, they may be observed as being more general than what he has remarked about concerning the superiority of Yeshua over Moses (ch. 3), the figure of Melchizedek and the Messiah’s priesthood (ch. 7), the New Covenant (chs. 8), and the figures of faith (ch. 11). While we still have to consider the historical setting and conditions in which our writer was communicating, he says nothing unique to them that has not already been paralleled in the Tanach, the Apocrypha, the sayings of Yeshua or the Pauline Epistles, or for that matter the Synagogue preaching to which they were probably accustomed. There are moral exhortations and some final admonitions to remember the example of the Messiah.

V. 14 is an example of such a moral exhortation, and it is one that has caused a great deal of controversy in the world of theology. The author of Hebrews writes, “Strive for peace with everyone” (ESV), with “peace” actually appearing first in the Greek as eirēnēn diōkete, “peace pursue” (YLT). He issues the imperative verb diōkete to his audience, indicating that pursuing peace is not a request; it is a command. A direct parallel exists between v. 14 and Romans 12:18, where Paul writes, “If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.” Many are agreed that our author is writing v. 14 with some likely Pauline influence, and possibly even to the Romans with this statement—meaning that it was something that they had already been told. But one cannot stop there as the theme of peace is consistent throughout the Apostolic Scriptures—a somewhat “universal” theme to anyone who believes in Yeshua:

YESHUA THE MESSIAH AND “PEACE”

YESHUA’S APOSTLES AND “PEACE”

Salt is good; but if the salt becomes unsalty, with what will you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another (Mark 9:50).

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God (Matthew 5:9).

Peter:

To sum up, all of you be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, and humble in spirit; not returning evil for evil or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead; for you were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing. For, “THE ONE WHO DESIRES LIFE, TO LOVE AND SEE GOOD DAYS, MUST KEEP HIS TONGUE FROM EVIL AND HIS LIPS FROM SPEAKING DECEIT. HE MUST TURN AWAY FROM EVIL AND DO GOOD; HE MUST SEEK PEACE AND PURSUE IT (1 Peter 3:8-11; cf. Psalm 34:12-16).

John:

Grace, mercy and peace will be with us, from God the Father and from Yeshua the Messiah, the Son of the Father, in truth and love (2 John 3).

Paul:

But we request of you, brethren, that you appreciate those who diligently labor among you, and have charge over you in the Lord and give you instruction, and that you esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Live in peace with one another (1 Thessalonians 5:12-13).

There are many, many more passages that could be offered in reference to the need for Messiah followers to live in peace with one another. Yeshua’s half-brother James writes, “the seed whose fruit is righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace” (James 3:18). One does not have to go far to see that peace is given a high priority in the teachings of the Apostolic Scriptures.

The debate surrounding “peace” in v. 14 concerns what the author of Hebrews is actually referring to, when he says to “Pursue peace with everyone” (NRSV). Is pantōn a reference to all in the world—or to all in the community of faith? Furthermore, how are Messiah followers to properly apply this “peace”? Are they to be peaceful to the extent of being pacifists?

Within Second Temple Judaism, the term shalom was just as commonly used then as it is today, especially for a greeting. James warns against the casual usage of the greeting “peace,” writing, “[if] one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,’ and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that?” (James 2:16). This is because shalom implies “Completeness, wholeness, harmony, fulfillment…Implicit in shālôm is the idea of unimpaired relationships with others and fulfillment in one’s undertakings” (TWOT).[48] Most of the time in the Greek LXX and Apostolic Scriptures, the term eirēnē is used to carry the basic meaning of shalom.

Certainly, Messiah followers pursuing shalom with all they encounter is to be the ideal, whether such people are members of the faith community or not. But sometimes it is not always possible. Sometimes eirēnē, which in a solely Greek context generally means an absence of conflict or war, is all that can be achieved. While we would all certainly wish there to be total peace and harmony with others we encounter—especially members of the Body of Messiah—the hard reality, all too often, is that a cessation of hostilities is all that we are going to get. This does not mean, however, that we are to not one day desire complete shalom; we are to make efforts as responsible Believers to see that we not seek vengeance toward any wrong done to us, and be led by the Holy Spirit in our conduct. deSilva summarizes it quite nicely, writing,

“This command is surrounded by exhortations not to take revenge or return evil for evil, to bless the persecutor, and the like (Rom. 12:14-21); rather than acting hostilely toward others (even the hostile), believers are to act peaceably toward others.”[49]

Peace is notably not the only quality that Believers are to pursue in v. 14. Believers are also told to pursue “the holiness without which no one will see the Lord” (RSV). A pursuit of God’s shalom is to result in His people living holy and separated lives.

[15] See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God; that no root of bitterness springing up causes trouble, and by it many be defiled; [16] that there be no immoral or godless person like Esau, who sold his own birthright for a single meal. [17] For you know that even afterwards, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears.

12:15 Vs. 15-16 largely focus on the spiritual motives of Hebrews’ audience, as our writer urges them, “See to it that no one misses the grace of God and that no bitter root grows up to cause trouble and defile many” (NIV). There is a distinct similarity between v. 15 and Deuteronomy 29:19-20, where Moses admonished Ancient Israel, “Cursed shall you be when you come in, and cursed shall you be when you go out. The LORD will send upon you curses, confusion, and rebuke, in all you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and until you perish quickly, on account of the evil of your deeds, because you have forsaken Me.” There may also be a distinct parallel between v. 15 and 1 Maccabees 1:10, describing an evil root entering into Antiochus Epiphanes:

“From them came forth a sinful root, Antiochus Epiphanes, son of Antiochus the king; he had been a hostage in Rome. He began to reign in the one hundred and thirty-seventh year of the kingdom of the Greeks.”

The story of Antiochus Ephiphanes details how he let his sin rule his life, even to the point of him believing that he was a god, and was to be worshipped as such. The Books of the Maccabees in the Apocrypha not only relate the tenacity of the Jews in resisting him, but how Antiochus’ life was ruined by his behavior. This would have been a common theme familiar to Hebrews’ Diaspora Jewish audience.

But let us not limit our writer’s words in v. 15 to only a Diaspora Jewish audience. The Qumran literature likewise warns against people following after idols in their hearts. One of the hymns of the Essenes included among the DSS praises God because “Thou wilt keep Thine oath and wilt pardon their transgression; Thou wilt cast away all their sins” (1QH 4.14).[50] A person was considered to be a violator of the Qumran covenant, those who had joined their community, by refusing to cast away any personal idols: “And the Priests and Levites shall continue, saying: ‘Cursed be the man who enters this Covenant while walking among the idols of his heart, who sets up before himself the stumbling-block of sin so that he may backslide!” (1QS 2.12-13).[51]

Our author’s appeal to “Let no one become like a bitter plant that grows up and causes many troubles with its poison” (Good News Bible) is one that is fairly general when we consider various sentiments from the Apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls. In fact, it is universal and has great importance even for us today. Believers in Yeshua are not to become so absorbed with themselves that they either engage in some kind of self-worship or veneration like Antiochus, or break God’s covenant by worshipping other things.

What our author is likely trying to emphasize, in addition to how sin can utterly ruin an individual, is that an apostate person, who is not dealt with, can often cause the whole community to suffer. The example of the disobedient Achan and how the Ancient Israelites were defeated at Ai should readily come to mind:

“But as for you, only keep yourselves from the things under the ban, so that you do not covet them and take some of the things under the ban, and make the camp of Israel accursed and bring trouble on it…Joshua said, ‘Why have you troubled us? The LORD will trouble you this day.’ And all Israel stoned them with stones; and they burned them with fire after they had stoned them with stones” (Joshua 6:18; 7:25).

What is also important to consider is that a “bitter, noxious weed growing up to poison the whole” (NEB) may not arise instantaneously. Morris observes, “it is possible for a seed of bitterness to be sown in a community and, though nothing is immediately apparent, in due time the inevitable fruit appears.”[52] This is one of the reasons why those in congregational authority, be they of the First Century or of today, need to be on guard. Their teaching and exhortations to the local body of Believers need to encourage people to emulate Yeshua, and guard against any ungodly attitudes from entering in.

12:16 V. 16 warns against an ungodly root entering in, by mentioning the example of Esau. Our author states, “See that no one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son” (NIV). The narrative of Esau and his birthright from Genesis was common enough for any First Century Jew to have known, as well as any non-Jewish Believers in the Messianic community:

“When Jacob had cooked stew, Esau came in from the field and he was famished; and Esau said to Jacob, ‘Please let me have a swallow of that red stuff there, for I am famished.’ Therefore his name was called Edom. But Jacob said, ‘First sell me your birthright.’ Esau said, ‘Behold, I am about to die; so of what use then is the birthright to me?’ And Jacob said, ‘First swear to me’; so he swore to him, and sold his birthright to Jacob. Then Jacob gave Esau bread and lentil stew; and he ate and drank, and rose and went on his way. Thus Esau despised his birthright” (Genesis 25:29-34).

The author of Hebrews describes Esau as “godless” or “irreligious” (RSV), employing the term bebēlos, which “pert. to being accessible to everyone and therefore devoid of real significance, pointless, worthless” (BDAG).[53] Lane says that Esau was “apostate and secular” (WBC),[54] remarking, “Esau thus typifies the godless person who relinquishes the rights conferred upon him by the covenant for the sake of momentary relief.”[55] What we know from the account of Esau giving Jacob his birthright is that he despised it because of his stomach. The Apostle Paul writes of self-serving individuals, in  that “Their end is destruction; their god is their stomach; their glory is in their shame. They are focused on earthly things” (Philippians 3:19), nicely summarizing the rash act of Esau. Because he so casually gave away his birthright, he demonstrated a great contempt for God that he had in his heart—in spite of what God was offering him.

The Genesis story does tell us, though, that Esau regretted his loss:

“Esau said to his father, ‘Do you have only one blessing, my father? Bless me, even me also, O my father.’ So Esau lifted his voice and wept. Then Isaac his father answered and said to him, ‘Behold, away from the fertility of the earth shall be your dwelling, and away from the dew of heaven from above. By your sword you shall live, and your brother you shall serve; but it shall come about when you become restless, that you will break his yoke from your neck’” (Genesis 27:38-40).

In spite of Esau regretting his loss, he did not repent of his sin or ungodly attitudes. It is important to note that the author of Hebrews labels Esau as a “fornicator” (KJV). Was this because of the unrepentant attitude of Esau? Once a person has committed sin, no matter how sorry or even repentant he or she may be, the sin has still been committed and will remain, to some degree, with that person for the rest of his or her life. In a similar way, once a man or woman loses his or her virginity, it cannot be brought back. The message of the Bible is that if sin is committed, one can be reconciled to God, but there has still been a definite moment in past time, when there was a point when the repentant individual was estranged from God.

While Esau’s “fornication” can be viewed in a figurative sense, as anyone who sins cheats the Lord of the relationship He wants with men and women, it is likely that our author is alluding to an extra-Biblical tradition concerning Esau. The Jewish philosopher Philo describes Esau as a base man, versus Jacob who was wise and who concerned himself with virtue:

“Now that the wicked man is destitute of a city and destitute of a home, Moses testifies in speaking of that hairy man who was also a man of varied wickedness, Esau, when he says, ‘But Esau was skillful in hunting, and a rude man.’ [Genesis 25:27.] For it is not natural for vice which is inclined to be subservient to the passions to inhabit the city of virtue, inasmuch as it is devoted to the pursuit of rudeness and ignorance, with great folly. But Jacob, who is full of wisdom, is both a citizen and one who dwells in a house, that is to say, in virtue. Accordingly Moses says of him, ‘But Jacob is a man without guile, dwelling in a house’” (Allegorical Interpretation 3.2).[56]

The Jerusalem Targum on Genesis 25:29 further describes,

“Esau came from the wilderness, exhausted; for in that day he had committed five transgressions: he had worshipped with strange worship, he had shed innocent blood, he had gone in unto a betrothed damsel, he had denied the life of the world to come, and had despised the birthright.”[57]

Esau was a prime example of a moral disaster. In the case of Hebrews’ First Century audience, many were on the verge of denying the Messiah, and had likely done some bad things along the way. Rather than throw Him away, our writer urges them not to make the same mistakes as Esau.

12:17 V. 17 attests, “You know that later, when he wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, even though he sought the blessing with tears” (NRSV). As already stated, Esau did regret his decision to sell his birthright for a small meal. But, “he could find no opportunity to repair by repentance [what he had done, no chance to recall the choice he had made]” (Amplified Bible). How we are to understand repentance in this verse can be a bit difficult.

In the Hebrew Tanach, there are several verbs that are used to represent “to repent,” notably nacham, which in the Nifil stem (simple action, passive voice) means “be sorry, console oneself” (BDB).[58] It is used when Pharaoh says, “The people might change their minds [nacham] when they see war, and return to Egypt” (Exodus 13:17). The LXX renders it with the verb metamelei, “to cause repentance or sorrow” (LS).[59] Its equivalent noun form, metanoia, used in v. 17, generally means “after-thought, repentance” (LS).[60] TDNT notes that these terms are “fairly rare,” and have “the sense ‘to note after or late’ (often with the sense of ‘too late’).”[61]

The warning about not falling into the trap of Esau cannot be overstated. Esau, in spite of being somewhat regretful for having chosen a meal over his inheritance from Isaac, would have been unable to attain what Jacob was already granted—in spite of his regret. The comparison, that our author is probably making, deals with those who leave the faith. When a root of bitterness crops up in an individual, this root can cause a person to make foolish decisions—perhaps even denying the Lord. What happens to anyone who consciously decides to betray Yeshua for acceptance by someone else? Does such a person have the option of coming back? Let us hope today that none of us are ever in the position to even have to consider such questions!

[18] For you have not come to a mountain that can be touched and to a blazing fire, and to darkness and gloom and whirlwind, [19] and to the blast of a trumpet and the sound of words which sound was such that those who heard begged that no further word be spoken to them. [20] For they could not bear the command, “IF EVEN A BEAST TOUCHES THE MOUNTAIN, IT WILL BE STONED” [Exodus 19:12-13]. 21 And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, “I AM FULL OF FEAR and trembling” [Deuteronomy 9:19].

12:18-19 While some may think that the words of our writer are very bleak, and that he may be writing a “hopeless audience,” vs. 18-21 set the stage for him communicating that his audience very much still has a chance at remaining in faith with Yeshua. In vs. 18-19 he writes, “It is not to the tangible, blazing fire of Sinai that you have come, with its darkness, gloom, and whirlwind, its trumpet-blast and oracular voice, which the people heard and begged to hear no more” (REB). He tells His audience that they are not to be afraid in approaching the Lord, unlike how the Ancient Israelites in the wilderness were afraid of approaching Mount Sinai. Note that he has already discussed how they are to enter into God’s presence with confidence (4:16; 10:19), with an assurance that comes only via faith in Yeshua.

In vs. 18-19 the author of Hebrews summarizes the fearful events, which themselves are largely summarized in Deuteronomy 5:23-27:

“And when you heard the voice from the midst of the darkness, while the mountain was burning with fire, you came near to me, all the heads of your tribes and your elders. You said, ‘Behold, the LORD our God has shown us His glory and His greatness, and we have heard His voice from the midst of the fire; we have seen today that God speaks with man, yet he lives. Now then why should we die? For this great fire will consume us; if we hear the voice of the LORD our God any longer, then we will die. For who is there of all flesh who has heard the voice of the living God speaking from the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived? Go near and hear all that the LORD our God says; then speak to us all that the LORD our God speaks to you, and we will hear and do it.’”

This was, without any question, a scene of great terror for those who experienced it. The Ancient Israelites were so afraid of the Lord’s power that they asked that Moses be the only one who would communicate directly with Him, because they were afraid that if He communicated to the whole camp they would all die. Several common elements are seen in both Mount Sinai theophany and later accounts in the Tanach, including fire (Judges 13:20; 1 Kings 18:38), darkness (1 Kings 8:12), a tempest (Nahum 1:3), and the blast of the shofar trumpet. The clear inference here is that Believers in Yeshua are not to be afraid, like those at Mount Sinai were, in hearing the Lord. Some Christian Bible teachers, sadly, conclude from vs. 18-19 that the “Jewish way” of approaching God via the Law (Mount Sinai) is inferior to the “Christian way” of approaching God via grace (Mount Zion, cf. vs. 22-24).

However, the scene of Mount Sinai had great significance for Second Temple Judaism, beyond that of God’s terror. The Second Century B.C.E. Jubilees describes “this mountain which you are upon today, Mount Sinai, and Mount Zion, which will be sanctified in the new creation for the sanctification of the earth” (4:26),[62] and it seems far more probable that the author of Hebrews is writing from this point of view. Lane summarizes, “it is said that in the messianic age God will perform all the signs accomplished in the wilderness. Two of these signs, the hearing of the divine voice (Exod 20:18) and the shaking of the earth, have significance for the development of Heb 12:18-29.”[63] While the scene of Mount Sinai may be somewhat vengeful, its elements will be used to bring about the ultimate restoration of His Kingdom on Earth. As Hegg indicates,

“To remain at Sinai is to miss Sinai’s message, for the whole…Law is pointed to this: God dwelling among His people. Such a dwelling is possible only when the people are holy, and the sacrificial system showed the way, the way for sinners to be made clean….Thus, the emphasis our author is giving is not an either/or but a both/and. It is not as though Sinai is viewed as bad and Zion as good, but that the one leads to the other.”[64]

12:20-21 A great deal of misunderstanding, sadly, can take place among Christians who fail to consider the revelation of God at Mount Sinai as being important. Believers in Yeshua are to surely understand the holiness and sanctity of their Creator, especially given the fact that vs. 20-21 say, “they could not bear what was commanded: And if even an animal touches the mountain, it must be stoned! And the appearance was so terrifying that Moses said, I am terrified and trembling” (HCSB). It is notable that the words accredited to Moses in v. 21, “I AM FULL OF FEAR,” are not quoted in the Torah verbatim. It appears as though our author is combining language, from both Exodus 19:12-13 and Deuteronomy 9:19, to make his point:

“You shall set bounds for the people all around, saying, ‘Beware that you do not go up on the mountain or touch the border of it; whoever touches the mountain shall surely be put to death. No hand shall touch him, but he shall surely be stoned or shot through; whether beast or man, he shall not live.’ When the ram's horn sounds a long blast, they shall come up to the mountain” (Exodus 19:12-13).

“For I was afraid of the anger and hot displeasure with which the LORD was wrathful against you in order to destroy you, but the LORD listened to me that time also” (Deuteronomy 9:19).

Surely, given the overall scene present at the theophany of Mount Sinai, Moses was surely filled with fear, among other emotions.

What is important for readers to consider today, not to overlook, is how the statement, “For they could not bear the command” (v. 20), is rendered from ouk epheron gar to diastellomenon. Diastellomenon is a present passive participle, literally translated as “what is being commanded” or “what is being instructed.” The essence of what is being commanded in vs. 20-21 is the holiness and sanctity of God, and how God expects His people to approach Him in a very holy and dignified manner. Notice that the text does not say “what was being commanded,” but “what is {presently} being commanded.” This decree comes from the Lord, and it communicates to any readers of Hebrews, how what was delivered at Sinai cannot be easily disregarded. While the final sacrifice of Yeshua gives Believers confidence to approach the Heavenly Father, He still wants His people to approach Him with a holy fear.

[22] But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, [23] to the general assembly and [congregation][65] of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, [24] and to Yeshua, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.

12:22 The message, that is to be learned from Mount Sinai, is that God is holy and that He requires respect from His people. But faith is also about communing with God and with the generations of others who have committed themselves to Him. If people have faith in Yeshua, they are to definitely understand that we “have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering” (ESV). Our author’s previous comparison of Mount Sinai, to now the Heavenly Mount Zion, actually shows how highly he regards Mount Sinai. What Yeshua has now brought about, for the redeemed in Him, should eliminate any of the dread that the Ancient Israelites would have had. While born again Believers are to surely fear and respect God, they are to nevertheless rejoice in His presence.

There are two important ways that we can view the verb form proselēluthate, appearing in the second person plural perfect tense, meaning “you have come.” What we must first note is that it indicates a kind of realized eschatology that our author is communicating to his readers. In other words, what Heavenly Mount Zion represents can be experienced now in the lives of the redeemed. Secondly, some have likened this vocabulary to proselytizing language. If we were to stretch the meaning of the verb proserchomai, “to approach, draw nigh” (LS),[66] then we could render it as “you have converted over.” This is because, as Bruce observes, “by virtue of their accepting the gospel, the readers of this epistle had come to that spiritual realm some of whose realities are detailed in the following clauses.”[67]

In a way, the author of Hebrews may be asking his readers why some of them are thinking of going back to a Messiah-less Judaism, when in fact they have converted to the “true faith” where one can experience the good things of the Heavenly Jerusalem. This is not to be construed as a Messiah-less Judaism contrasted against a Messiah-full Christianity—but that the redeemed in Messiah are to view themselves as citizens of the Heavenly Jerusalem, which is hardly something without strong overtones and undertones of being a part of Ancient Israelite religion and/or Second Temple Judaism. Much of this goes back to some of the author’s previous arguments about redeemed humanity being subject only to God Himself (2:5-8). Not only will the redeemed in Yeshua get to experience a Heavenly Mount Zion in the future—but they actually get to partake of it right now. Why would anyone who has truly experienced the grace of the gospel want to give up on it?

Others, such as Ellingworth, have compared our author’s language as being contrasted to “a military scope”[68] seen by the Qumran community, as we can see some distinct parallels between v. 22 and what is written in the War Scroll:

HEBREWS 12:22

THE WAR SCROLL

But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering (ESV).

For the multitude of the Holy Ones [is with Thee] in heaven, and the host of the Angels is Thy holy abode, praising Thy Name. And thou hast established in [a community] for Thyself the elect of Thy holy people. [The list] of the names of all their host is with Thee in the abode of Thy holiness; [the reckoning of the saints] is in Thy glorious dwelling-place (1QM 12:1-4).[69]

It is very possible that some members of Hebrews’ audience were being persuaded against believing in Yeshua by Essenic-type beliefs, and thought that God’s angels were “standing by” to assist them in establishing a messianic kingdom on Earth. The contrast to what our writer is telling them is quite noticeable; he considers “the city of the living God” to be Heavenly Jerusalem, and locates the “thousands upon thousands of angels” (NIV) in this city rejoicing before God. The city mentioned previously (11:10, 13-15) is now given a specific name.

We certainly see Heavenly Jerusalem present in Revelation (21:10-14, 19-20), as it will be an integral part of the New Creation and Eternal State. The theme of a city founded by God is seen throughout the Biblical canon (Psalm 48:8; 87:1-7; Isaiah 14:32; cf. Isaiah 28:16) and Deuterocanon (Tobit 13:7-18; 4 Ezra 7:26; 8:52; 10:60). Extra-Biblical writing such as 2 Baruch 32:5 specifically attests “it will be renewed in glory and it will be perfected into eternity.”[70] The Talmud likewise speaks of “[the heavenly] Jerusalem [where] and the Temple and the Altar are built” (b.Chagigah 12b).[71] Our author referring to the Heavenly Jerusalem was quite a common theme within the theology of Second Temple Judaism, and in Jewish theology thereafter.

12:23 It is important that readers do consider the fact, however, that there are some distinct differences between the New Jerusalem to be seen in the Eternal State, and this Heavenly Jerusalem as would be seen right now. The scene of v. 23 is of “the assembly of the firstborn whose names have been written in heaven, [and] God who is the judge of all, [and] the spirits of righteous people made perfect” (HCSB). Bruce makes the poignant observation, “the new Jerusalem has not yet come down to mankind, but in the spiritual realm [Believers] already have access to it. They have become fellow-citizens with Abraham of that well-founded city for which he looked.”[72] This is a scene of the company of redeemed in Heaven, of which any Believer on Earth, is to be associated with via their faith in Yeshua.

The scene in Heaven is described as a panēguris, “an assemblage of many pers. for a special occasion, festal gathering” (BDAG),[73] rendered as “joyful gathering” in the Good News Bible. Lane connects this back to Hebrews 4:9 and the “sabbath rest” that Believers are to experience, remarking, “Heavenly Jerusalem is a place of blessing, where the redeemed can join with ‘angels and archangels and with all the company of heaven’ in celebratory worship of God.”[74]

In a Shabbat-keeping Messianic community, do we ever consider ourselves to be participating in the “Heavenly Jerusalem” when we come to assemble on the Sabbath? Do we not realize that, perhaps for a small moment, we actually join in, to some degree, with the ongoing worship of God in Heaven?

The author of Hebrews is quite candid when he writes that in the Heavenly Jerusalem are God’s “firstborn…the spirits of the righteous made perfect.” The adjective prōtotokōn appears in the plural and thus cannot refer to Yeshua;[75] it refers rather to the redeemed in Yeshua,[76] but notably to the deceased saints who have passed on. Donald Hagner specifically considers the “spirits of the righteous” (NRSV) as involving “the OT saints who are awaiting the resurrection.”[77] In the immediate context of Hebrews, especially in view of ch. 11, our writer likely wants his audience to consider the saints of the Tanach as primarily being among these spirits. However, for us today, it must by necessity  include many, many more Believers who have died.

We can be certain that the author of Hebrews fully affirms the belief in a disembodied afterlife, completely consistent with the mainstream Pharisaic theology of his time. He depicts the spirits of the righteous as in a place of great rejoicing and exaltation, and not in an unconscious condition in the grave awaiting the resurrection. However, Bruce is keen to note, “Our author’s lack of reference to the coming resurrection [here] does not mean that it found no place in his creed…but it is plain that, for him, the souls of believers do not need to wait until the resurrection to be perfected. They are perfected already in the sense that they are with God in the heavenly Jerusalem.”[78]

Indeed, for the author of Hebrews, teaching on the future resurrection is considered to be something rather basic (6:2), and his focus here is to emphasize the present reality for those who compose the Kingdom of God, which includes deceased saints awaiting the resurrection. The emphasis of v. 23 on “spirits” in the plural should be taken to refer more to individuals, as a corporate redemption of God’s people, and disbursement of specific rewards, is still to occur. The complete perfection of all saints, and the entry of the entire company of redeemed, necessarily can only take place at the resurrection (11:40) and Second Coming. And even after the Second Coming and Millennial Kingdom, the arrival of the New Heavens and New Earth is still to be anticipated (11:16).

12:24 In v. 24 our writer says that the redeemed have also come “to the mediator of a new covenant, Yeshua; and to the sprinkled blood that speaks better things than that of Hevel” (CJB). We have to keep in mind here that the New Covenant status, for Believers in Yeshua, brings eternal life from Heaven, and God writing His Instruction onto their hearts via His Spirit (Jeremiah 33:31-43; Hebrews 8:8-12; 10:15-17). Our author makes an interesting comparison between the blood of Abel, the first human slain, and the blood of Yeshua. There were a significant number of Jewish traditions which advocated Abel’s blood crying out for justice. The following chart compares the Genesis narrative of Abel’s death to opinions seen in the Pseudepigrapha, Apocrypha, and the Mishnah:

GENESIS 4:8-10

ABEL’S KILLING CRYING OUT FOR JUSTICE—VARIED TRADITIONS

Cain told Abel his brother. And it came about when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him. Then the LORD said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” And he said, “I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper?” He said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to Me from the ground.”

And he killed him in the field, and his blood cried out from the earth to heaven, making accusation because he killed him (Jubilees 4:3).[79]

I asked Rufael, the angel who was with me, and said to him, “This spirit, the voice of which is reaching (into heaven) like this and is making suit, whose (spirit) is it?” And he answered me, saying, “This is the spirit which had left Abel, whom Cain, his brother, had killed; it (continues to) sue him until all of (Cain’s) seed is exterminated from the face of the earth, and his seed has disintegrated from among the seed of the people” (1 Enoch 22:6-7).[80]

…Cain was handed over by God for seven punishments, for in every hundredth year the Lord brought upon him one plague. When he was two hundred years old suffering began and in his nine hundredth year he was deprived of life. For he was condemned on account of Abel his brother as a result of all his evil deeds (Testament of Benjamin 7:3-4).[81]

He read to you about Abel slain by Cain, and Isaac who was offered as a burnt offering, and of Joseph in prison (4 Maccabees 18:11).

For so we find in the case of Cain who slew his brother, as it is said, The bloods of your brother cry (Gen. 4:10). It does not say, “The blood of your brother,’ but, ‘The bloods of your brother’—his blood and all those who were destined to be born from him.” Another matter—The bloods of your brother—for his blood was pattered on trees and stones. Therefore man was created alone, to teach you that whoever destroys a single Israelite soul is deemed by Scripture as if he had destroyed a whole world (m.Sanhedrin 4:5; cf. b.Sanhedrin 37b).[82]

Even though we see some noticeable variance among the traditions concerning Abel, they do provide a large census of Jewish opinion indicating that the death of Abel led to a downward spiral, not only inflicting considerable curses upon Cain (Genesis 4:11-12), but a considerable problem with fallen humanity. The consequences of Fall, typified by the blood of Abel crying out for justice, is only resolvable via the blood of Yeshua. Our author’s placement of Abel’s blood, and comparing it to “the sprinkled blood” of the Messiah, is by no coincidence. Interestingly enough, the Targum Jonathan on Genesis 4:3 lists Abel’s death as having occurred “on the fourteenth of Nisan,”[83] and there are commentators who have suggested that Yeshua the Messiah sacrificed on 14 Nisan is in view here.[84] Even though there are debates over the crucifixion chronology of Yeshua, the typology is certainly there.

The key in properly understanding v. 24 is that although the blood of Abel is very important to consider, as it speaks of the first human slaughtered and the general fall of humankind—crying out for justice—it is only the blood of the Messiah Himself that can redeem mortals and bring them into the Father’s presence. Lane validly writes, “The presence in the heavenly city of Jesus, the mediator of the new covenant whose blood speaks more effectively than the blood of Abel, provides assurance that those who pursue peace and holiness…will be welcomed. Entrance into the city, however…calls for allegiance and obedience as the response of gratitude to the objective blessings secured by Jesus.”[85]

The author of Hebrews also puts an interesting timestamp in his epistle when describing Yeshua as “the mediator of a new covenant,” surely a reference to the New Covenant of Jeremiah 33:31-34 (cf. 8:8-12; 10:15-17). But he employs a different Greek word for “new” in v. 24, neos. Whereas kainos generally describes something that is new in character, neos “pert. to being in existence but a relatively short time, new, fresh” (BDAG).[86] In the chronology of our writer, the New Covenant had only been inaugurated for Believers a very short time. This is why Stibbs refers it to “Jesus the Mediator of this recently established…covenant.”[87] Those of Hebrews’ audience may be a part of the “first wave” of the New Covenant’s inauguration. While this makes them extremely special in the eyes of our author, it also places an extreme responsibility on them. That is why he has just detailed all of the wonderful parts of Heavenly Jerusalem and what one gets to experience as part of God’s Kingdom. Who in their right heart or mind would want to give these things up?

[25] See to it that you do not refuse Him who is speaking. For if those did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape who turn away from Him who warns from heaven. [26] And His voice shook the earth then, but now He has promised, saying, “YET ONCE MORE I WILL SHAKE NOT ONLY THE EARTH, BUT ALSO THE HEAVEN” [Exodus 19:18; Judges 5:4; Psalm 68:8]. [27] This expression, “Yet once more,” denotes the removing of those things which can be shaken, as of created things, so that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.

12:25 Having just discussed how the scene of Mount Sinai speaks of God’s holiness and sanctity, and how the scene of Mount Zion and Heavenly Jerusalem represents the joyfulness the redeemed are to experience in His presence, our writer says that his audience must weigh the severity of both. He introduces another qal v’chomer or “light and heavy” argument about which is greater: an Earthly Mount Sinai, or Mount Zion in Heaven. He writes, “See that you do not reject the One who speaks; for if they did not escape when they rejected Him who warned them on earth, even less will we if we turn away from Him who warns us from heaven” (HCSB). Contrary to what some may assume, this is not a scene of two significantly contrasting things. On the contrary, the first is quite severe; the second is more severe.

When the Ancient Israelites rejected the warning of God at Mount Sinai, either touching the mountain (v. 20), not heeding the commandments that came forth, or simply not recognizing God as holy—severe penalties would be incurred. The most severe of these penalties was physical death. The scene that our author compares this to is Heavenly Zion with the angels and saints rejoicing before the Lord. If what this represents is not heeded and recognized, then a worse penalty than physical death must await. Our writer employs the verb chrēmatizō, which “In the NT” generally “denotes divine instruction by revelation…Moses gives instruction (on earth) in Heb. 12:25, but the stress here lies on the greater instruction that comes with Jesus from heaven” (TDNT).[88] It seldom is used to ever refer to human beings.

12:26 In v. 26 our author wants his audience to again consider the great power of God. He remarks, “When God spoke from Mount Sinai his voice shook the earth, but now he makes another promise: ‘Once again I will shake not only the earth but the heavens also’” (NLT). What the Lord promises to do now that Yeshua has come onto the scene is much more serious than Him changing the world through the Sinatic theophany—because it will change the entire created order—both Earth and Heaven. In substantiating this, the author of Hebrews is likely compiling statements seen several places in the Tanach, as the theme of shaking is consistent with God revealing Himself in power to humankind:

“Now Mount Sinai was all in smoke because the LORD descended upon it in fire; and its smoke ascended like the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mountain quaked violently” (Exodus 19:18).

“LORD, when You went out from Seir, when You marched from the field of Edom, the earth quaked, the heavens also dripped, even the clouds dripped water” (Judges 5:4).

“The earth quaked; the heavens also dropped rain at the presence of God; Sinai itself quaked at the presence of God, the God of Israel” (Psalm 68:8).

Some have also suggested that our author’s language in v. 26 is affected by 2 Baruch 59:3 in the Pseudepigrapha:

“But also the heaven will be shaken from its place at that time; that is, the heavens which are under the throne of the Mighty One were severely shaken when he took Moses with him.”[89]

Eventually, salvation history is going to maximally culminate in what might be described as a Heaven-Earth merger, and with it the arrival of a New Heavens, New Earth, New Jerusalem, and subsequent new reality. Human words are at a limit at describing what is to be anticipated, things which are largely described in Revelation chs. 21-22.

12:27 V. 27 indicates how “The words ‘once more’ indicate the removing of what can be shaken—that is, created things—so that what cannot be shaken may remain” (NIV). Our author’s perspective here is likely influenced by Haggai 2:6, “For thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘Once more in a little while, I am going to shake the heavens and the earth, the sea also and the dry land.’” In a primary sense, he is making a direct reference to end-time upheavals that we see elsewhere in the Apostolic Scriptures (Matthew 24:29; Mark 13:24-25; Luke 21:11, 25; Acts 2:20) that correspond with the Second Coming of Yeshua. This shaking will take place to usher in a great “change” or metathesis. In a more realized sense for Hebrews’ First Century audience, just as they should be able to experience the spiritual joys of Heavenly Jerusalem, so will they experience some of the disastrous social tremors of God shaking the created order, whatever those tremors might be.

The analogy that should be made is that if anyone cannot experience the tremors of God “shaking things up” for His people—which may not necessarily be a direct cause of the “end-times”—how can one hope to endure the end-times? In the case of Hebrews’ original audience, for primarily Jewish Believers but also for non-Jewish Believers, their world was going to be shaken up with the impending destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem, and with it the Levitical priesthood and animal sacrifices. Even if many of them had a separated attachment to the Temple and its services, the center of Messianic faith had still been the city of Jerusalem. With that gone, what were they do to? Those who were faithful to Yeshua would have no choice but to adapt.

[28] Therefore, since we receive a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us show gratitude, by which we may offer to God an acceptable service with reverence and awe; [29] for our God is a consuming fire.

12:28 An immediate remedy, for remembering Yeshua and what He has done, is offered by our author in v. 28: “Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe” (RSV). This nicely summarizes the two scenes of Mount Zion and Mount Sinai that he has just addressed. The Jewish character in his writing style is obvious, as Lane points out, “The pattern of stern warning followed by pastoral encouragement…was characteristic of Jewish synagogue homilies, as attested in the old rabbinic midrashim…It clearly has influenced the pastoral style of the writer of Hebrews as he brings his own homily to its theological and pastoral climax.”[90]

The first thing to be done is to “give thanks to God” (NEB). Our writer employs the term charis or “grace” in this phrase, rendered in the KJV and NKJV as “let us have grace.” This is to be followed by “worship[ping] God acceptably” (NIV), with our author having connected his audience to the scene of Heavenly Jerusalem with the saints and angels in festive gathering before the Lord (v. 22-23). A possible parallel exists between this and Romans 12:1, where the Apostle Paul writes “to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship.” It might even be suggested that our author is also considering Yeshua’s words, “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:24). This would all be intended, of course, to emphasize the need to remember Mount Sinai and treat the Creator with great “piety and fear” (Lattimore).

The Message offers a very good paraphrase of v. 28: “Do you see what we've got? An unshakable kingdom! And do you see how thankful we must be? Not only thankful, but brimming with worship, deeply reverent before God.” When we go before the Lord in worship or prayer, how seriously do we consider this? How often do we, at all fail to maintain, a balance between celebration and reverence? Perhaps we need to more seriously consider Psalm 95:9-10 before we enter into the presence of God: “When your fathers tested Me, they tried Me, though they had seen My work. For forty years I loathed that generation, and said they are a people who err in their heart, and they do not know My ways.”

12:29 V. 29 is very succinct in its statement, “for indeed our God is a consuming fire” (NRSV). This is a final exhortation to remember the severity of what it means to know Yeshua, and then depart from Him, appropriated from Deuteronomy 4:24: “For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God.” There are also parallels from Exodus 24:27 and Deuteronomy 9:3:

“And to the eyes of the sons of Israel the appearance of the glory of the LORD was like a consuming fire on the mountain top” (Exodus 24:27).

“Know therefore today that it is the LORD your God who is crossing over before you as a consuming fire. He will destroy them and He will subdue them before you, so that you may drive them out and destroy them quickly, just as the LORD has spoken to you” (Deuteronomy 9:3).

Surely, if one rejected God at Mount Sinai, this incurred great penalties. To now reject Yeshua from Heavenly Mount Zion, will incur even greater penalties. Anyone who departs from God’s good pleasure as demonstrated through His Son will become a recipient of something worse than the punishment of physical death that those in the wilderness experienced. The admonition in ch. 12 is to once again remember what one may be considering giving up: Heavenly Zion with the host of saints and angels worshipping before the Lord (vs. 22-23).

ENDNOTES FOR Commentary on Hebrews 12

[1] Lane, 47b:406.

[2] LS, 530.

[3] Lane, 47b:397.

[4] Ibid., 408.

[5] Bruce, Hebrews, 335.

[6] deSilva, 430.

[7] LS, 542.

[8] Morris, in EXP, 12:134.

[9] Lane, 47b:408.

[10] The Soncino Midrash. Judaic Classics Library II.

[11] Ibid.

[12] BDAG, 17.

[13] deSilva, 427.

[14] Acts 20:24; 1 Corinthians 9:24-26; Galatians 2:2; 5:7; Philippians 2:16; 2 Timothy 4:7.

[15] Guthrie, Hebrews, 250.

[16] Hegg, Hebrews, 224.

[17] Bruce, Hebrews, 337.

[18] Cf. Ibid., fn#37.

[19] BDAG, 997.

[20] Quanbeck, in The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, 900.

[21] Bruce, Hebrews, 338 fn#42.

The Latin version of this text can be accessed online at <http://thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/rabiriopost.shtml>.

[22] deSilva, 432.

[23] Ellingworth, 642.

[24] LS, 58.

[25] Matthew 5:10-12; Romans 8:18; 2 Corinthians 4:17; 1 Peter 4:13; 5:1, 10.

[26] Lane, 47b:417.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Ellingworth, 644.

[29] Evans, 220.

[30] Cf. Hodges, in BKCNT, 810.

[31] The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged, 320.

[32] G. Bertram, “education, instruction,” in TDNT, 756.

[33] Ellingworth, 649.

[34] deSilva, 452.

[35] Proverbs 13:24; 19:18; 22:15; 23:13-14; 29:17.

[36] LS, 534.

[37] Bruce, Hebrews, 341.

[38] Morris, in EXP, 12:136-137.

[39] Stibbs, in NBCR, 1214.

[40] Lane, 47b:425.

[41] Bruce, Hebrews, 344.

[42] LS, 170.

[43] The Soncino Talmud. Judaic Classics Library II.

[44] Ibid.

[45] Note that the exact context of Isaiah 35 can be debated. The prophecy was surely directed to an ancient audience, and likely first understood as relating to the return of the Jewish exiles from Babylon. However, there is nothing in the prophecy to suggest that a future audience is discluded, and that it relates to the end-time restoration of Israel before the return of Yeshua.

[46] The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged, 319.

[47] Stibbs, in NBCR, 1214.

[48] G. Lloyd Carr, “shālôm,” in TWOT, 2:931.

[49] deSilva, pp 457-458.

[50] Vermes, 245.

[51] Ibid., 100.

[52] Morris, in EXP, 12:140.

[53] BDAG, 173.

[54] Lane, 47b:437.

[55] Ibid., 455.

[56] The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged, 50.

[57] J.W. Etheridge (1862), trans. The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel On the Pentateuch With The Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum From the Chaldee. Accessible online at <http://www.tulane.edu/~ntcs/pj/psjon.htm>.

[58] BDB, 636.

[59] LS, 503.

[60] Ibid.

[61] E. Würthwein, “metanoéō, metánoia,” in TDNT, 639.

[62] Wintermute, in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol 2, 63.

[63] Lane, 47b:447.

[64] Hegg, Hebrews, 237.

[65] Grk. ekklēsia.

[66] LS, 690.

[67] Bruce, Hebrews, 355.

[68] Ellingworth, 677.

[69] Vermes, 175.

[70] Klijn, in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 1, 630.

[71] The Soncino Talmud. Judaic Classics Library II.

[72] Bruce, Hebrews, 357.

[73] BDAG, 754.

[74] Lane, 47b:467.

[75] Cf. Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:15, 18; Hebrews 1:6; Revelation 1:5 where Greek employs the singular form for “firstborn” in reference to Yeshua.

[76] Cf. Revelation 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:12; 21:27.

[77] Hagner, in New Interpreter’s Study Bible, 2168.

[78] Bruce, Hebrews, 360.

[79] Wintermute, in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 2, 61.

[80] Isaac, in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 1, 25.

[81] Kee, in Ibid., 827.

[82] Neusner, 591.

[83] J.W. Etheridge (1862), trans. The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel On the Pentateuch With The Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum From the Chaldee. Accessible online at <http://www.tulane.edu/~ntcs/pj/psjon.htm>.

[84] Cf. Bruce, Hebrews, pp 360-361, fn 177.

[85] Lane, 47b:474.

[86] BDAG, 669.

[87] Stibbs, in NBCR, 1215.

[88] B. Reicke, “chrēmatízō,” in TDNT, 1320.

[89] Klijn, in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 1, 641.

[90] Lane, 47b:483-484.

HEBREWS 13

COMMENTARY

[1] Let love of the brethren continue. [2] Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels without knowing it. [3] Remember the prisoners, as though in prison with them, and those who are ill-treated, since you yourselves also are in the body.

Many have noted some strong Pauline influences in the writing style of Hebrews ch. 13; a few even suggest that it was added later as an appendix, and perhaps even written by Paul to give his approval to what the author of Hebrews has thus far written. Most commentators, however, while noting that ch. 13 bears some Pauline influence, agree that it is compositionally consistent with what has thusfar been written, and discount Pauline authorship. What can be established about Hebrews 13 is that it issues a series of imperatives to the audience, ties up some of the loose ends of the treatise, and places our author’s statements in a more “concrete” context.

It is accurate, as Leon Morris states, that “Chapter 13 is something of an appendix dealing with a number of practical points.”[1] But it is not accurate to say that ch. 13 was added later and is inconsistent with issues that have been addressed in chs. 1-12. Hebrews 13 does present some challenges to Bible teachers, and most certainly to the lay interpreter. This is because we have to do our best to reconstruct the history behind certain statements that are made, and not only accurately apply them today, but apply them in a Messianic context.

13:1 Our author’s admonition in v. 1 is, “Let brotherly love continue” (RSV, ESV, HCSB), as he employs the term philadelphia, meaning “love of brother/sister” (BDAG).[2] A Tanach passage that could have been in his mind when writing might be Psalm 133:1: “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!” The words in v. 1 are directed so that a feeling of community in Yeshua the Messiah would be established among his audience. Emphasizing a strong feeling of community would hinder the threat of apostasy, as all could recognize that they were a part of a body that rises and falls together. The need for warm feelings to be demonstrated to others is a continual theme seen throughout the Apostolic Scriptures (Romans 12:10; 1 Thessalonians 4:9; 1 Peter 1:22; 2 Peter 1:7).

13:2 V. 2 builds upon the need for Believers to show affection toward one another in the community, first admonishing, “Do not forget to entertain strangers” (NIV). The term frequently rendered as “hospitality” is philoxenia, which means love of strangers. There is a definite parallel between v. 2 and Yeshua’s words in Matthew 25:35: “For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in.” Travelers in ancient times often depended on the kindness of strangers, because inns were usually unsavory places where people could be robbed—or worse. We see examples of others letting strangers into their home throughout the Tanach (Exodus 2:20; Judges 19:15-21; 2 Kings 4:8), and even in the Book of Acts as Paul travels to Rome (Acts 28:7).

The First Century context of the community of faith needing to show kindness and hospitality to weary travelers is important for a modern understanding of the context of Hebrews. F.F. Bruce remarks, “Inns throughout the Roman Empire were places of doubtful repute, and indeed of positive danger.”[3] Certainly, as fellow Believers would travel, they would need safe lodging. William L. Lane further observes, “v 2 is a reminder that early Christianity shared in the mobility of Roman society and that this was a major factor in the expansion of the Church.”[4] Interestingly enough, the first part of v. 2 demonstrates a great deal of Jewish character too, that need not be overlooked, as when members of the Jewish community would travel they would stay with their fellow Jews, even if they did not know them personally. A sentiment seen in the Talmud equates showing hospitality for guests as being more important than showing up to services at the local synagogue:

“R. Johanan said: Hospitality to wayfarers is as ‘great’ as early attendance at the Beth Hamidrash, since he [the Tanna] states, TO MAKE ROOM FOR GUESTS OR ON ACCOUNT OF THE NEGLECT OF THE BETH HAMIDRASH. R. Dimi of Nehardea said: It is ‘greater’ than early attendance at the Beth Hamidrash, because he states, TO MAKE ROOM FOR GUESTS, and then, AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE NEGLECT OF THE BETH HAMIDRASH. Rab Judah said in Rab's name: Hospitality to wayfarers is greater than welcoming the presence of the Shechinah, for it is written, And he said, My lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, etc. R. Eleazar said: Come and observe how the conduct of the Holy One, blessed be He, is not like that of mortals. The conduct of mortals [is such that] an inferior person cannot say to a great[er] man, Wait for me until I come to you; whereas in the case of the Holy One, blessed be He, it is written, and he said, My Lord, if now I have found, etc.” (b.Shabbat 127a).[5]

There is a question when considering this whether or not the guests are fellow Jews, or complete and total strangers, and how these sentiments might relate to v. 2. There is a general consensus that what our author reflects upon is showing fellow Believers hospitality—not just anyone who might “drop in.” Paul Ellingworth summarizes, “Just as in rabbinic tradition…hospitality is largely limited to fellow-Jews, so the NT generally presupposes a situation in which travelling evangelists have a special claim to the hospitality of the local congregation.”[6] Early Church history, however, shows that this was a practice that led to abuse. The Didache, a document dating from either the late First or early Second Century C.E., instructs Believers,

“Let every Apostle that cometh to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain [longer than] one day; and, if need be, another [day] also; but if he remain three [days] he is a false prophet. And when the Apostle departeth, let him take nothing except bread [enough] till he reach his lodging (night-quarters). But if he ask for money, he is a false prophet” (Didache 11:4-6).[7]

We could possibly infer that this is the instruction that became prevalent when some of the warnings we see issued in 2 John 9-11 went unheeded:

“Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Messiah, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.”

Of course, the emphasis here is that if one does not acknowledge Yeshua the Messiah (2 John 7), then one is of the spirit of antimessiah/antichrist. The need for any one of us today to be careful who we let into our fellowships, congregations, or even homes cannot be overstated. We live in a Messianic movement today that while growing and theologically maturing—which are good things—has false teachers out there who do not fully acknowledge Yeshua in some way or another. Any one of us needs to be careful which “traveling teachers” we let into our communities.

Even though one is to use discernment with who is given lodging—and whether they be true Believers or not only God knows—Messiah followers are to be hospitable and kind to whomever comes their way. The author of Hebrews writes his audience, “some have welcomed angels as guests without knowing it” (HCSB). Entertaining messengers of God is not without precedent. In the Tanach, we see that Abraham (Genesis 18; 19:1-22), Gideon (Judges 6:11-21), and Manoah (Judges 13:3-20) all entertained “the angel of the LORD.” (And notably, there is some debate as to whether or not this “angel” was God Himself, meaning a pre-incarnate manifestation of Yeshua the Messiah.) Furthermore, the Apocryphal Book of Tobit records the angel Raphael coming to assist him (Tobit 3:17; 5:4-16).

To what extent the author of Hebrews expects his audience to actually host “angels” in their homes can only be speculated. Is it true that some of God’s angels may have appeared as solid humans to assist the early Believers—and likewise even us today? Yes. At the same time, could our writer be also emphasizing the hospitality that Abraham, Gideon, and Manoah showed to angels, and that same hospitality should be shown to all we host—be they angels or human beings? Yes. Donald Guthrie indicates, “The principle is that it is better to assume that guests are angels and to act accordingly rather than risk treating worthy people unworthily.”[8]

13:3 The need to show others hospitality is quickly followed by the words, “Remember those who are in prison, as though in prison with them; and those who are ill-treated, since you also are in the body” (RSV). Yeshua’s words in Matthew 25:36 parallel this statement very well: “I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.”

How we are to understand the clause en sōmati, literally “in body,” demonstrates some variance among Bible translations. The RSV and NASU are the most literal and have “in the body.” The HSCB has “suffering bodily,” and the NRSV has “as though you yourselves were being tortured,” emphasizing that Believers are to identify with those who are in prison. The NEB reflects a common human condition, “for you like them are still in the world,” and the REB issues the warning, “for you are vulnerable too.” While all of these renderings show important aspects of the issue of demonstrating kindness toward prisoners, and how Believers are to empathize with them, it is probably best that we temper any interpretation our author’s words, with those of Paul to the Corinthians:

“And if the ear says, ‘Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body,’ it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body…And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it” (1 Corinthians 12:16, 26).

Here, Paul uses sōma in reference to the Body of Messiah, and the author of Hebrews uses it the same. While Believers are certainly to be kind and compassionate to all prisoners in jail—they are to be especially aware of fellow Believers imprisoned. In a First Century context this would have been especially important as those in prison had to often rely on outsiders for clothing and daily food. Jails were dark, dingy, and unsanitary places, and those Believers in prison needed to know that they could be supported from those of the faith community. Consider what Paul tells Timothy from prison in Rome in his final epistle: “At my first defense no one supported me, but all deserted me; may it not be counted against them” (2 Timothy 4:16).

[4] Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.

13:4 V. 4, as paraphrased in The Message, reads, “Honor marriage, and guard the sacredness of sexual intimacy between wife and husband. God draws a firm line against casual and illicit sex.” This is an admonition that should not be difficult for any reader to understand, but does need to be placed into its First Century context a bit more, so we can understand Hebrews’ mixed audience, not only Jewish and non-Jewish, but also male and female. Both males and females can be “fornicators and adulterers,” both being  responsible for their proper conduct “in bed.”

V. 4 might be more of a statement directed at the non-Jewish audience of Hebrews more than the Jewish audience. “Male sexual immorality was rife in Greco-Roman society, which also accepted prostitution; pedophilia, homosexual intercourse and sex with female slaves were common Greek practices until a man was old enough for marriage” (IVPBBC).[9] Some have speculated, though, that Diaspora Jews might have been more sexually loose than their Judean counterparts.[10] Regardless of what is the specific case, the writer of Hebrews places a high priority on proper sexual behavior, and is thoroughly Jewish by these remarks. The Sixth Commandment plainly states, “You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14; Deuteronomy 5:18), and a great deal of instruction and comments appear in the Tanach, as well as in the Apocrypha, concerning it:

TORAH INSTRUCTIONS ON SEXUALITY

TANACH INSTRUCTIONS ON SEXUALITY

If there is a man who lies with his father's wife, he has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death, their bloodguiltiness is upon them (Leviticus 20:11).

But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father's house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you. If a man is found lying with a married woman, then both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; thus you shall purge the evil from Israel. If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor's wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you (Deuteronomy 22:20-24).

The eye of the adulterer waits for the twilight, Saying, “No eye will see me.” And he disguises his face. In the dark they dig into houses, they shut themselves up by day; they do not know the light. For the morning is the same to him as thick darkness, for he is familiar with the terrors of thick darkness. They are insignificant on the surface of the water; their portion is cursed on the earth. They do not turn toward the vineyards. Drought and heat consume the snow waters, so does Sheol those who have sinned. A mother will forget him; the worm feeds sweetly till he is no longer remembered. And wickedness will be broken like a tree. He wrongs the barren woman and does no good for the widow. But He drags off the valiant by His power; He rises, but no one has assurance of life. He provides them with security, and they are supported; and His eyes are on their ways. “They are exalted a little while, then they are gone; moreover, they are brought low and like everything gathered up; even like the heads of grain they are cut off” (Job 24:15-23).

Drink water from your own cistern and fresh water from your own well. Should your springs be dispersed abroad, streams of water in the streets? Let them be yours alone and not for strangers with you. Let your fountain be blessed, And rejoice in the wife of your youth. As a loving hind and a graceful doe, let her breasts satisfy you at all times; be exhilarated always with her love. For why should you, my son, be exhilarated with an adulteress and embrace the bosom of a foreigner? For the ways of a man are before the eyes of the LORD, and He watches all his paths. His own iniquities will capture the wicked, and he will be held with the cords of his sin. He will die for lack of instruction, and in the greatness of his folly he will go astray (Proverbs 5:15-23).

APOCRYPHA INSTRUCTIONS ON SEXUALITY

A man who breaks his marriage vows says to himself, “Who sees me? Darkness surrounds me, and the walls hide me, and no one sees me. Why should I fear? The Most High will not take notice of my sins.” His fear is confined to the eyes of men, and he does not realize that the eyes of the Lord are ten thousand times brighter than the sun; they look upon all the ways of men, and perceive even the hidden places. Before the universe was created, it was known to him; so it was also after it was finished (Sirach 23:18-20).

But children of adulterers will not come to maturity, and the offspring of an unlawful union will perish. Even if they live long they will be held of no account, and finally their old age will be without honor. If they die young, they will have no hope and no consolation in the day of decision. For the end of an unrighteous generation is grievous (Wisdom 3:16-19).

The above chart has only a small sampling of what can be read in the Tanach and Apocrypha, sentiments that would have been known to Hebrews’ broad Jewish audience, about human sexuality and the sacredness of it. Of course, a great deal of attention is given to proper sexuality and proper marriage in the letters of Paul (Ephesians 5:26-31). His first extant letter to the Corinthians[11] largely deals with the subject of gross sexual immorality in the congregation of Believers, including men of the assembly cavorting with prostitutes. 1 Corinthians 6:15-18 summarizes this problem:

“Do you not know that your bodies are members of Messiah? Shall I then take away the members of Messiah and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be! Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, ‘THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’ [Genesis 2:24]. But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him. Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body.”

Paul also addresses the issue of male and female homosexuality in his letter to the Romans. He writes, “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error” (Romans 1:26-27). Male and female homosexuality were regarded in Second Temple Judaism as a quantitative consequence of the nations’ widescale rejection of the LORD God of Israel as Supreme Creator.[12]

Some commentators have suggested that our writer’s words about respecting the marriage bed were not only made to combat immoral sexual behavior, but also to stop ascetic or proto-Gnostic beliefs that may have been circulating about sexuality. The author of Hebrews upholds the clear standard of proper intercourse as between one man and one woman in marriage. Bruce observes, there “is no exaltation of celibacy as something inherently superior to marriage; the marriage union is divinely ordained, and its sacred precincts must not be polluted by the intrusion of a third party, of either sex.”[13]

Anyone who has surveyed the Torah at one point or another will easily notice that it has a great deal to say about sex, and this is reflected in the volumes of material available from both Jewish and Christian perspectives. Unfortunately today, and likely due to a degree of theological under-development within the broad Messianic movement, not a great deal of material has been produced on human sexuality from a distinct Messianic viewpoint—aside from general emphases against pre-marital sex, homosexuality, etc. David H. Stern may come close in his Jewish New Testament Commentary, making the following passing remarks. These comments emphasize some of the subjects that should dominate our future discussions of sex and intimacy from a Messianic perspective:

“This verse permits considerable variety in sexual activity between husband and wife, so long as both agree…; the notion that God requires the so-called ‘missionary position’ is fiction, a limitation that Christians of the past imposed upon themselves. There are a number of popular books about the New Testament’s approach to marriage, sex and family. On the other hand, although the Bible encourages sexual fulfillment, it does not condone promiscuity.”[14]

The Torah actually tells us very little about how sexual intercourse it to occur between a husband and wife, but it is implied that it is to be an enjoyable experience. There is, however, some distinct instructions about when sexual intercourse is to occur, and when it is to not occur, in relation to a woman’s menstruation cycle:

“When a woman has a discharge, if her discharge in her body is blood, she shall continue in her menstrual impurity for seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening” (Leviticus 15:19).

“If there is a man who lies with a menstruous woman and uncovers her nakedness, he has laid bare her flow, and she has exposed the flow of her blood; thus both of them shall be cut off from among their people” (Leviticus 20:18).

These are just two small verses that married couples have to consider in relation to their sexual activities, and we can assume that the author of Hebrews would have them in mind when emphasizing the purity and sacredness of the marriage bed. This is to be something that all Believers honor and respect, and not defile in any way. As Lane eloquently puts it, “Sexual immorality is actually a rejection of the presence and goodness of God who created the human family in its maleness and femaleness. It is an expression of a selfishness blind to the emotional fragility that characterizes every person.”[15] Apparently, some of Hebrews’ audience may not have fully learned how to honor God with their bodies.

[5] Make sure that your character is free from the love of money, being content with what you have; for He Himself has said, “I WILL NEVER DESERT YOU, NOR WILL I EVER FORSAKE YOU” [Deuteronomy 31:6], [6] so that we confidently say, “THE LORD IS MY HELPER, I WILL NOT BE AFRAID. WHAT WILL MAN DO TO ME?” [Psalm 118:6]

13:5 The author of Hebrews writes his audience, “Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have” (NIV). This is a fairly common theme seen throughout the Apostolic Scriptures. Yeshua instructs His followers, “Beware, and be on your guard against every form of greed; for not even when one has an abundance does his life consist of his possessions,” specifically warning them about “the man who stores up treasure for himself” (Luke 12:15, 21). Believers are supposed to be “satisfied” (HCSB) with what they have, and not make money or acquiring goods the central focus of their lives. This is because the pursuit of commerce can often take one away from God and away from relying on Him. The Apostle Paul writes the Philippians—who gave him a generous financial contribution (Philippians 4:15-18)—that as a servant of the Lord, he was able to learn to be content:

“But I rejoiced in the Lord greatly, that now at last you have revived your concern for me; indeed, you were concerned before, but you lacked opportunity. Not that I speak from want, for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am. I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need. I can do all things through Him who strengthens me” (Philippians 4:10-13).

The Apostle Paul also warned Timothy that money was the source of many evils in the world:

“But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs” (1 Timothy 6:9-10).

Some can take our writer’s words, and Paul’s words as well, and misconstrue them so as to think that God is not concerned that Believers succeed in business or commerce. The key in having a balanced perspective of these admonitions is understanding that Messiah followers’ love is not to be focused on money, but rather to be focused toward God. If our love is focused toward Him, then we will experience great fulfillment in our lives—and if we have some high degree of money, it will be a sort of “bonus.” Furthermore, if God has given any of the righteous financial resources, then they have a responsibility to the community of Believers to see that they are adequately used for the growth of His Kingdom.

Our author’s emphasis on personal contentment via relying on God is a Jewish concept, and one that is not necessarily paralleled in any Greco-Roman literature of the First Century. Lane indicates, “The conviction that the condition for contentment is the presence of God with his people is thoroughly Jewish. It is reflected in the piety of pre-Christian Pharisaism in a collection of hymns dating to the first century B.C.”[16] There are several indications of this in the Pseudepigrapha. Psalms of Solomon 16:12 specifically says, “With approval and happiness support my soul; when you strengthen my soul, what has been given is enough for me.”[17] Some have speculated that the writer of Hebrews borrows his words in vs. 4-5 from Testament of Judah 18:2, which says “Guard yourselves therefore, my children against sexual promiscuity and the love of money.”[18]

13:6 In v. 6 our author employs a gezera shavah argument, linking some key words and ideas. He communicates, “we can confidently say, ‘The Lord is my helper, I will not be afraid; what can man do to me?’” (RSV). Many agree that these words are primarily borrowed from Deuteronomy 31:6: “Be strong and courageous, do not be afraid or tremble at them, for the LORD your God is the one who goes with you. He will not fail you or forsake you.” However, there are several other passages from the Tanach that come very close to what he is writing:

HEBREWS 13:6

PARALLEL TANACH PASSAGES

So we can confidently say, “The Lord is my helper; I will not fear; what can man do to me?” (ESV)

Behold, I am with you and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you back to this land; for I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you (Genesis 28:15).

No man will be able to stand before you all the days of your life. Just as I have been with Moses, I will be with you; I will not fail you or forsake you (Joshua 1:5).

Then David said to his son Solomon, “Be strong and courageous, and act; do not fear nor be dismayed, for the LORD God, my God, is with you. He will not fail you nor forsake you until all the work for the service of the house of the LORD is finished” (1 Chronicles 28:20).

The afflicted and needy are seeking water, but there is none, and their tongue is parched with thirst; I, the LORD, will answer them Myself, as the God of Israel I will not forsake them (Isaiah 41:17).

When a person thinks of the faithfulness of God toward His people, all of these concepts of God never leaving or forsaking them should come to mind. However, it has been difficult for expositors to pin the author of Hebrews down on quoting from a specific text in v. 6. Many are agreed that the closest text is Joshua 1:5, but it might be that the author of Hebrews is quoting a Septuagint version that is no longer extant. Those who think this often base it on parallels seen in Philo’s works:

“On which account an oracle of the all-merciful God has been given, full of gentleness, which shadows forth good hopes to those who love instruction, in these terms: ‘I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee’ [Joshua i. 5.]” (On the Confusion of Tongues 166).[19]

Morris observes, “it seems that both Philo and the writer of Hebrews are quoting from a version of the LXX that has not survived.”[20] Whatever text our author is specifically quoting from really does not matter regarding what he is saying. The sentiment of knowing that God will care for His people and provide for them is true throughout the Tanach. In the broadest sense vs. 5-6 deal with the sin of coveteousness, often caused by, but not exclusively relating, to money.

[7] Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith. [8] Yeshua the Messiah is the same yesterday and today and forever.

13:7 V. 7 opens with the admonition, “Continue to remember your leaders” (WBC).[21] Our writer actually employs the present particple hēgoumenōn to describe the “leaders,” meaning “those leading you” (YLT). However, he also describes a past action of them having spoken, using the aorist verb elalēsan for “spoke.” He could be referring to some previous congregation and assembly leaders that Hebrews’ audience had been cared by, who are now deceased. While they have instructed them in the Word of God, a past action, they still are “leading” through their teachings and great example of faith.

The request that the author of Hebrews gives to his audience is, “As you carefully observe the outcome of their lives, imitate their faith” (HCSB). The verb anatheōreō can mean “look at again and again = ‘examine, observe carefully’” (BDAG).[22] The Amplified Bible renders this as, “Observe attentively and consider their manner of living.” What Hebrews’ audience is specifically asked to consider is the ekbasis, or the “going out of, escape from” (LS),[23] their leaders’ lives. The Apostle Paul uses this term in 1 Corinthians 10:13 to describe how God provides a way of escape for those tempted by sin:

“No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape [ekbasis] also, so that you will be able to endure it.”

Consequently, when our writer employs ekbasis, he may be trying to connect to his audience how God was faithful to them and enabled them to endure temptation, provided that they trusted and obeyed Him.

The last admonition in v. 7 is, “follow the example of their faith” (NEB). A common theme in First Century Judaism was imitating the actions and attitudes of one’s rabbi, and here the author of Hebrews is not saying anything that his audience should not have already been familiar with—certainly if their leaders had been able to teach them properly from the Scriptures and even be martyred for the faith. The idea of imitating one’s teacher—who is supposed to imitate God—is a theme seen throughout Pauline literature as well:

“Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children” (Ephesians 5:1).

“Therefore I exhort you, be imitators of me. For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, and he will remind you of my ways which are in Messiah, just as I teach everywhere in every [assembly]” (1 Corinthians 4:16-17).

13:8 After stating the need for his audience to emulate their previous leaders, the author of Hebrews makes an interesting remark. He says, “Yeshua the Messiah is the same yesterday, today and forever” (CJB). Obviously, this is a reference to Yeshua’s changelessness, as he has previously stated “your years will have no end” (1:12, ESV). There are several important parallels to be drawn between v. 8 and several passages in the Tanach:

“But You are the same, and Your years will not come to an end” (Psalm 102:27).

“For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed” (Malachi 3:6).

“Even to your old age I will be the same, and even to your graying years I will bear you! I have done it, and I will carry you; and I will bear you and I will deliver you” (Isaiah 46:4).

These verses, in some way or another, speak of the timelessness of God, and the writer of Hebrews is clearly applying it to Yeshua—thus considering Him timeless and indeed with His nature on the definitive, Divine side of things. But he is also probably applying Yeshua’s not changing to His continuing priesthood in Heaven, which never changes as He is always interceding. As the audience should follow their leaders’ manner of faith, they can have confidence that the work of Yeshua for them is unchanging and constant.

[9] Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings; for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, through which those who were so occupied were not benefited. [10] We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat.

13:9 V. 9 instructs Hebrews’ audience, “do not be swept off your course by all sorts of outlandish teachings” (NEB). Ellingworth issues the important warning for readers, “Vv. 9-14 have given rise to a wide variety of interpretations, and a final choice between them cannot be made until the whole passage has been examined. The basic problem arises…because the writer refers allusively to a situation which was well known to the first readers, but of which modern readers are largely ignorant.”[24] While there is a wide variance of Christian interpretations of this passage, the Messianic reader of vs. 9-10 especially needs to be aware of the context in which they were composed, and observe carefully.

There are two Greek adjectives that our writer uses to describe the “divers and strange doctrines” (KJV) circulating around his audience. The first, poikilos, can mean “changeful, various, diversified, manifold,” and Aristotle actually used it to mean “unstable” (LS).[25] The second, and probably more important for determining context, is xenos, meaning “foreign,” “because it comes from an external source” (BDAG).[26] A more literal translation of v. 9a might read with “varied and foreign teachings.” This is a good indication that there were some teachings originating from outside Hebrews’ faith community, that were errantly influencing the thoughts and beliefs of some people. Lane remarks, “The ‘various strange teachings’ competing for their attention are incompatible with the original, always valid, instruction delivered by the founding fathers of the community.”[27]

Many interpreters and lay readers can assume that vs. 9-10 speak of the dietary laws of the Torah, but notably this is not all. V. 9 ends with, “it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, through which those who were so occupied were not benefited.” While the Greek source text only uses brōmasin, only meaning “foods,” some versions provide an interpretation and extrapolate this to be “ceremonial foods” (NIV), “regulations about food” (NRSV), and “scruples about what we eat” (NEB). But are the kosher dietary laws what are being alluded to here? What is our writer connecting “foods” to?

Commentaries are generally divided in two between those who advocate that “foods” refers to clean and unclean meats, versus those who connect “foods” to something relating to the Tabernacle/Temple service. Zane C. Hodges holds to the latter view, stating, “The author’s reference here to all kinds of strange teachings does not sound at all like a reference to normative Judaism but as if the readers were confronting a peculiar, sectarian variation of that religion.”[28] In other words, the strange and odd teachings circulating, that somehow related to food, may have been taught by a certain sector of First Century Judaism beyond the mainstream.

What the author of Hebrews tells his audience is that “what is good is for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods. People who have made these the focus of their lives have not benefited thereby” (CJB). In other words, what they do and how they conduct themselves are clearly to be guided by God’s grace present and working in their lives, and not by what they eat. This does not negate the kosher laws, but the kosher laws are less important than one’s heart attitude, thoughts, and words. Yeshua taught “That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man” (Mark 7:20), whereas impurities from what one ingests can be excreted (Mark 7:19, Grk.). Unfortunately, for many in Judaism of the First Century and Orthodox Judaism today (b.Pesach 109a), what one eats is sometimes given a higher priority than one’s heart attitude. This is also true of many in the Messianic community, who forget “the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Romans 14:12).[29]

There has been some speculation as to the historical background behind the statements of v. 9. Making a broad assumption, Lane writes, “The purpose of those who brought the strange teachings concerning the value of ceremonial meals was to stimulate the heart to confession. Their instruction is to be rejected, because eating does not lead to that goal.”[30] These practices can teach people about God’s holiness and keep them physically fit, but they cannot cleanse human hearts of sin. This is something that only the Holy Spirit can do in transforming hearts and minds with His grace.

Tim Hegg takes another point of view, commenting, “there is every reason to believe that the conflict was between those who followed the strict halakah of the Pharisaic school and those who remained more relaxed in their view and practice of purities….In fact, an investigation into the Rabbinic sources shows that the halakic issue of whether or not it was right to eat with Gentiles…had not yet been settled.”[31] He views the statement “for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods,” as being separate from “Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings,” possibly seeing two imperative remarks made in v. 9.

The main issue regarding “foods,” without any doubt, is that people were attaching some unwarranted significance to them, forgetting the main emphasis of the gospel, which is that the grace of God is to transform us—not what we eat. Stuart Sacks validly remarks, “Those who are God’s children must remember that rules about food never enabled a person to establish an intimate relationship with God.”[32] Whether this concerns food itself or strange teachings about food, really does not matter in terms of an overall application of v. 9. What we have to keep in mind is that Hebrews’ audience was not demonstrating the spiritual maturity that it should have been (5:12-6:2), and they should have had a proper handle, as largely Jewish Believers, on how to follow the dietary laws and demonstrate God’s love to the world. May we likewise endeavor to do the same.

There is, however, a third general view concerning what vs. 9-10 are referring to concerning “foods,” which seems quite probable. Ellingworth validly points out that our author “has not so far discussed in detail fellowship meals which the worshippers shared with the priest, and he pays even less attention to dietary regulations.”[33] Strange or foreign teachings were somehow connected to “foods.” Donald Hagner actually thinks, “Strange regulations about food does not refer to the Jewish dietary laws…but is probably a reference to Jewish Gnostic teachings.”[34] Bruce similarly proposes, “The strange teaching which laid such insistence on food was probably some sort of syncretistic gnosis, perhaps with Essene or quasi-Essene affinities.”[35]

Considering these opinions, is it possible that there was a fringe sector of Judaism influencing some in Hebrews’ audience that by eating certain things that one could gain spiritual favor with God? We do know that Paul warned Timothy about those “who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth” (1 Timothy 4:3), a false teaching which itself was probably connected to the idea that the general resurrection had already taken place (2 Timothy 2:18). Asceticism, with some kind of eating or not eating in view, was also present in the Colossian false teaching (Colossians 2:16, 21). Likewise, with the destruction of the Temple on the horizon, could there have been those thinking that if they held some specific ceremonial meals, to take the place of animal sacrifices like those offered on the Day of Atonement, that the defilement of sins could be eliminated? Could total abstention from eating meat altogether be in view? Or, is a strange, hyper-sort of purity for keeping kosher intended? There are certainly some possibilities to be considered for v. 9 that due better justice to the author’s emphasis on strange and foreign teachings related to food, than just assuming that normative kosher eating is in view.

13:10 V. 10 connects the strange teachings about food to the animal sacrifices in the Tabernacle, emphasizing, “We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat.” Our author’s reference to the “altar” (Grk. thusiastērion) is best understood as being synonymous to “cross,” the instrument on which Yeshua was executed to atone for human sins. The author is likely connecting his audience to his previous assertion that Yeshua the Messiah’s death has fulfilled the sacrificial requirements of the Day of Atonement (9:11-12), and how the offering of Yom Kippur was to be totally consumed:

“But the bull of the sin offering and the goat of the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place, shall be taken outside the camp, and they shall burn their hides, their flesh, and their refuse in the fire” (Leviticus 16:27).

The Yom Kippur offering was to be totally burned outside the camp of the Israelites, and was not allowed to be eaten at all. This is different from the daily offerings, not sin related, that were frequently eaten as sustenance for the priests (Leviticus 10:16-20). This typology Yeshua fulfilled via His sacrifice outside of the city of Jerusalem.

If there were indeed strange and foreign teachings circulating among Hebrews’ audience relating to “foods,” that somehow could have implied that if one would eat something, possibly representing an animal sacrifice, that you would thus be “saved,” our writer certainly says that it nullifies His sacrificial fulfillment of the Day of Atonement. If Yeshua has fulfilled the sacrificial requirement of this day, and His work has inaugurated the era of the New Covenant, to eat something to save people rather than rely on God’s grace and the Holy Spirit, would go against the essence of the Yom Kippur offering.

Believers in Yeshua “minister at the tabernacle” (NIV), not by any kind of priestly service, but through worship of Him as Lord and Savior. Just as those in ancient times would fast and bow before God in deep reverence at Yom Kippur, so is that now extended to people acknowledging Yeshua’s sacrificial fulfillment of it. It is possible that if Jewish proto-Gnostics were involved with these strange teachings, that they introduced things contrary to the spirit of Yom Kippur, which is to be upheld as a fast (cf. Acts 27:9), by requiring that one eat or not eat something to receive salvation.

Ultimately, readers trying to probe what vs. 9-10 communicated to Hebrews’ First Century audience will be reliant on an able reader recognizing that strange teachings associated with food are what are in view—and kosher eating was regarded as something normative.

[11] For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy place by the high priest as an offering for sin, are burned outside the camp. [12] Therefore Yeshua also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate. [13] So, let us go out to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach.

13:11 V. 11 confirms that the writer of Hebrews has Yom Kippur in mind, saying, “The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp” (NIV). This is concurrent with the Torah’s instruction detailed in Leviticus 16:27 about the sacrificed animal being taken out and totally consumed in fire:

“But the bull of the sin offering and the goat of the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place, shall be taken outside the camp, and they shall burn their hides, their flesh, and their refuse in the fire.”

13:12 V. 12 moves forward the motif of Yom Kippur, connecting its basic typology to the sacrifice of Yeshua on the cross. What our author notes is that “Yeshua suffered death outside the gate, in order to make the people holy through his own blood” (CJB), being crucified at Golgotha (Calvary) outside the city of Jerusalem (Matthew 27:33; Mark 15:22; John 19:17). In Second Temple Judaism, the command for the Yom Kippur sacrifice to be offered “outside the camp” (Leviticus 16:17) was applied as meaning outside of Jerusalem. The Sanhedrin considered Yeshua’s crime worthy of execution to be blasphemy (Matthew 26:64-65; Mark 14:62-64), His claim to be the “I AM” or the Divine. According to the Torah, the execution of a blasphemer was to take place outside of the camp (Leviticus 24:16), and in this case Yeshua was executed outside of Jerusalem. Yeshua willingly went to the cross to die, so that those who believe in Him might be sanctified. But notable is the fact that Yeshua was crucified illegally, without substantial cause—yet He still went to His death like a lamb to the slaughter (Isaiah 53:7; Acts 8:32).

The critical admonition here moves beyond the typology of Yeshua’s sacrifice to how Hebrews’ audience is to appropriate His death for their own situation. Our writer candidly states, “Therefore let us go forth to him outside the camp and bear the abuse he endured” (RSV). The true test of one’s faith is whether or not a person can be falsely accused of something and endure martyrdom for it. One should immediately remember the Lord’s call that His followers pick up their crosses and follow Him, bearing the same kind of shame that He endured:

“And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me…Then Yeshua said to His disciples, ‘If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me’” (Matthew 10:38; 16:24).

“And He summoned the crowd with His disciples, and said to them, ‘If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me’” (Mark 8:34).

“And He was saying to them all, ‘If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me’” (Luke 9:23).

13:13 Some interpret v. 13 along the lines that Hebrews’ largely Jewish audience was to go outside the camp, meaning their comfort zones in Judaism, and serve their brethren like priests. This would be similar to how Ancient Israel would meet Moses outside the camp in Exodus 33:7:

“Now Moses used to take the tent and pitch it outside the camp, a good distance from the camp, and he called it the tent of meeting. And everyone who sought the LORD would go out to the tent of meeting which was outside the camp.”

This sentiment is well taken, because Believers should be willing to go outside their comfort zones, being rejected by their peers, and perform the necessary work that God has for us—even if that means us dying for Him.

The challenge with this view is that its adherents too frequently go to extremes, concluding that going “outside the camp” meant totally abandoning Judaism for Hebrews’ First Century audience. To them, the author of Hebrews presents a stark word of “You must choose either Judaism or Christianity. There is no other way to do this.” But this is not all commentators. Ellingworth, notes “To understand this passage as an appeal to abandon Judaism for Christianity is foreign to the whole scope of the author’s thought, which moves consistently within the category of God’s twofold action on behalf of his one people.”[36] Ellingworth actually associates this not in terms of Judaism and Christianity being at odds, but instead “the interpenetration of earth and heaven in the present state of [Believers]: they have already ‘approached’ the heavenly Jerusalem...having obtained access to God.”[37] While some of the Jewish members of Hebrews’ audience would have to make a definitive choice between a Messiah-less Synagogue, and a Messiah-full ekklēsia—the much bigger issue would be between a sin-cursed world, and the new world that has begun to break in via the sacrificial work of Yeshua and His reign in Heaven.

[14] For here we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come.

13:14 The temporal nature of having to go “outside the camp” is emphasized in v. 14, where our author writes, “For here we have no permanent home, but we are seekers after the city which is to come” (NEB). His reference to a polis or “city” here is a strong suggestion that Hebrews’ audience was largely urban. The city to come necessarily connects readers back to his previous words about Heavenly Jerusalem (11:10, 16). Even though some of Hebrews’ audience would soon have to face persecution for their faith, and endure death as Yeshua did, the reward of enduring for the Lord is participating in that marvelous city.

[15] Through Him then, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name. [16] And do not neglect doing good and sharing, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.

13:15 V. 15 onward conclude the Epistle to the Hebrews, and offers no major doctrinal challenges to readers, as it is principally a message of exhortation for his audience to serve the Lord, serve one another, and remember all of those in the Body of Messiah at large. V. 15 specifically tells Hebrews’ audience, “Through Jesus let us continually offer up to God a sacrifice of praise, that is, the tribute of lips which acknowledges his name” (REB). These words are probably most influenced by Hosea 14:2, which say, “Take words with you and return to the LORD. Say to Him, ‘Take away all iniquity and receive us graciously, that we may present the fruit of our lips.’” Some have also suggested that this sentiment is reflected in the Septuagint rendering of Leviticus 7:13:

LEVITICUS 7:13 (MT)

LEVITICUS 7:13 (LXX)

With the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving, he shall present his offering with cakes of leavened bread.

With leavened bread he shall offer his gifts, with the peace-offering of praise (LXE).

al’challot lechem chameitz yaqriv qorbano al-zevach todat shelamayv

ep’ artois zumitais prosoisei ta dōra autou epi thusia aineseōs sōtēriou

Of course, the theme of one offering up praise to the Lord is seen throughout the Psalms. The following are two passages some commentators have thought may have influenced the author of Hebrews:

“I will give thanks to the LORD according to His righteousness and will sing praise to the name of the LORD Most High” (Psalm 7:17).

“The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise” (Psalm 51:17).

Our author’s words are also consistent with what Paul writes the Romans:

“Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship” (Romans 12:1).

What is important for readers to consider in v. 15 is that our writer is likely influenced by a distinct Pharisaical theology in his word selection, as the Pharisees emphasized that making sacrifices were necessary by followers of God. “Pharisees…stressed God’s acceptance of piety as a spiritual offering, a factor that may have helped Pharisaism survive the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70” (IVPBBC).[38] This would concur with him being a Diaspora Jew, as religious Jews of the Diaspora were often Pharisaical in their theological orientation. We see various examples of prayer, praise, and other spiritual acts as being accepted as sacrifices throughout Rabbinical literature.

Leviticus Rabbah 9:7 in the Midrash explains, “In the Time to Come all sacrifices will be annulled, but that of thanksgiving will not be annulled, and all prayers will be annulled, but [that of] Thanksgiving will not be annulled. This is [indicated by] what is written, The voice of joy and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the voice of them that say: Give thanks to the Lord of hosts (Jer. XXXIII, II)-this refers to Thanksgiving.”[39] Emphasizing the need for continual prayer unto God, the Talmud says, “If one made a mistake and did not mention the New Moon in the ‘Abodah benediction, he goes back to the ‘Abodah. If he remembered in the ‘thanksgiving’, he goes back to the ‘Abodah; if he remembers in ‘grant peace’, he goes back to the ‘Abodah” (b.Berachot 29b).[40] The Avodah or standing prayer is one of the principal prayers in the Jewish siddur. It always calls one back to God and to remember His holiness.

The sacrifice of oneself unto God is also seen in the Dead Sea Scrolls. 1QS 9.4 states that members of the Qumran community “shall atone for guilty rebellion and for sins of unfaithfulness, that they may obtain loving-kindness for the Land without the flesh of holocausts and the fat of sacrifice.”[41]

13:16 When we see these different parallels—regardless of some of the conclusions these extra-Biblical quotes draw—it is once again confirmation that Hebrews had a very broad and diverse Jewish audience. Its author employs language to get the sentiment of self-sacrifice focused on self-sacrifice via faith in Yeshua. V. 16 builds on the concept of self-sacrifice unto the Lord and emphasizes service of Believers toward one another, saying, “Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God” (RSV). Our writer makes a specific reference to “fellowship” or koinōnia, which would be the need for brothers and sisters in Yeshua to assemble together and lift up one another in corporate assembly. We may also see a connection between v. 16 and James 1:17: “Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” These are likely all of the concepts that the author of Hebrews has in mind when speaking of sharing with one another.

[17] Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you. [18] Pray for us, for we are sure that we have a good conscience, desiring to conduct ourselves honorably in all things. [19] And I urge you all the more to do this, so that I may be restored to you the sooner.

13:17 Vs. 17-19 compose the last major set of spiritual instruction for the audience of Hebrews. These three verses deal with the respect that the author expected his audience to give their spiritual leaders, as he says, “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account” (ESV). He employs the verb agrupneō, meaning “to lie awake, be wakeful” (LS),[42] speaking of the action that spiritual leaders must often perform, which is to be “tireless in their concern for you” (NEB). This is because one who is truly called to lead a congregational assembly has been empowered by the Holy Spirit to see for the spiritual needs of others, and to see that they are growing toward maturity in the faith.

The author of Hebrews makes a very interesting statement in v. 17b, admonishing his audience, “Give them reason to do this with joy and not with sorrow. That would certainly not be for your benefit” (NLT). On the one hand, he surely does not want his audience to follow their local leaders blindly, as they are human as well, and hang their spirituality on every single word they say. At the same time, he wants his audience to remember those who have gone before them, have instructed them in the truth of the gospel of salvation, and defer to their leaders who were continuing in that work. He does not want those leaders to have a difficult time by them being downtrodden by people denying the Lord in their midst. The writer of Hebrews wants his audience to be mature, so that the workload of the local pastor-teacher-rabbi was not overwhelmed so that he would go into depression.

Today, these are some very important words to consider as the Messianic movement grows and matures what God wants us to be. There are fellowships and burgeoning Messianic congregations popping up all over the place, and the Lord wants those leaders to be joyful in what they do. There are also ministries that God has raised up to teach others the Scriptures from a distinct Messianic viewpoint. These people in ministry often have a great deal going against them: spiritually, socially, and financially. They need people who see the hand of God on their lives and are willing to support them so that ministry can be a joy to them, and they do not get depressed or feel overburdened.

Paul’s words in Philippians 2:14-16 reflect on the life of a spiritual mentor and leader who wanted to be sure that those he cared for did not overburden him, and that he received some satisfaction in the work that God had him perform:

“Do all things without grumbling or disputing; so that you will prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you appear as lights in the world, holding fast the word of life, so that in the day of Messiah I will have reason to glory because I did not run in vain nor toil in vain.”

13:18 Our author asked his audience, “Pray for us. We have no doubts about what we're doing or why, but it's hard going and we need your prayers. All we care about is living well before God” (The Message). Notice that he uses the plural pronoun “we,” indicating that he might be a leader of a First Century Messianic fellowship himself, or at least a major participant in one. He certainly represents a group of ancient Messianic Believers, which has taken the time to compose an important work for another group, who they are quite concerned about.

13:19 In v. 19, the writer continues, saying “I particularly urge you to pray so that I may be restored to you soon” (NIV). Some have speculated that he may somehow be detained or imprisoned by the Roman authorities, but it is probably better understood as meaning that he was busy conducting some kind of local ministry activity, and as a result was unable to travel to see them in person. If one accepts the postulation that Apollos was the author of Hebrews, a member of the Pauline inner circle, then we can take notice of how Apollos had been traveling with Zenas, on the way to Crete, to assist with Titus (Titus 3:13). If Apollos were the author of Hebrews, that the work associated with this visit could be in view here is a possibility.

[20] Now the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, even Yeshua our Lord, [21] equip you in every good thing to do His will, working in us that which is pleasing in His sight, through Yeshua the Messiah, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen. [22] But I urge you, brethren, bear with this word of exhortation, for I have written to you briefly.

13:20 Vs. 20-22 form a benediction for the Epistle to the Hebrews, and employ terms seen throughout the Apostolic Scriptures that give it some distinct Jewish character. The title “God of peace” is a very Jewish term, seen in the Pseudepigraphal Testament of Dan:

“Each of you speak truth clearly to his neighbor, and do not fall into pleasure and troublemaking, but be at peace, holding to the God of peace. Thus no conflict overwhelm you” (5:2).[43]

The title “God of peace” is also commonly seen throughout Pauline literature:

“Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen” (Romans 15:33).

“The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Yeshua be with you” (Romans 16:20).

“Finally, brethren, rejoice, be made complete, be comforted, be like-minded, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you” (1 Corinthians 13:11).

“The things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you” (Philippians 4:9).

“Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah” (1 Thessalonians 5:23).

Emphasizing the concept of God bringing peace to his readers, our author writes how He “brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep, our Lord Yeshua, by the blood of an eternal covenant” (CJB). These are concepts that we see present throughout the Tanach, as well as critical places in the Apostolic Scriptures.

Our writer refers to Yeshua as “the great Shepherd.” Yeshua being a shepherd (Heb. ra’ah; Grk. poimēn) is seen in several distinct places in the Bible, which emphasize how the Lord will take care of His people, regardless of the circumstances they may face. The Tanach speaks of the shepherding qualities of God, as well as of the Messiah to come:

“The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not want” (Psalm 23:1).

“Like a shepherd He will tend His flock, in His arm He will gather the lambs and carry them in His bosom; He will gently lead the nursing ewes” (Isaiah 40:11).

“For thus says the Lord GOD, ‘Behold, I Myself will search for My sheep and seek them out. As a shepherd cares for his herd in the day when he is among his scattered sheep, so I will care for My sheep and will deliver them from all the places to which they were scattered on a cloudy and gloomy day. I will bring them out from the peoples and gather them from the countries and bring them to their own land; and I will feed them on the mountains of Israel, by the streams, and in all the inhabited places of the land. I will feed them in a good pasture, and their grazing ground will be on the mountain heights of Israel. There they will lie down on good grazing ground and feed in rich pasture on the mountains of Israel. I will feed My flock and I will lead them to rest,’ declares the Lord GOD. ‘I will seek the lost, bring back the scattered, bind up the broken and strengthen the sick; but the fat and the strong I will destroy. I will feed them with judgment…Then I will set over them one shepherd, My servant David, and he will feed them; he will feed them himself and be their shepherd’” (Ezekiel 34:11-16, 23).

“My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd; and they will walk in My ordinances and keep My statutes and observe them” (Ezekiel 37:24).

The Apostolic Scriptures apply the title of “shepherd” to Yeshua, as He is the One who cares for and spiritually nourishes His followers:

“But he who enters by the door is a shepherd of the sheep. To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out…I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep…I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me …My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me” (John 10:2-3, 11, 14, 27).

“For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls…And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory” (1 Peter 2:25; 5:4).

In v. 20 our author says that God “brought up” Yeshua, which is an obvious reference to His resurrection. However, some expositors think that he may want his audience to think of Isaiah 63:11, and how God will likewise see His people through trials just like the Ancient Israelites were preserved by Him in Egypt:

“Then His people remembered the days of old, of Moses. Where is He who brought them up out of the sea with the shepherds of His flock? Where is He who put His Holy Spirit in the midst of them” (Isaiah 63:11).

V. 20 also includes the terminology diathēkēs aiōniou, or “eternal covenant.” This can only be a reference to the New Covenant that our writer has already mentioned earlier in his treatise (8:8-12; 10:16-17). Specific verses in the Tanach that he may likewise be considering here are Jeremiah 32:40 and Zechariah 9:11, which both speak of God’s eternal covenant with His people and how they will follow Him:

“I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; and I will put the fear of Me in their hearts so that they will not turn away from Me” (Jeremiah 32:40).

“As for you also, because of the blood of My covenant with you, I have set your prisoners free from the waterless pit” (Zechariah 9:11).

13:21 V. 21 emphasizes our writer’s desire to see the work of God implemented in the hearts and minds of his audience. His hope is that the Lord “may…equip you with all you need for doing his will. May he produce in you, through the power of Jesus Christ, every good thing that is pleasing to him. All glory to him forever and ever! Amen” (NLT). The important verb he uses is katartizō, meaning, “to furnish completely” (LS).[44] The concept of being prepared or equipped for God’s work is seen throughout the Scriptures. We see a parallel between the concept of doing that “which is pleasing in His sight” to Philippians 2:13, where “it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.” The last part of v. 21 probably bears some Pauline influence as well, as extending glory to Yeshua appears in Ephesians 1:3, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Messiah.”

Vs. 20-21 also have some distinct parallels to 1 Peter 5:10 and 1 Clement 64. This indicates that our author is likely familiar with the Apostolic peers of his time, and others who came shortly after him employed and applied his instruction in Hebrews in their particular communities:

HEBREWS 13:20-21

IMPORTANT PARALLELS

Now may the God of peace, who brought up from the dead our Lord Jesus—the great Shepherd of the sheep—with the blood of the everlasting covenant, equip you with all that is good to do His will, working in us what is pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen (HCSB).

After you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in Messiah, will Himself perfect, confirm, strengthen and establish you (1 Peter 5:10).

Finally may the All seeing God and Master of spirits and Lord of all flesh, who chose the Lord Jesus Christ, and us through Him for a peculiar people, grant unto every soul that is called after His excellent and holy Name faith, fear, peace, patience, long-suffering, temperance, chastity and soberness, that they may be well pleasing unto His Name through our High priest and Guardian Jesus Christ, through whom unto Him be glory and majesty, might and honor, both now and for ever and ever. Amen (1 Clement 64).[45]

13:22 The thrust of our author’s entire epistle can be easily summarized by what he says in v. 22. He writes, “I beg you, my friends, to listen patiently to this message of encouragement” (Good News Bible), noting, “I haven't piled on a lot of extras” (The Message). The genius of the Epistle to the Hebrews is seen in this statement. He has compiled this treatise emphasizing the Divinity and humanity of Yeshua, His superiority over all things, the great rewards that the Messiah’s followers are to receive if they continue in faith, and the assurance that His sacrifice covers human sins—all in a short time. As a masterpiece of rhetoric, he incorporates a great deal in carefully constructed language, that may have been read aloud in under an hour to a group, and certainly in under two hours. What is interesting is that he has kept his speech somewhat limited, and he could have probably composed a great deal more. Of course, Hebrews’ message probably asked its original audience many questions that they were not ready to answer; and likewise, Hebrews asks today’s Messianic community many questions that need some time and space to answer.

[23] Take notice that our brother Timothy has been released, with whom, if he comes soon, I will see you. [24] Greet all of your leaders and all the saints. Those from Italy greet you.

13:23 Vs. 23-24 give us a few clues about who the author of Hebrews was, and one will find a variance of opinions among commentators as to what these two verses specify. He writes his audience, “You should know that our brother Timothy has been released, with whom I shall see you if he comes soon” (ESV). This is a clear indication that the author of Hebrews knew Timothy, and the two of them were in the inner circle of Paul. In fact, some speculate that his reference to prisoners in v. 3 is an indirect reference to Timothy. 2 Timothy 4:9 specifies Paul’s desire to see Timothy, as he tells him from prison, “Make every effort to come to me soon,” indicating that Timothy had departed from Paul who was in Rome.[46] While Timothy was ministering in Ephesus at the time Paul wrote to him, the author of Hebrews knew of his circumstances, and this is evidence that the principal audience of Hebrews was likely the Messianic community in Rome. There is a real possibility that Timothy had traveled to Rome to see Paul, and had been arrested either there or on his way there. Favorable news of Timothy’s release had reached the author of Hebrews, which he acknowledges here.

13:24 Our writer makes an important point to tell his audience, “Greet all of your leaders and all the saints.” Some have speculated that his emphasis on greeting others is a strong indication that the audience he is writing is factionalized, and that he wants there to be a strong spirit of unity, or at the very least, civility. This would certainly account for his previous words about “doing good and sharing” (v. 16), as we know from history that the Believers in Rome would undergo and experience extreme persecution.

The latter half of v. 24, “Those from Italy greet you” is a cause of some debate among expositors, with two major positions espoused. There are (1) those who think that the letter to the Hebrews actually originates on the Italian peninsula, and (2) there are those who think that there are Italian expatriates in the community from which the author of Hebrews writes.

The Greek phrase for this group referenced is humas hoi apo tēs Italias, which the NEB extrapolates as “Greetings to you from our Italian friends.” Ellingworth indicates, “Despite the flexible use of prepositions in Koine, it seems likely that the people referred to ‘came from Italy,’ that is, were born or originated there…The balance of probability suggests that they were not in Italy at the time of sending their greeting: to refer to ‘the Italians’ in Italy would seem otiose, unless indeed the Christian community at the place where Hebrews was written included a large proportion of expatriate Italians.”[47] It would seem quite possible that “those from Italy” were Priscilla and Aquila, two Jewish Believers of Roman birth (Acts 18:2). Those who favor Apollos’ authorship of Hebrews are keen to point out that these two were responsible for mentoring him (Acts 18:24), and some will even go futher suggesting that this letter was written from Corinth, where he encountered them, with the two even playing a role in Hebrews’ composition.

[25] Grace be with you all.

13:25 The salutation in Hebrews 13:25, “Grace be with you all,” is a common salutation in Pauline writing:

“The grace of the Lord Yeshua the Messiah, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all” (2 Corinthians 13:14).

“The grace of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah be with you all” (2 Thessalonians 3:18).

“All who are with me greet you. Greet those who love us in the faith. Grace be with you all” (Titus 3:15).

Many throughout Christian history have used the greeting in v. 25 as a support for Pauline authorship. The Church of the Middle Ages generally accepted Pauline authorship, until it was challenged by Luther and Calvin in the Reformation. Only a few today in evangelical Christianity actually hold to Pauline authorship for the Epistle to the Hebrews, and there are likewise some in the Messianic movement who believe it.

While Paul was an early candidate for Hebrews’ authorship, as much of the theology is Pauline in nature, it is my assessment that Paul having written Hebrews is an impossibility. The writing style is more direct and does not digress like Paul. Furthermore, earlier in Hebrews 2:3 the author has said, “this deliverance was first announced through the lips of the Lord himself; those who heard him confirmed it to us” (NEB). In other words, the author of Hebrews and his audience heard the good news from those who encountered Yeshua firsthand. This discounts the Apostle Paul who had a personal encounter with Yeshua the Messiah on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:1-18). It is possible that in his salutation the author of Hebrews modified his writing style because he was writing to a community that was largely influenced by Paul, and that he knew Paul personally, but he had to have been a second generation Believer who had not heard the gospel from Yeshua Himself, but rather from those who had known Him.

ENDNOTES FOR Commentary on Hebrews 13

[1] Morris, in EXP, 12:145.

[2] BDAG, 1055.

[3] Bruce, Hebrews, 370.

[4] Lane, 47b:512.

[5] The Soncino Talmud. Judaic Classics Library II.

[6] Ellingworth, 694.

[7] Philip Schaff (1885), trans. The Didache: Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Accessible online at <http://www.catholicplanet.com/ebooks/didache.htm>.

[8] Guthrie, Hebrews, 268.

[9] Keener, 682.

[10] Lane, 47b:516.

[11] In 1 Corinthians 5:9, Paul writes the Corinthians “I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people,” indicating that there was a previous letter, today non-extant, that he wrote them. Consult the author’s entries for 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians in A Survey of the Apostolic Scriptures for the Practical Messianic for more details.

[12] Consult the FAQ on the TNN website, “Romans 1:26-27.”

[13] Bruce, Hebrews, pp 372-373.

[14] Stern, 720.

[15] Lane, 47b:517.

[16] Ibid., 519.

[17] R.B. Wright, trans., “Psalms of Solomon,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 2, 665.

[18] Kee, in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 1, 800.

[19] The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged, 249.

[20] Morris, in EXP, 12:147.

[21] Lane, 47b:522.

[22] BDAG, 63.

[23] LS, 236.

[24] Ellingworth, 705.

[25] LS, 652.

[26] BDAG, 684.

[27] Lane, 47b:530-531.

[28] Hodges, in BKCNT, 812.

[29] For a further discussion about the relevancy of the dietary laws for God’s people today, consult the author’s article “To Eat or Not to Eat?”

[30] Lane, 47b:536.

[31] Hegg, Hebrews, 248.

[32] Sacks, 96.

[33] Ellingworth, 708.

[34] Hagner, in New Interpreter’s Study Bible, 2169.

[35] Bruce, Hebrews, 377.

[36] Ellingworth, 716.

[37] Ibid., 717.

[38] Keener, 684.

[39] The Soncino Midrash. Judaic Classics Library II.

[40] The Soncino Talmud. Judaic Classics Library II.

[41] Vermes, 110.

[42] LS, 9.

[43] Kee, in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 1, 809.

[44] LS, 414.

[45] J.B. Lightfoot, trans., Clement of Rome, First Epistle. Accessible online at <http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/>.

[46] Consult the author’s entry on the Epistles of 1&2 Timothy in A Survey of the Apostolic Scriptures for the Practical Messianic for more information on this letter’s composition.

[47] Ellingworth, pp 735-736.

EPILOGUE

Having just completed our examination of the Epistle to the Hebrews, we should certainly recognize the fact that among the Apostolic Scriptures it is a very unique text. Because so many of us are separate from the world of the First Century, the Jewish world and the Greco-Roman world, we have some difficulty understanding a text that can be complicated in various places. Christians have difficulty understanding Hebrews with its emphasis on the Law of Moses and animal sacrifices, because of their large disconnection to the Torah. Messianics have difficulty understanding Hebrews because it is large directed to a Diaspora Jewish audience outside of Israel they tend to ignore, and the author uses the Greek Septuagint version of the Tanach to make his distinct arguments about Yeshua that they are largely unfamiliar with or ignorant of.

When we weigh all of the factors of Hebrews’ composition, what should our assessment be? Is Hebrews a text that has at all been written against Messianic Believers who believe in the continued validity of the Torah? No. But Hebrews does clearly present Yeshua as being superior to Moses. It does tell us that if Yeshua and His completed work are not at the epicenter of our faith, then anything else we do may be meaningless. It presents a message of rebuke for those who have forgotten about Yeshua and the example that He has left for us, but it also presents a message of hope so that we might change and mature in our faith. Hebrews asks us to remember the great figures of the Tanach, and regard them very highly as examples of men and women who were faithful to God, but likewise asks us to remember that they were human. Yeshua, as God made manifest to us in human form, is the consummation of what the greats of the Tanach all represent.

Looking forward beyond this commentary, Hebrews does ask the Messianic community some significant questions about our future, and specifically our theological maturation. How much does history play in our interpretation of Scripture? How are we to understand the fact that most Jews of the First Century lived outside the Land of Israel? How are we to understand that a significant number of Jews, including the author of Hebrews, used the Greek Septuagint as their primary Bible and considered it authoritative? These are questions that are not easily answered today, and will be debated for many years in this early period of the Messianic movement’s development.

For the short term, the message of Hebrews bears a strong witness with what is occurring in some sectors of today’s Messianic community. Just as there were those in the First Century who were on the verge of denying Yeshua, are there any people in today’s Messianic movement who are in danger of apostasizing? Yes. Are there those who believe that Moses and the animal sacrifices of the Torah are superior to Yeshua? Perhaps. Are there people who are going to lose their salvation? We should hope not, and that is why Hebrews’ warnings to us must be heeded and applied. We must “Remember those earlier days after [we] had received the light” (Hebrews 10:32, NIV) when we were young in the faith and were experiencing the goodness of Yeshua every day. But we must also remember that the Ancient Israelites disobeying God and rejecting His Instruction brought them severe Earthly punishment, and rejecting Yeshua will bring one severe eternal punishment—something much worse than physical death. Throwing away Yeshua means that one also throws away being part of the restored humanity where we will be made second only to God in His Creation.

You have hopefully discovered in this detailed commentary on Hebrews that it is a profoundly spiritual as well as intellectual text. Understanding Hebrews need not be difficult, but it does require that a person be empowered by the Holy Spirit and able to transport back to a different time, place, and a series of complex circumstances. Unfortunately, some in today’s Messianic movement are unable to do this. Hebrews, admittedly, has a strong message of putting Yeshua first that some in the Messianic community cannot handle. Why they cannot handle this is unknown, and thankfully is something that only God has to determine. As faithful Believers, our responsibility it to heed its call to be mature, place Yeshua at the center of our lives, and pray to be empowered to change the world around us through a testimony of a changed life and good works that reflect that life. We have the responsibility to move beyond spiritual childhood and attain adult status. We have to fully commit to a life where we are God’s representatives on Earth, and we can remember all of the wonderful things that He has waiting for us in eternity.

What have you gained from your study of Hebrews? How has the text ministered to you and to your spiritual needs? What areas of your walk with the Lord need improvement? Do you think the next stages of development for the Messianic movement will be positive or negative? How much more do you have to mature in your faith? I believe Hebrews has a great many things to offer us, and actually has a very encouraging message—even if there are a few points in Hebrews which are likely to be explored in more detail for the future, as new information and theological proposals are considered. How much we each let this text be encouraging to us is our choice, and I think that what we do with its message will determine how fast—or how slow—we see the Messianic community grow into what the Lord wants it to be. It is my sincere hope and prayer that we can become a force that can impact the world with the gospel message of Yeshua the Messiah, and how to live a sanctified life by following the Torah as His original Disciples followed it.

THE MESSAGE OF HEBREWS

a summary for Messianic teaching and preaching

The Epistle to the Hebrews is probably the second most difficult text of the Bible for today’s Messianic Believers to really understand.[1] As many have desired to recapture a forgotten emphasis on the Hebraic and Jewish Roots of our faith, Hebrews forces us to consider a part of the First Century world that many would like to think does not really exist: the Jewish Diaspora.[2] I remember when I purchased my leather bound edition of the Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible back in 2000, and read a statement for its introduction to Hebrews: “It is certainly a superb, literal Greek masterpiece which is well-organized, logical, and comprehensive.”[3] Having encountered this, I realized that one day as Messianic engagement with the Scriptures improved, this was going to prove to be a problem because various people in our faith community hold to a steadfast, ungodly prejudice against anything that is not “Hebrew.” Several years later my suspicions were confirmed when a particular Messianic false teacher claimed that the text of Hebrews was unreliable, and its inclusion within the Bible should be severely questioned. Those with appropriate training in Biblical Studies could see right through the overblown claims made against Hebrews, which if unfortunately applied across the board could be used to question the integrity of every book of the Bible.

The most significant thing, for any reader of Hebrews to recognize, is that the author of Hebrews relies upon the unique renderings of the Greek Septuagint, the ancient translation of the Hebrew Tanach into Greek, dating three centuries before the ministry of Yeshua. Those unfamiliar with the LXX might think that the author has misquoted from the Hebrew Tanach, when in fact he only uses the canonical Scriptures of the Diaspora Synagogue.[4] (Of course, the Epistle to the Hebrews is not the only place where the Septuagint is used in the Apostolic Writings, as many Messianic prophecies referenced in the Gospels are quoted from the LXX.) Likewise, a working knowledge of Greek is important for readers and teachers of Hebrews, to note any biased translations into English that can be rendered a bit better (8:13), or to detect words added to an English translation that do not appear in the source text (i.e., 8:7, 13; 9:1, 17, 24; 10:1).

If there is anything that is absolutely true about the Epistle to the Hebrews, it is that its author does believe Yeshua the Messiah (Jesus Christ) to be superior to all things. The author is a second generation Believer who is reckoned among those who heard the good news from those of the first generation who encountered the Lord in person (2:3).[5] He is definitely concerned about the possibility of many of his brothers and sisters leaving faith in Yeshua (2:1; 3:12; 6:6; 10:35). It is rightly concluded that the main audience of Hebrews were Jewish Believers in the Diaspora, with a wide number of interpreters thinking that it was written to those in Rome (cf. 13:24). For some reason or another, these Believers are being tempted to leave faith in the Messiah and return to a previous, Messiah-less experience in the Synagogue. Given the author’s observations of the Temple service in Jerusalem still operating (8:13), it is probable that Hebrews was written in the mid-to-late 60s C.E., against a backdrop of the Jewish uprising in Judea soon to occur.

The author of Hebrews knows that something big is soon to occur, and with it there will be no safety net in the minds of many Jewish Believers—who while having faith in Yeshua, still knew that animal sacrifices were occurring in Jerusalem. This was something comforting for them. What would happen if these sacrifices were suddenly gone? This would be uncharted territory for many of them, given the relative unestablishment of the Messianic community. Some Jewish Believers would choose to cast aside the Messiah and return to the familiarity of the Synagogue, while others would be forced to recognize the magnanimity of His final sacrifice at Golgotha, providing for a permanent atonement. There would be no more operating Levitical priesthood, but only Yeshua’s priesthood operating and interceding before the Father in Heaven (7:25). Would they be spiritually mature enough to be able to handle this?

Hebrews is frequently read as sometimes opposing the commandments of the Torah of Moses, yet the author of Hebrews is quite insistent that the Law has not been abolished, twice quoting the critical New Covenant promise of Jeremiah 31:31-34 that Moses’ Teaching is to be written on the hearts and minds of God’s people (8:8-12; 10:16-17)—something the Messiah has inaugurated by His priesthood. Much of the argumentation style of the Epistle to the Hebrews has sometimes been taken as being anti-Judaism and anti-Temple, but in actuality he employs a common Rabbinic qal v’chomer or classical a fortiori approach, demonstrating great respect for the institutions and historical figures of Ancient Israel in order to precisely show how much greater and grander the Messiah actually is.

The author of Hebrews recognizes the ongoing plan of not only salvation history, but most especially God’s revelation to humanity: “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe” (1:1-2). His treatise is certainly going to include some material that demonstrates how God’s plan has moved forward, and that there are some new realities that His people will have to contend with. Soon there will be no more Temple, no more sacrifices, and with it the realization that all Messiah followers will have no choice but to look to Yeshua exclusively for their sin covering.

Yeshua as the Son of God represents His Father fully (1:3a), and His intention was to enter into this world and provide permanent purification for sins, later to return to Heaven and sit at His Father’s right hand (1:3b). Because of Yeshua’s supremacy as the Son, He is to be regarded as superior to angels (1:4-5; cf. Psalm 2:7; 2 Samuel 7:14; 1 Chronicles 17:13), and the angels are actually directed to worship Him as Divine (1:6; cf. Deuteronomy 32:43, LXX). While the angels are to be regarded as important servants of God (1:7, 14; cf. Psalm 10:4), the Son is directly regarded as being “God,” whose “throne will last for ever and ever…” (1:8-9; cf. Psalm 45:6-7). The ultimate end of the Earth and greater cosmos is contrasted to the great power and permanence of the Messiah (1:10-12; cf. Psalm 102:25-27). None of the angels are to be considered as ever having sat down at the Father’s right hand (1:13; cf. Psalm 110:1). Similar to the angel worship problem at Colossae (Colossians 2:18), there were some among Hebrews’ intended audience who may have only thought of Yeshua as being a nominal intermediary force, but not God Himself.

Our author notes that angels were present in the giving of the Torah to Moses (2:2; cf. Deuteronomy 33:2; Acts 7:54). If violation of God’s Law was met with severe penalties, then “We must pay more careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away…[H]ow shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation?” (2:1, 3a). The gospel message that Hebrews’ audience has encountered has been attended by the great miracles and the presence of the Holy Spirit (2:3b-4). As serious as dismissing the Torah is, dismissing the good news would bring with it even more severe consequences! Yeshua the Messiah has come into the world to bring a realization to humanity of the great things in store for the redeemed in the future (2:5-8; cf. Psalm 8:5-7). Yeshua Himself participated in the human experience (2:9), precisely so that many may be brought into glory. Yeshua’s identification with humanity in His ministry service is critical, not only so that we might emulate Him and look to Him for guidance, but that we might understand His priestly service before the Father in Heaven (2:10-18; cf. Psalm 22:22; Isaiah 8:17; 8:18).

One of the most important figures in the Bible is undeniably Moses, and the author of Hebrews has a very high view of him. Still, in demonstrating great respect for Moses and what he did for the Lord, the more significant person to whom Believers must direct their attention is obviously Yeshua the Messiah:

“Therefore, holy brothers, who share in the heavenly calling, fix your thoughts on Yeshua, the apostle and high priest whom we confess. He was faithful to the one who appointed him, just as Moses was faithful in God’s house. Yeshua has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses, just as the builder of a house has greater honor than the house itself. For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything. Moses was faithful as a servant in all God’s house, testifying to what would be said in the future. But Messiah is faithful as a son over God’s house. And we are his house, if we hold on to our courage and the hope of which we boast” (3:1-6).

There is no denigration at all of the figure of Moses in these statements, but Moses was a servant contrasted to Yeshua Himself who is God’s Son. While proper honor is due to Moses, our faith and confidence are to be placed in the Messiah. If not, the author of Hebrews warns that people might fall into the same predicament as the Ancient Israelites who rebelled at Meribah and Massah did (3:7-11; Psalm 95:7-11). This important scene is used to communicate how severe it would be to reject Yeshua—especially if for a previous generation God “declared on oath in my anger, ‘They shall never enter my rest’” (3:11). The writer urges, “See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness” (3:12-13). The need to persevere in one’s trust in Yeshua is clear: “We have come to share in Messiah if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first” (3:14). He repeats the need to learn from this past incident, because if a generation of Ancient Israelites did not enter into the Promised Land and its rest because of unbelief, what will face those who reject God’s Messiah (3:15-19; cf. Psalm 95:7-8)?

Learning from the errors of previous generations is imperative to the author of Hebrews, and those in the First Century will be held every bit as accountable as those in Israel’s past. He observes how “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” (4:1). This rest, however, is not entry into the Promised Land but entry into the Kingdom of God itself. The Ancient Israelites apparently “had the gospel preached” to them the same as Hebrews’ generation, but they are to be regarded as those “who heard [but] did not combine it with faith” (4:2). The basic news that redemption and blessing would be brought by the Lord is the same for any time period; the specificity that this is to come about in Yeshua the Messiah requires the stakes to be higher. Those who know Him and believe in Him enter into the promised rest (4:3; cf. Psalm 95:11), something which has been typified by the institution of the Sabbath day (4:4-7; cf. Psalm 95:7-8). While there is surely a great eternal “rest” to be experienced by those in the Messiah, it would be difficult to argue that the author of Hebrews is “anti-Sabbath”—given the fact that by resting once a week, Believers can experience a small taste of future eschatological realities (4:8-11). The message of the Word of God, in what it communicates and how it challenges His people, is something that cannot go unheeded (4:12-13).

It is much more difficult for modern people, who live in an age when animal sacrifices seem out of place and largely taboo, to identify with our writer’s description of Yeshua as High Priest, than First Century Jews, Greeks, and Romans for whom these things were far more commonplace. Yeshua, as the Son of God in Heaven (4:14), is to be regarded as the High Priest with whom we can relate, precisely because He has participated in humanity and can convey our needs before the Father (4:15). Messiah followers should be able to “approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need” (4:16).

The author of Hebrews recognizes the value of the Levitical priesthood in stating, “Every high priest is selected from among men and is appointed to represent them in matters related to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. He is able to deal gently with those who are ignorant and are going astray, since he himself is subject to weakness. This is why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins, as well as for the sins of the people” (5:1-3). Yeshua’s service as High Priest before the Father is consistent with Aaron’s own appointment (5:4-5; Psalm 2:7). Yet, Yeshua serves as a priest after the order of Melchizedek (5:6; Psalm 110:4), something validated by His own Earthly ministry and obedience to the Father through suffering (5:7-10). For some reason or another, though, the author of Hebrews expresses doubts that his audience can really understand all of the details and significance of this, still needing to be fed from proverbial “milk” rather than “meat” (5:11-14).

There are many things classified as being “elementary teachings about Messiah” that the writer lists, including: “the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection from the dead, and eternal judgment” (6:1-2). Hebrews’ audience did not have an adequate understanding of these things and many Believers today do not either. (Even our own Messianic community has divergent opinions on some of these foundational subjects.) Still, the key is to advance beyond the essentials of faith into the more complex and detailed issues (6:3).

One of the most disputed areas of the Epistle to the Hebrews is where the author asserts, “It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace” (6:4-6). Those who believe in a doctrine of eternal security, more popularly called “once saved, always saved,” have tended to have difficulty with this. Those who believe in the possibility that the spiritually regenerated can lose their salvation look here for support, although they would commonly emphasize that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit would be grounds for redemption lost (Matthew 12:31). Someone would really have to declare that the salvation experienced in Yeshua is really something worthless. Eternal punishment can only await (6:7-8).

The author of Hebrews is confident that his audience will do the right thing: “Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are confident of better things in your case—things that accompany salvation” (6:9). They have already been faithful to love, help others, and demonstrate proper works becoming of true saints (6:10). They are encouraged to continue doing the good things they have been accomplishing (6:11-12). God’s nature requires Him to be faithful, just as He was to Abraham (6:13-15; cf. Genesis 22:16-17). He Himself had to be the Guarantor of Abraham’s blessing (6:16-17). With God being incapable of lying, the hope that is offered to people is found in Yeshua, who serves as a high priest before the Father, similar to Melchizedek (6:16-20).

Melchizedek is a very interesting, albeit elusive figure, who is encountered in Genesis 14:18-20. He was a priest of the Most High God, to whom Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils after freeing Lot from captivity (7:1-2a). He is testified to be a “king of peace” (7:2b), with some kind of mystery surrounding him as nothing is stated regarding his origins (7:3). Abraham acknowledged Melchizedek’s significance in tithing to him, something to be regarded as the Levites having paid a tithe to him as Levi was present in Abraham’s loins (7:4-9). The importance, more than anything else, is to highlight that there has been a transition of priesthoods from Levitical to Melchizedekian, because of the arrival of the Messiah (7:11-17; cf. Psalm 110:4). The author of Hebrews speaks about there being both “a change of the priesthood” and “a change of the law” (7:12). While Moses’ Teaching as a whole—especially statutes like the Ten Commandments—is not to be cast aside as irrelevant or unimportant, changes regarding animal sacrifice, the Levitical priesthood transitioning to Yeshua’s priesthood, and most especially the Messiah’s permanent atonement have been enacted, as salvation history has progressed forward.

The author of Hebrews could observe how “The former regulation [of the priesthood] is set aside because it was weak and useless” (7:18a), with asthenes kai anōpheles perhaps better translated as “weak and unprofitable” (HCSB). The further observation “the law made nothing perfect” (7:18b) is not a negation of Psalm 19:7,[6] but rather an assertion of how “the Torah did not bring anything to the goal” (CJB) as it is powerless in and of itself to bring final redemption. The audience of Hebrews is told, “a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God” (7:19c), this Hope being none other than the Messiah Yeshua Himself and His Melchizedekian priesthood (7:20-22):

“Now there have been many of those [Levitical] priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Yeshua lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. Such a high priest meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once and for all when he offered himself. For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever” (7:23-28).

The awesome importance, of not only Yeshua’s single sacrifice for human sin providing permanent atonement, but also His priestly service in Heaven, is explained as “The point of what we are saying” (8:1a). Our writer explains the greatness of the Messiah, who is “a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man” (8:1b-2). It is asserted that Yeshua serves as High Priest of the Tabernacle in Heaven, because the Levitical priests on Earth actually serve a copy of the true Heavenly Tabernacle (8:3-5; cf. Exodus 25:40). The author of Hebrews will explain how the ministry in which the Messiah serves is superior (8:6), precisely because Yeshua’s Melchizedekian priesthood has brought about the promised New Covenant.

A translation challenge is present in 8:7, though, because as the NIV renders it, “For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.” The Greek Ei gar hē prōtē ēn amemptos actually reads “for if that first were faultless” (YLT) with no associated noun. While “first” can be diathēkē/covenant, the feminine prōtē could also speak of the skēnē/tabernacle, hierōsunē/priesthood, or even leitourgia/ministry. It is far better, given the limitations of the human priests who occupied the Levitical service (7:28), for prōtē in 8:7 to be associated with the Earthly Tabernacle, priesthood, or ministry of the Levitical service—not the covenant made by God. The problems that God had are asserted to be with the people (8:8). With a second tabernacle/priesthood/ministry established, the result is that the New Covenant has been enacted. The author of Hebrews quotes from Jeremiah 31:31-34 (LXX) to substantiate that the time when a permanent forgiveness for sins would be available has now arrived:

“The time is coming declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.[7] This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws into their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more” (8:9-12).

No one can honestly argue from Hebrews 8:9-12 that the New Covenant is something separated from the commandments and instructions of God’s Torah. The essence of the New Covenant is not only the promise of permanent forgiveness for sins—something clearly available in the sacrificial work of Messiah Yeshua—but that “I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts” (8:10). It is a sad fact that when many good Christian people read about the New Covenant in the Bible, they jump right over this fact.

Similar to 8:7 preceding, 8:13 and 9:1 following are another location where “covenant” (NASU) has been added to most English translations, where the subject matter from 8:13-10:18 largely concerns the limitations and transitory nature of the Levitical priesthood to the permanence of Yeshua’s priesthood. 8:13 especially has some transmission issues into English. Its opening clause en tō legein kainēn is simply “in the saying ‘new’” (YLT), with no noun provided. Kainēn should be understood as applying to the tabernacle/priesthood/ministry of the Levitical service, given what 8:13b says: to de palaioumenon kai gēraskon engus aphanismou. While often rendered with “what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear,” the verbs palaioō[8] and gēraskō[9] both mean “to age.” To regard the Levitical service as “obsolete” is too strong, whereas the NEB offers the much better rendering, “growing old and ageing.”[10] The Levitical service would have been older in its time of service than Yeshua’s priestly service in Heaven (although it has been based on Melchizedek’s priesthood), and it would disappear at the time of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., a timestamp on when Hebrews was composed in the late 60s C.E.

It is much easier to detect in 9:1 that the subject matter is not “the first covenant” (NIV), but rather how Eiche men oun [kai] hē prōtē, “Now even the first…” pertains to the Levitical priesthood and with it its “earthly sanctuary. A tabernacle was set up” (9:1b-2a). The author lists some of the main pieces of the Tabernacle furniture (9:2b-5a),[11] but mentions that for the sake of his audience “we cannot discuss these things in detail now” (9:5b). Within the Levitical priesthood the high priest had to enter into the Holy of Holies once a year, but could not offer a permanent cleansing of the conscience (9:6-10). In contrast to this, Yeshua entered into the Heavenly realm and presented His own blood to obtain eternal redemption for all who would believe in Him (9:11-14). By this priestly work “Messiah is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised inheritance” (9:15a).

Speaking of a covenant made (diathēkē), the author of Hebrews expresses, “it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it” (9:16). 9:17 is a most difficult verse to detect a mis-translation, appearing in the NASU as “For a covenant is valid…when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives.” While to some readers it may seem that a last will and testament which people make is in view, nekrois is simply a plural noun for “dead (ones).” What is more in view here is “dead victims” (YLT) in reference to animals, and William L. Lane’s paraphrased offering in his Word Biblical Commentary volume captures what 9:17 is communicating a little better: “for a covenant is made legally secure on the basis of the sacrificial victims.”[12] In instances like Genesis 15:9-21, those who made the covenant had to agree to be like the animals broken up into pieces, if the b’rit/diathēkē were ever broken.

The author of Hebrews highlights the significance of shed blood to secure an agreement between God and His people, making light of the Sinai Covenant (9:18-21). The Torah certainly did offer a degree of cleansing by its prescribed animal sacrifices (9:22-23), but not the permanent cleansing offered in the sacrifice of the Son of God. Yeshua died in humanity’s stead for violation of God’s statutes, providing for there to be a one-time offering for final atonement:

“For Messiah did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was…a copy[13] of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Then Messiah would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself” (9:24-26).

As important as Yeshua’s offering is for the progression of salvation history, and with it the inauguration of the New Covenant—more is still to come. The Lord will return, and the salvation of persons is to be consummated at the resurrection (9:28).

Once again as Twenty-First Century readers, we have to be reminded that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not written directly to us; Hebrews was written to an ancient audience for whom animal sacrifices were quite important. 10:1 in the NASU again adds unnecessary words in attesting, “For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come…,” as the Greek source text simply has Skian gar echōn ho nomos tōn mellontōn agathōn, lacking “only.” Still, it is very true that the Torah has shadows of “the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship” (10:1b). The author asks, “If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshippers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (10:2-4). If the Torah’s animal sacrifices could offer what the sacrifice of Yeshua has provided, then a single, one-time sacrifice would be all that was needed for redemption.

Yeshua the Messiah entered into the world to accomplish His Father’s will, because of the ultimate limitations of the animal sacrifices (10:5-9a; cf. Psalm 40:6-8, vs. 6, 7 again). It is attested how “He sets aside the first to establish the second” (10:9b), with the old order of sacrifices put away in order for Yeshua’s own sacrifice to stand. Note that the issue is not the commandments of God’s Law regulating human ethics, morality, or even things like the Sabbath, Biblical holidays, or kosher. The issue in view is what the Messiah’s sacrifice has specifically done for the atonement of sin, and how “we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Yeshua the Messiah once for all” (10:10). The author of Hebrews compares and contrasts the Levitical priest who has to offer up sacrifices constantly, while the Messiah has ascended into Heaven waiting only to return to the Earth and defeat His enemies (10:11-14; cf. Exodus 29:38; Psalm 110:1). The validation of the Messiah’s work is found in the essence of the New Covenant, of the Lord writing His Law onto the hearts of His people and forgetting all of their lawless acts against Him (10:15-18; cf. Jeremiah 31:33-34). To give up these things not only for Hebrews’ ancient audience—but even for us as today’s Messianic Believers—would be most reckless. The author exhorts his readers to have the steadfast assurance that they can approach the Father via the work of His Son:

“Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Yeshua, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful” (10:19-23).

The attention of Messiah followers should be “how we may spur one another to love and good deeds” (10:24), with regular times of fellowship and accountability most important (10:25). The challenges of denying the Lord Yeshua, His permanent atonement, and regarding what He has accomplished as utterly worthless—are even more severe than what happens to those who disregard Moses’ Teaching:

“If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy think the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, ‘It is mine to repay,’ and again, ‘The Lord will judge his people.’ It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (10:26-31; cf. Deuteronomy 32:35, 36; Psalm 135:14).

For some reason or another, not stated in the text explicitly, many within Hebrews’ audience had grown a little tired or weary of their Messiah faith and were tottering. So the author naturally asks them to “Remember those earlier days after you had received the light, when you stood your ground in great contests in the face of suffering. Sometimes you were exposed to insult and persecution; at other times you stood side by side with those who were so treated. You sympathized with those in prison and joyfully accepted the confiscation of your property, because you knew that you yourselves had better and everlasting possessions” (10:32-35). These Believers were steadfast and eager in their faith, willing to endure whatever was required for the cause of the good news. They endured some degree of insults and beatings, and even illegal procurements of what they owned. Now with the Second Temple soon to be gone, some were wondering: Is belief in Yeshua really valid?

The author of Hebrews does not even entertain that his largely Jewish audience will apostatize, and return to a Synagogue experience without Yeshua.[14] He just says, “So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded. You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised” (10:35-36). Yeshua will return to the Earth, and ultimate salvation will be found in those who enter into His Kingdom (10:37-39; cf. Habakkuk 2:3-4; Isaiah 26:20).

One of the most important and encouraging parts of the Holy Bible for Believers since the First Century has undeniably been Hebrews 11, commonly referred to as the “Hall of Faith” or the “Hall of Fame of Faith.” It begins with the assertion, “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible” (11:1-3). Faith regards those realities that we cannot fully understand as limited human beings, those aspects of our lives and experiences on Earth which require us to place our trust entirely in the hands of an Eternal Creator—the One who made the universe not out of some pre-fabricated elements as Greco-Roman mythology taught, but out of nothing.

To argue that “faith” (pistis) is just some New Testament concept, while popular among many Christians today, is something that the author of Hebrews would utterly reject. To substantiate his view that his audience, with all of the unknowns they would be facing, must turn to God like never before, he makes considerable effort to reference figures from the Tanach or Old Testament who expressed complete trust in Him. As he says, “without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him” (11:6). These include: Cain (11:4), Enoch (11:5), Noah (11:7), Abraham and Sarah (11:8-12, 17-19), Isaac (11:20), Jacob (11:21), Joseph (11:22), Moses (11:23-28), the Ancient Israelites in the Exodus (11:29), those who witnessed the fall of Jericho (11:30), Rahab (11:31), and various other figures from both Ancient Israel and Second Temple Judaism (11:32-38). These were people who knew that they needed to look beyond the current terrestrial sphere and to a greater Heavenly reality for God’s promises to be truly realized (11:13-16). As the author describes, “These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect” (11:39-40). Ultimate redemption can only come when God’s people from all ages, of both the departed and the living, are brought together at the Second Coming (cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:17).

Giving up on Yeshua means failing those who have preceded us in the legacy of faith. The author of Hebrews, as a good exhorter of the Messianic community, will not allow this, and so he says, “Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. Let us fix our eyes on Yeshua, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God” (12:1-2). Giving up on the Messiah means utterly insulting everything that He endured to secure final redemption for fallen humanity, and would mean that His ascension into Heaven is utterly meaningless. So the writer poignantly directs, “Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart” (12:3).

The author of Hebrews wonders how much his audience has really endured for the cause of Messiah. He probes them: “In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. And you have forgotten that word of encouragement that addresses you as sons” (12:4-5a), acknowledging from the Tanach how God only disciplines His true children (12:5b-6; cf. Proverbs 3:11-12). Discipline from the Heavenly Father is never something that is pleasant, but nevertheless true Believers are to “Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father? If you are not disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline), then you are illegitimate children and not true sons” (12:7-8). Those who are true children of the Holy One of Israel undergo His chastisement (12:9-11), but such discipline via hardship is much preferred to eternal punishment. The objective of those Believers in Yeshua who may undergo temporary rebuke is to “strengthen your feeble arms and weak knees. ‘Make level paths for your feet,’ so that the lame may not be disabled, but rather healed” (12:12-13).

It should not be surprising that the author of Hebrews, likely a colleague of the Apostle Paul, sounds very much like him in terms of the instruction he issues about general morality, including: being at peace with all (12:14), realizing the power of God’s grace (12:15), and avoiding sexual immorality (12:16-17).

Our author is quite keen on his audience understanding the realities of God beyond this dimension. As significant as it is for Messiah followers to understand, respect, appreciate, and heed what the Torah instructs about the Ancient Israelites at Mount Sinai—even more critical to heed are the realities of the Heavenly Jerusalem, angels, and departed saints worshipping before the throne of God:

“You have not come to a mountain that can be touched and that is burning with fire; to darkness, gloom and storm; to a trumpet blast or to such a voice speaking words that those who heard it begged that no further word be spoken to them, because they could not bear what was commanded: ‘If even an animal touches the mountain, it must be stoned.’ The sight was so terrifying that Moses said, ‘I am trembling with fear.’ But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the [congregation] of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, to Yeshua the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks of a better word than the blood of Abel” (12:18-24; cf. Exodus 19:12-13).

Rather than focus on a Jerusalem Temple and Levitical priesthood about to fall, the attention of Hebrews’ audience needs to instead be considering the Heavenly Jerusalem where not only Yeshua the Messiah and the Heavenly host reside, but all of those who have preceded them in faith. If members of Hebrews’ audience were to give up on Yeshua, then they would not only never see the Lord, but they would also never see their departed predecessors and loved ones again. Such persons, while “made perfect” (12:23), obviously await the next stage of salvation history when Yeshua returns “with all His saints” (1 Thessalonians 3:13, NASU) at the Second Coming and resurrection of the dead. The author’s logic is quite sound: if one were to reject the Lord’s words from Sinai, how much worse is it to reject His words from Heaven? He describes,

“See to it that you do not refuse him who speaks. If they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, how much less will we, if we turn away from him who warns us from heaven? At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, ‘Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.’ The words ‘once more’ indicate the removing of what can be shaken—that is, created things—so that what cannot be shaken may remain” (12:25-27; cf. Exodus 19:18; Judges 5:4; Psalm 68:8).

The author’s confidence in his audience is once again noticed as he only says “since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God with reverence and awe” (12:28). While “God is a consuming fire” (12:29), the significant majority of Hebrews’ readership will never have to experience this firsthand. Even if they may have to be temporarily chastised via certain Divine means, the writer ultimately expects his readers to make the right decision in choosing Yeshua the Messiah.

Hebrews ch. 13, as the closing section of our author’s treatise, understandably includes various general instructions and ethical exhortations for his audience to behave properly as due spiritually transformed Messiah followers. The Believers are to love (13:1), be hospitable (13:2), and remember those in prison (13:3). “Marriage should be honored by all…” (13:4), people should not love money (13:5) and be content with what God has given them (13:6; cf. Psalm 118:6). Leaders in the faith are to be respected (13:7), and the ever-present and unchanging nature of Yeshua is to be recognized (13:8). There were evidently some false or strange teachings circulating among Hebrews’ audience regarding what people ate, and while there are various opinions of this among interpreters, we should not regard this as mainline kosher eating but instead more along the lines of esoteric and/or mystical views of eating in regard to animal sacrifices (13:9-10).[15]

What would be among the biggest issues for the audience of Hebrews to consider? The author tells them something that will be difficult to consider: “The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. And so Yeshua also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood” (13:11-12). The final redemption for all of humanity was accomplished outside of the city of Jerusalem, meaning outside of the main centers of Second Temple Jewish religiosity. With this in mind, the audience is to “go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore” (13:13). This does not mean that the First Century Jewish Believers were to cast aside their heritage in Ancient Israel, somehow regarding it as worthless or meaningless. But, if they were loyal to the Messiah they would find themselves outside of their proverbial “comfort zones,” something that their Lord exemplified in being executed outside of the Holy City of Jerusalem. The ultimate reality is how “here [on Earth] we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come” (13:14).

The audience of Hebrews is to surely “Through Yeshua, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise—the fruit of lips that confess his name. And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for which such sacrifices God is pleased” (13:15-16). By placing Yeshua at the absolute center of their being, they can accomplish all things that the Father intends! This includes a healthy respect and obedience for various leaders, given the reality that they have been committed to the well being of the readers of the letter (13:17).

In the closing salutation, the author of Hebrews asks for prayer for himself, his colleagues, and to remember how he says “We desire to live honorably in every way. I particularly urge you to pray so that I may be restored to you soon” (13:18-19). Even though the author of Hebrews is unknown specifically by name, he was known by the audience, presumably given his style of communication and the various admonitions that he issued. The final word he issues is one which commits them fully to the Lord,

“May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Yeshua, that great Shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will, and may he work in us what is pleasing to him, through Yeshua the Messiah, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen” (13:20-21).

As the Epistle to the Hebrews closes, we get the distinct impression that the author could have said more, and that he has actually kept his message rather short (13:22). He tells his audience that Timothy has recently been released from prison, a good indication that Hebrews’ main audience is the collection of Jewish Believers in Rome (13:23; cf. 2 Timothy 4:9). The author extends greetings to his audience’s main leaders (13:24a), and how “Those from Italy send you their greetings” (13:24b). While this may mean that the letter was written from Italy, “Those from Italy” might also be a reference to Priscilla and Aquila, Diaspora Jews originally from Rome (Acts 18:2), and that the letter is written to Roman Jews. The author of Hebrews being a colleague of Paul’s is confirmed by the similar closing greeting seen in the Pauline letters: “Grace be with you all” (13:25).

What does the Epistle to the Hebrews mean to today’s Messianic movement? Admittedly, it is a text of Scripture which asks us many questions that various persons in our midst are unable—and sometimes entirely incapable—to answer. The author of Hebrews places the sacrifice and priesthood of Messiah Yeshua at the very center of his message. He warns against any dismissal or abandonment of the Messiah with the destruction of the Second Temple in view, as any return to a Messiah-less Synagogue Judaism could mean some significant consequences to be experienced in eternity. The issue is not First Century Jewish nationalism, nor Jewish Believers expressing an appreciation in their Biblical or ethnic heritage; the issue is casting aside the Jewish Messiah for a more “convenient” and “established” path.

In this second decade of the 2000s, the second generation of today’s Messianic movement has already started to take shape. Many people are being “lured” by Judaism in ways similar to Hebrews’ First Century audience. Various families and persons think that they can be a permanent part of the Jewish Synagogue and maintain some degree of Messiah faith. While no one is asking or should even think for today’s Messianic Jews to be totally cut off from the worldwide Jewish community, or even for the broad Messianic world to be cut off from supporting the State of Israel—there are those who would prefer to live in an almost homogenous Jewish environment, failing to recognize any attendant problems. If some of today’s Messianic Jews prefer to focus their daily and weekly spiritual experiences in a local synagogue that does not recognize Yeshua as Messiah, then there will be definite lures present for families to be taken away from Yeshua if their association is too close—because Yeshua is likely to be an afterthought to their daily and weekly routines. There are First Century examples in the Apostolic Scriptures of how groups of Messiah followers (i.e., the Corinthians in Acts 18:1-7) had to leave the local synagogue because of Messiah faith.[16]

As we seek to adequately apply the Epistle to the Hebrews, we need not think that its author is anti-Torah, anti-Jewish, or even anti-sacrifice. He is not! But, all of these things have their various limitations in view of the all-Righteous One, Yeshua the Messiah (Jesus Christ). Various Messianics who struggle with statements that appear in Hebrews are those who may ultimately not put the Messiah first in their lives and in their reading of the Bible, and who frequently wrestle with God’s plan of salvation history and what Yeshua has accomplished on behalf of sinful humanity. Those who have disregarded the value of the Epistle to the Hebrews are those who have been offended by the truth of statements such as: “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (10:4), “the Torah did not bring anything to the goal” (7:19, CJB), and especially “when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also” (7:12, NASU). These are all statements made concerning Yeshua’s sacrifice for humankind, and our widespread mortal inability to attain complete redemption on our own merit.

Reflecting upon Hebrews myself, I know that today’s emerging Messianic movement is precisely that: emerging. It is only a faith community that God Himself could put together, and it is only something that He can see come to full fruition as we approach the return of His Son to the Earth. Just as the original First Century audience of Hebrews had to learn to deal with the uncertainties of what it would be like to believe in Yeshua without an operating Temple or sacrificial system in Jerusalem, so do many of us have to learn what it means to basically be a merger of Judaism and Christianity. We need to exhibit great faith as we employ the considerable strengths and virtues of our Jewish and Christian forbearers, as we enter into the final stretch of salvation history before the parousia.

There are a wide array of challenges facing the Messianic movement in the Twenty-First Century. Too many, in spite of the diverse Biblical admonitions that one will encounter for perseverance—are going to just give up. They will not be able to consider the example of the faithful men and women who have preceded us in the faith, and eliminate anything that hinders them from accomplishing the Heavenly Father’s objectives:

“Do you see what this means—all these pioneers who blazed the way, all these veterans cheering us on? It means we'd better get on with it. Strip down, start running—and never quit! No extra spiritual fat, no parasitic sins” (12:1, The Message).

One of the main reasons, why observers claim that today’s Messianic movement is “messy,” is because too many of our constituents, most sadly, cannot handle the strain of the great uniqueness and power that is witnessed when all followers of the Messiah Yeshua come together. Religious history proves that it is only in an environment of “conflict” where “progress” can be made. Too many people, because of various insecurities and a lack of patience, cannot really process the magnanimity of what it means for those, who have at least acknowledged the God of Israel as the Supreme One (Jews and Christians), coming together and implementing all of the gifts and talents and skills of His people to His glory—as they look toward the restoration of all Israel (cf. 8:8ff).

The Epistle to the Hebrews undeniably asks us many questions that we might not be able to answer at this present time. Some have taken the “easy,” and what we would rightly call the chicken, way out by ignoring or even casting aside this text of Scripture.[17] Those of us who are willing to stand for the truth know what Hebrews admonishes us about faith—“Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (11:1)—and how all things will work for God’s glory if we simply exhibit the required patience. If Yeshua the Messiah and what He taught us and demonstrated for us are the most important things, then those who will make it to the end and endure—in spite of any criticism or naysayers—may literally be unstoppable. We are to continue running the race, steadily moving forward, never losing sight of the finish line.

The message of Hebrews is to never quit having faith in the Messiah of Israel! Indeed, let us remain constant in our faith in Him, and in the objectives that we know are to be achieved in this final hour.

ENDNOTES FOR The Message of Hebrews

[1] Unless otherwise noted, Biblical quotations in this article are from the New International Version (NIV).

This article was written in 2011, after the publication of the Hebrews for the Practical Messianic commentary.

[2] In my personal estimation, the top five most difficult books for the Messianic movement to understand are: Galatians, Hebrews, Ecclesiastes, Romans, and 1 Corinthians.

[3] Zodhiates, Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, 1618.

[4] Cf. summary in Garrett, Archaeological Study Bible, 1995.

A useful tool to have, if you are completely unfamiliar with the Septuagint, could be Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2007).

[5] The fact that the author of Hebrews is ultimately anonymous (although persons such as Luke, Apollos, or even Priscilla have been suggested) should not prove to be a problem for its reliability. Over half of the books of the Tanach are strictly anonymous, and there is no doubting that much of the prophetic literature was not transcribed by the Prophets themselves but instead their various followers.

[6] “The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple” (Psalm 19:7).

[7] Hebrews 8:9b follows the Septuagint rendering of Jeremiah 31:32:

“not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day when I took hold of their hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; for they abode not in my covenant, and I disregarded them, saith the Lord” (LXE).

[8] “to be old or antiquated” (LS, 586).

[9] “to bring to old age” (Ibid., 164).

[10] Similarly appearing as “growing old and aging” in Bruce, Hebrews, 187.

[11] Do note that while often rendered as “golden altar of incense” in 9:4 (most versions), thumiatērion is actually “a vessel for burning incense, a censer” (LS, 371). The KJV/NKJV correctly has “censer.”

[12] Lane, 47b:229.

[13] Grk. antitupa tōn alēthinōn; “figures of the true” (YLT).

The NASU adds “mere” in italics, followed by other versions which add “only” (NIV), “mere” (NRSV), or “merely” (CJB).

[14] Keep in mind that elsewhere in the Apostolic Scriptures, the temptation for a non-Jew to become a Jewish proselyte and be a part of a much more established Synagogue, than a still-developing group of Yeshua followers, was very much present. The dynamics in play in Hebrews could just as easily regard non-Jewish Believers not really knowing what to do with the changing circumstances in Jerusalem as well, with many just wanting to go with their fellow Jewish Believers into a Messiah-less Synagogue experience.

[15] Donald A. Hagner, New International Biblical Commentary: Hebrews (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1990), 240 reminds us,

“[B]ecause the doctrines are described in this verse as strange, it seems unlikely that the dietary restrictions of Judaism are in view in the present context. More probably, here as in verse 4 the writer may be countering teachings derived from the influence of an early Jewish Gnosticism or the general religious syncretism of the time.”

[16] It is also very true that there are various Messianic Believers who try to live a Messianic Torah observant lifestyle while still attending a regular church. While less serious because there are many Christians who recognize that the so-called “moral law” of the Old Testament is still valid for Believers, and Jesus is legitimately recognized as Messiah, it nonetheless presents some serious challenges in order for such people to remain distinctly “Messianic.”

[17] On a personal note, as much as I would deny so-called Solomonic authorship of the Book of Ecclesiastes (which is not explicitly stated in the text, anyway) and be quite skeptical of statements in this text that could be taken as anti-resurrection (i.e., Ecclesiastes 3:18-21), my regard for the canon of Scripture is simply too high for me to just disregard it entirely as deutero-canonical. I am required as an exegete to more carefully examine its verses and triangulate various opinions and positions that have been proposed in contemporary scholarship.

For a further discussion, consult the author’s article “The Message of Ecclesiastes” and his entry for the Book of Ecclesiastes in A Survey of the Tanach for the Practical Messianic.

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

adapted from the 1901 American Standard Version,

incorporating the conclusions made and defended in this commentary[a]

[a] This has been added to the 2012 printing, after the initial publication of the Hebrews for the Practical Messianic commentary.

1

God Has Spoken by His Son

1 In many and various ways long ago, God spoke to our ancestors by the prophets,

2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the ages.

3 And He, being the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His being, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had made purification of sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high;

4 having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.

The Son Superior to Angels

5 For to which of the angels did He ever say, “YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU [Psalm 2:7]?” And again, “I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM, AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME [2 Samuel 7:14; 1 Chronicles 7:14]?”

6 And again, when He brings the firstborn into the world, He says, “AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM [Deuteronomy 32:43, LXX; Psalm 97:7].”

7 And of the angels He says, “WHO MAKES HIS ANGELS WINDS, AND HIS MINISTERS A FLAME OF FIRE [Psalm 104:4].”

8 But of the Son He says, “YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE SCEPTER OF UPRIGHTNESS IS THE SCEPTER OF YOUR KINGDOM.

9 “YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS; THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS [Psalm 45:6-7].”

10 And, “YOU LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;

11 “THEY WILL PERISH, BUT YOU REMAIN; AND THEY ALL WILL BECOME OLD AS A GARMENT;

12 “AND AS A MANTLE YOU WILL ROLL THEM UP; AS A GARMENT THEY WILL ALSO BE CHANGED. BUT YOU ARE THE SAME, AND YOUR YEARS WILL NOT COME TO AN END [Psalm 102:25-27].”

13 But to which of the angels has He ever said, “SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET [Psalm 110:1]?”

14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to do service for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?

2

The Great Salvation

1 Therefore we must pay much greater attention to the things that were heard[a], lest we drift away from them.

2 For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty,

3 how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at first[b] spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard,

4 God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will.

The Pioneer of Salvation

5 For He did not subject to angels the world to come, of which we are speaking.

6 But one has testified somewhere, saying, “WHAT IS MAN, THAT YOU REMEMBER HIM? OR THE SON OF MAN, THAT YOU CARE FOR HIM?[c]

7 “YOU SET HIM FOR A LITTLE WHILE LOWER[d] THAN THE ANGELS; YOU CROWNED HIM WITH GLORY AND HONOR, AND HAVE APPOINTED HIM OVER THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS[e];

8 “YOU PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET” [Psalm 8:5-7, LXX]. For in that He subjected all things to him, He left nothing that is not subject to him. But now we do not yet see all things subjected to him.

9 But we see Him who has been set[f] for a little while lower than the angels, namely Yeshua, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God He might taste of death for everyone.

10 For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many children[g] to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings.

11 For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all from one Father; for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters,

12 saying, “I WILL DECLARE YOUR NAME TO MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS, IN THE MIDST OF THE ASSEMBLY I WILL SING YOUR PRAISE” [Psalm 22:22].

13 And again, “I WILL PUT MY TRUST IN HIM” [Isaiah 8:17, LXX; cf. Samuel 22:3, LXX; Isaiah 12:2]. And again, “BEHOLD, I AND THE CHILDREN WHOM GOD HAS GIVE ME” [Isaiah 8:18].

14 Since then the children share in blood and flesh, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless[h] he who had the power of death, that is, the Devil;

15 and might deliver those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.

16 For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the seed of Abraham.

17 Therefore, He had to be made like His brothers and sisters in all things, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

18 For since He Himself had suffered, having been tested, He is able to help those who are tested.

HEBREWS 2 NOTES

[a] Grk. tois akoustheisin; “to the things having been heard” (Brown and Comfort, 759); more commonly rendered along the lines of “to what we have heard” (NASU).

[b] Grk. hētis archēn; more literally “which...at the first” (ASV).

[c] An inclusive language rendering for anthrōpos and huios anthrōpou in 2:6, is seen in versions like the NRSV, “What are human beings that you are mindful of them, or mortals, that you care for them?” Or the TNIV, “ What are mere mortals that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?” The Kingdom New Testament has the carefully chosen, “What are humans that you should remember them? What is the son of man, that you should take thought for him?” For the sake of familiarity, 2:6 has been left in a more customary form in this author’s rendering, although the inclusive language translations present cannot be excluded from one’s exegesis of 2:9-11.

While Yeshua’s identification with humanity is in view (2:9-11), and there are a few likely echoes of the Son of Man titular references to Yeshua seen in the Gospels—here the reference to man/humanity and son of man/mortals is provided to emphasize more the calling that the Creator God had upon the people, men and women, specially made in His image. For many in Hebrews’ audience, to possibly give up on Yeshua the Messiah, would mean giving up on God’s good intention for His human creations. It is only in knowing Yeshua as Savior, that the redeemed in Him can fulfill the vocation of ruling over the world to come or New Creation, second only to God Himself (2:7-8).

[d] Grk. ēlattōsas auton brachu; most often rendered as something like, “You made him a little lower” (HNV), perhaps implying just some kind of creation activity in view. What is more to the point is that the verb elattoō means “to cause to be lower in status” (BDAG, 313), indicating that the status of human beings is more in view here. The Moffat New Testament rendering is better than some of the others one will encounter: “For a little while thou hast put him lower than the angels.” Even The Amplified Bible has, “ranked him lower.”

[e] Not all Greek manuscripts include the latter clause, “AND HAVE APPOINTED HIM OVER THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS” (cf. Nestle and Aland, GNT, 565; Aland, GNT, 744). The NASB/NASU is a modern English version that leaves this clause intact, as it does appear in the Septuagint reading of Psalm 8:6.

[f] Grk. verb elattoō; “put lower” (Moffat New Testament).

[g] Grk. hious; “sons and daughters” (TNIV).

[h] This is sometimes rendered as “destroy” (RSV/NRSV/NIV/ESV/HCSB), but the verb katargeō more ably means “to make of none effect” (LS, 413) or “to cause someth. to lose its power or effectiveness, invalidate, make powerless” (BDAG, 425). A Messianic version like TLV has “break the power”; the Moffat New Testament has, “he might crush him.”

3

Yeshua Superior to Moses

1 Therefore, holy brothers and sisters, partakers of a Heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Yeshua,

2 who was faithful to Him who appointed him, as Moses also was in all His house.

3 For He has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, by just so much as the builder of the house has more honor than the house.

4 For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God.

5 And Moses indeed was faithful in all His house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken later;

6 but Messiah is faithful as a Son over His house, whose house are we, if we hold fast our confidence and the boast of our hope firm until the end[a].

A Rest for the People of God

7 Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says, “TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE,

8 “DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS, AS IN THE PROVOCATION, LIKE IN THE DAY OF THE TRIAL IN THE WILDERNESS,

9 “WHERE YOUR ANCESTORS TRIED Me BY PROVOKING Me, AND SAW MY WORKS FORTY YEARS.

10 “THEREFORE I WAS ANGRY WITH THIS GENERATION, AND SAID, ‘THEY ALWAYS GO ASTRAY IN THEIR HEART,’ AND THEY DID NOT KNOW MY WAYS;

11 “AS I SWORE IN MY WRATH, ‘THEY SHALL NOT ENTER INTO MY REST’ [Psalm 95:7-11].”

12 Take heed, brothers and sisters, lest there should be in any one of you an evil heart of unbelief, in falling away from the living God.

13 But exhort one another day after day, so long as it is called “Today,” lest any one of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.

14 For we have become partakers of Messiah, if we hold fast the beginning of our confidence firm until the end,

15 while it is said, “TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE, DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS, AS IN THE PROVOCATION [Psalm 95:7-8].”

16 For who, when they heard, provoked Him? Indeed, did not all those who came out of Egypt led by Moses?

17 And with whom was He angry forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness?

18 And to whom did He swear that they would not enter into His rest, but to those who were disobedient?

19 And so we see that they were not able to enter in because of unbelief.

HEBREWS 3 NOTES

[a] Not all ancient Greek manuscripts include the clause mechri telous bebaian or “until the end” (Metzger, Textual Commentary, 665).

4

1 Let us fear, therefore, lest a promise is left open of entering into His rest, that any one of you should seem to have come short of it.

2 For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard[a] did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard.

3 For we who have believed enter into that rest, just as He has said, “AS I SWORE IN MY WRATH, THEY SHALL NOT ENTER INTO MY REST” [Psalm 95:11], although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

4 For He has thus said somewhere of the seventh day, “AND GOD RESTED ON THE SEVENTH DAY FROM ALL HIS WORKS”[ Genesis 2:2];

5 and again in this passage, “THEY SHALL NOT ENTER INTO MY REST” [Psalm 95:11].

6 Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly had the good news preached to them failed to enter in because of disobedience,

7 He again sets a certain day, “Today,” saying through David so long afterward just as has been said before, “TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE, DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS” [Psalm 95:7-8].

8 For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken afterward of another day.

9 There remains therefore a Sabbath rest[b] for the people of God.

10 For the one who has entered into His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His.

11 Let us therefore be diligent to enter into that rest, so that no one will fall by the same example of disobedience.

12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to discern the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and laid bare before the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.

Yeshua the Great High Priest

14 Having then, a great High Priest, who has passed through the Heavens, Yeshua the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.

15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.

16 Let us therefore draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and may find grace to help in time of need.

HEBREWS 4 NOTES

[a] Grk. ho logos tēs akoēs; lit. “the word of hearing” (ASV).

[b] Grk. sabbatismos, which is to be notably distinguished from the normal word for “rest,” katapausis. The term sabbatismos is derived from the verb sabbatizō, used in the LXX meaning, “to keep the Sabbath” (LS, 722). This is why it is rendered in the CJB as “Shabbat-keeping,” perhaps followed by the WBC (Lane) with “Sabbath celebration” (47a:93). The TLV has a more standard Messianic rendering in “Shabbat rest.”

5

1 For every high priest, being taken from among mortals, is appointed on behalf of mortals in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins;

2 he can bear gently with the ignorant and wayward, since he himself also is beset with weakness;

3 and because of it he is indebted—as for the people, so also for himself—to offer sacrifices for sins.

4 And no one takes the honor to himself, but receives it when he is called by God, even as Aaron was.

5 So also Messiah did not glorify Himself to become a High Priest, but He who said to Him, “YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU” [Psalm 2:7];

6 as He says also in another passage, “YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK” [Psalm 110:4].

7 In the days of His flesh, having offered up prayers and supplications, with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and having been heard because of His piety,

8 though being a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered.

9 And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation,

10 being designated by God a High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

Warning against Apostasy

11 About him we have many things to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing.

12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again that someone teach you the elementary principles[a] of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk, and not solid food.

13 For everyone who partakes of milk is not experienced[b] in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe.

14 But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses exercised[c] to discern good and evil.

HEBREWS 5 NOTES

[a] Grk. ta stoicheia tēs archēs tōn logiōn; perhaps more literally “the rudiments of the first principles of the oracles” (ASV).

[b] Grk. apeiros; “pert. to lack of knowledge or capacity to do someth., unacquainted with, unaccustomed to” (BDAG, 100); “without experience” (ASV); “unskilled” (RSV/NRSV/ESV); “not accustomed” (NASU); “not acquainted” (NIV).

[c] Grk. gumnazō; often rendered as “trained.”

6

1 Therefore leaving the elementary doctrine[a] of Messiah, let us press on to perfection[b], not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,

2 of teaching about immersions, and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

3 And this will we do, if God permits.

4 For it is impossible, for those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the Heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,

5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,

6 and then having fallen away, to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame.

7 For the land which has drunk the rain that often falls upon it, and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God;

8 but if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed; its end is to be burned.

9 But, beloved, we are persuaded of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation, though we are speaking in this way.

10 For God is not unjust so as to forget your work and the love which you showed toward His name, in that having ministered to the saints, and still do minister.

11 And we desire that each one of you show the same diligence, to the full assurance of hope until to the end,

12 that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.

God’s Sure Promise

13 For when God made a promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself,

14 saying, “SURELY BLESSING I WILL BLESS YOU, AND MULTIPLYING I WILL MULTIPLY YOU” [Genesis 22:17].

15 And thus, having patiently endured, he obtained the promise.

16 For human beings[c] swear by one greater than themselves, and in every dispute of theirs the oath given is final for confirmation.

17 So when God, desiring to show more abundantly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of His purpose, interposed with an oath,

18 so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have a strong encouragement, we who have fled for refuge, to lay hold of the hope set before us.

19 We have this hope as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil,

20 where as a forerunner Yeshua entered for us, having become a High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.

HEBREWS 6 NOTES

[a] Grk. tēs archēs tou Christou logon; perhaps more literally “the doctrine of the first principles of Christ” (ASV).

[b] Grk. epi tēn teleiotēta; more often rendered as “to maturity” (RSV/NASU/NIV/ESV).

[c] Grk. anthrōpoi; “people” (ESV).

7

The Priestly Order of Melchizedek

1 For this MELCHIZEDEK, KING OF SALEM, PRIEST OF GOD MOST HIGH, WHO MET ABRAHAM RETURNING FROM THE SLAUGHTER OF THE KINGS AND BLESSED HIM,

2 to whom also Abraham APPORTIONED A TENTH PART OF ALL the spoils, was first of all, by the translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then also KING OF SALEM, which is King of peace [Genesis 14:17-20].

3 Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he abides a priest perpetually.

4 Now consider how great this one was to whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth of the choicest spoils.

5 And indeed those descendants of Levi[a] who receive the priest's office have commandment to collect a tenth[b] from the people, according to the Torah, that is, from their kindred, although these have come out of the loins of Abraham[c].

6 But the one whose genealogy is not traced from them has collected a tenth from Abraham, and has blessed him who has the promises[d].

7 But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater.

8 And in this case mortals who die receive tithes, but in that case one receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives on.

9 And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes,

10 for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.

11 Now if there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for upon it the people were legislated)[e], 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?

12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there takes place a change of the Torah[f] also.

13 For the one of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar.

14 For it is evident that our Lord has sprung forth[g] from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests.

15 And this is yet more abundantly evident, if according to the likeness of Melchizedek there arises another priest,

16 who has become a priest not according to a law of a fleshly command[h], but according to the power of an indestructible life.

17 For it is witnessed of Him, “YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK” [Psalm 110:4].

18 For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and ineffectiveness

19 (for the Torah made nothing perfect), and on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.

20 And inasmuch as it was not without an oath

21 (for they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath through the One saying to Him, “THE LORD HAS SWORN AND WILL NOT CHANGE HIS MIND, ‘YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER’” [Psalm 110:4]);

22 so much the more also has Yeshua become the guarantee of a better covenant.

23 And indeed, they are many who are made priests, because by death they are prevented from continuing,

24 but He, because He abides forever, holds His priesthood permanently.

25 Therefore, also, He is able to save completely those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

26 For such a high priest was fitting for us: holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and exalted above the Heavens;

27 who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins, and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.

28 For the Torah appoints mortals as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Torah, appoints a Son, made perfect forever.

HEBREWS 7 NOTES

[a] Grk. tōn huiōn Leui; more literally “sons of Levi.”

[b] Grk. verb apodekatoō; translated in the ASV/RSV/ESV as “take tithes.”

[c] Grk. kaiper exelēluthotas ek tēs osphuos Abraam; more commonly rendered along the lines of “although these are descended from Abraham” (NASU).

[d] Grk. echonta tas epangelias; echonta is a present active participle, more literally, “having,” but this clause is unfortunately frequently rendered as “had the promises” (RSV/NASU/NIV/ESV); among Messianic versions the TLV has the much appreciated, “holding the promises.”

[e] Grk. ho laos gar ep’ autēs nenomothetētai; be aware of poor renderings of ep’ autēs such as “for under it” (RSV/ESV/HCSB). Notably absent from this clause is the preposition hupo or “under.”

While most contemporary English translations communicate something to the extent that “for on the basis of it the people received the Law” (NASU), it is necessary to probe the significance of the verb nomotheteō, “to make law” (LS, 535). Among interpreters, Bruce (NICNT) says nomotheteō means “legislate” (164 fn#36). The verb nomotheteō does appear in the Septuagint to describe the giving of the Torah by God to Moses: “the commandments that I wrote to legislate [nomotheteō] for them” (Exodus 24:12, NETS; cf. Psalm 84:6; 4 Maccabees 5:25), but is this what is in view in 7:11?

Deuteronomy 17:10 notably says, concerning the Levitical priests, “And you shall do according to the word whatever they report to you from the place that the Lord your God may choose for his name to be called there, and you shall guard very much to do according to all things whatever is legislated [nomotheteō] for you” (NETS). The Levitical priesthood definitely had a Torah-prescribed responsibility to teach Ancient Israel God’s commandments (Deuteronomy 33:10), to in other words “legislate” the people. That the verb nomotheteō can regard God’s people being taught His Law and commandments, is something witnessed throughout the Septuagint version of Psalms, where nomotheteō translated the Hebrew verb yara (BibleWorks 8.0: LEH Lexicon [Lust-Eynikel-Hauspie] notes how nomotheteō “always transl. of [yara],” and can mean both “to give laws to” and “to instruct, to teach, to ordain”), in passages such as: Psalm 24:8, 12; 27:11; 119:33, 102.

The rendering offered for 7:11 here concurs with the conclusion that upon the basis of the priesthood, the people of Ancient Israel were to be “legislated,” i.e., taught the Torah. That the First Century Jewish community was not properly “legislated,” meaning taught God’s Torah from the Temple priesthood, is easily witnessed. The Saddusaical priesthood was decisively impotent to instruct people in perfection—precisely because “the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor an angel, nor a spirit” (Acts 23:8a, NASU)—and a new priesthood, that of Yeshua the Messiah, needed to be established!

[f] Grk. nomou metathesis; “a transformation of Torah” (CJB).

[g] Grk. verb anatellō; “to make to rise up or to grow up” (LS, ); more commonly rendered as “descended from” (RSV/NASU/NIV).

[h] Grk. kata nomon entolēs sarkinēs; lit. “law of a fleshly~command” (Brown and Comfort, 771); other versions have something like “a law of physical requirement” (NASU); “a legal requirement concerning bodily descent” (RSV); “a regulation as to his ancestry” (NIV).

Messianic versions vary, including the renderings: “a rule in the Torah concerning physical descent” (CJB); “a Torah requirement of physical descent” (TLV); “a law of a commandment concerning the flesh” (The Messianic Writings).

8

The High Priest of a New and Better Covenant

1 Now the main point of the things being said is this: we have such a High Priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the Heavens,

2 a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not a human being.

3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices; therefore it is necessary that this High Priest also have something to offer.

4 Now if He were on Earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Torah;

5 who serve a copy and shadow of the Heavenly things, just as Moses, being warned by God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, “SEE,” He says, “THAT YOU MAKE all things ACCORDING TO THE PATTERN WHICH WAS SHOWN TO YOU ON THE MOUNTAIN” [Exodus 25:40].

6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been legislated upon better promises[a].

7 For if that first service[b] had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.

8 For finding fault with them, He says, “BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH;

9 “NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS IN THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT; FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT, AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD.

10 “FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY TORAH[c] INTO THEIR MIND, AND ON THEIR HEART ALSO WILL I WRITE IT[d]. AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.

11 “AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN, AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, ‘KNOW THE LORD,’ FOR ALL WILL KNOW ME, FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM.

12 “FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES, AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE” [Jeremiah 31:31-34, LXX].

13 In His saying, “A new service,”[e] he has made the first old. But that which is becoming old and ageing is close to vanish away.

HEBREWS 8 NOTES

[a] Grk. hētis epi kreittosin epangeliais nenomothetētai.

[b] Grk. Ei gar hē prōtē ekeinē ēn amemptos; this clause notably lacks the the term diathēkē or “covenant,” even though most English versions provide it. (The NASB/NASU is most appreciable in that “covenant” is marked by italics, unlike most others.) While the New Covenant is something that features within the author’s discussion for sure, what is hē prōtē really connected to? Is adding “covenant” an inappropriate value judgment, as made by most Bible translators? Grammatically speaking, given the surrounding cotext, there are four possible feminine nouns that can be legitimately associated with hē prōtē. Diathēkē or “covenant” is certainly one of them (7:22; 8:6, 9, 10; 9:4, 16, 17, 20), but so are skēnē or “tabernacle”(7:22; 8:6, 9, 10; 9:4, 16, 17, 20), hierōsunē or “priesthood” (7:11, 12, 24), or even leitourgia or “ministry/service” (8:6; 9:21). The latter three would be used as referents to the Levitical sacrificial system, which the author of Hebrews has affirmed previously in ch. 8, is surpassed in effectiveness by the Melchizedekian priesthood of Yeshua (8:1-4).

It was largely the first “priesthood” that was actually discovered by God to not be “faultless,” because its human occupiers (“them,” 8:8) cannot perform the same type of work that Yeshua the Son performs before the Father in Heaven. If, for the statement Ei gar hē prōtē ekeinē, translators provided “first priesthood,” “first tabernacle,” “first ministry”—or perhaps the most encompassing of these three, “first service”—the reference would be placed upon the Levitical priesthood and Tabernacle service. Not enough realize, that it is upon the basis of Yeshua’s priesthood, that the New Covenant has been inaugurated forth (8:6). The problem was not with any previous covenant God had made with His people, but it was with the actual people—especially the priests—that definitely required salvation history to progress forward (1:1-2), and for a new arrangement to be made via the sacrifice of Yeshua the Messiah, providing permanent atonement and forgiveness.

[c] Grk. nomous mou; lit. “My laws” (NASU) in the plural; The Messianic Writings follows suit with “My laws”; the rendering provided here conforms to the TLV, “My Torah.”

[d] Grk. autous; lit. “them,” conforming to nomous mou or “My laws.”

[e] Grk. en tō legein kainēn; “in the saying 'new'” (YLT).

9

The Earthly and Heavenly Sanctuaries

1 Now even the first service[a] had regulations of divine worship and the Earthly sanctuary.

2 For there was a tabernacle prepared, the outer one[b], in which were the lampstand and the table and the bread of the Presence[c]; this is called the holy place.

3 And behind the second veil was a tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies,

4 having a golden censer of incense and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which was a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant.

5 And above it were cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat; of these things we cannot now speak in detail.

6 Now these things having thus been prepared, the priests go continually into the outer[d] tabernacle, performing the divine worship,

7 but into the second only the high priest enters, once a year, not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance[e].

8 The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed, while the outer tabernacle[f] is still standing,

9 which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshipper perfect in conscience,

10 relating only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body[g] imposed until a time of setting things straight.

11 But Messiah, having arrived as a high priest of the good things to come, entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation;

12 neither through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption.

13 For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled, sanctify for the cleansing[h] of the flesh,

14 how much more will the blood of Messiah, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 And for this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, in order that since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed on the basis of the first covenant[i], those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

16 For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it.

17 For a covenant is secure on the basis of dead bodies[j], for it is never in force while the one who made it lives.

18 Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood.

19 For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Torah, he took the blood of the calves[k], with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the scroll itself and all the people,

20 saying, “THIS IS THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT WHICH GOD COMMANDED YOU” [Exodus 24:8].

21 And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood.

22 And according to the Torah, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Sin Put Away by Messiah’s Sacrifice

23 Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the Heavens to be cleansed with these, but the Heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

24 For Messiah did not enter into a holy place made with hands, a copy of the true one, but into Heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;

25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters into the holy place year by year with blood not his own.

26 Otherwise, it would have been necessary for Him to have suffered often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for mortals to die once and after this comes judgment;

28 so Messiah also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation, without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

HEBREWS 9 NOTES

[a] Grk. Eiche men oun [kai] hē prōtē; almost all versions insert “covenant,” in spite of the fact that diathēkē does not appear in the Greek source text. While this author’s rendering has chosen “service,” as this would be an encapsulating term for the first priesthood/tabernacle/ministry (Levitical) to be compared and contrasted to the Messiah’s priestly service (Melchizedekian), it is notable that the 2011 Kingdom New Testament by N.T. Wright actually has “The first Tabernacle had...” for 9:1.

[b] Grk. hē prōtē; lit. “the first” (ASV).

[c] Grk. hē prothesis tōn artōn; “setting out of the bread” (Brown and Comfort, 775).

[d] Grk. tēn prōtēn; lit. “the first” (ASV).

[e] Grk. tou laou agnoēmatōn; some versions just have something like “the errors of the people” (RSV), but the specific term employed is agnoēma, “sin committed in ignorance/unintentionally” (BDAG, 13).

[f] Grk. tēs prōtēs skēnēs; lit. “the first tabernacle” (ASV).

[g] Grk. dikaiōmata sarkos; “carnal ordinances” (ASV); “fleshly ordinances” (HNV); “physical requirements” (The Messianic Writings).

[h] Grk. katharotēs; also rendered as “purification” (RSV/NRSV/ESV/HCSB).

[i] Grk. thanatou genomenou eis apolutrōsin tōn epi tē prōtē diathēkē parabaseōn; the clause of interest for readers is epi tē prōtē diathēkē, most often rendered as “under the first covenant.” Yet, the common preposition legitimately rendered as “under” is hupo, and what appears here is epi. Lane offers the more appropriate translation in his WBC volume, “a death having occurred for redemption from transgressions committed on the basis of the former covenant” (47b:229), with epi rendered as “on the basis of.” In a dative clause (indicating indirect object), the preposition epi can be used as a “marker of basis for a state of being, action, or result” (BDAG, 364). Yeshua came to die because of sins committed by people, who obviously violated the Mosaic covenant.

[j] Grk. diathēkē gar epi nekrois bebaia; commonly and poorly translated with something like, “For a covenant is valid only when men are dead” (NASU). A somewhat rough rendering might be “for~a covenant over dead bodies [is] ratified” (Brown and Comfort, 777), with a smoother translation seen in YLT, “for a covenant over dead victims is stedfast.” Lane similarly has, “For a covenant is made legally secure on the basis of sacrificial victims” (WBC, 47b:229).

The term in the NASU rendered “men are dead” is the plural nekrois. There is no term relating to “men” (Grk. sing. anēr) or “humans” (Grk. sing. anthrōpos) appearing here. A rendering like “dead ones” or “those dead” (LITV) is much better. The emphasis is upon Ancient Near Eastern covenant procedures, where animals would be sacrificed, and those who would make the covenant would agree to be like the dead animals, should the agreement ever be violated.

The author’s rendering chosen for 9:17a follows that of the TLV, “For a covenant is secured on upon the basis of dead bodies.” The Messianic Writings has the similar, “because a covenant is confirmed over dead bodies.”

[k] Grk. tōn moschōn [kai tōn tragōn]; most versions will have “the blood of the calves and the goats.” This may be inaccurate when viewed in light of Exodus 24:5, which only says that “young bulls” (NASU) were sacrificed as a part this event.

While we cannot exclude the possibility for 9:19 that the author of Hebrews is reflecting upon an ancient Jewish tradition of the blood of goats also being offered, it is also quite true how the reading tōn moschōn [kai tōn tragōn], does not appear in all ancient Greek sources of Hebrews. “[A]nd the goats” notably appears in brackets, in critical editions such as the Novum Testamentum Gracae 27th Edition (1993; p 576) and GNT Fourth Revised Edition (1998; p 758). Metzger indicates that the UBS committee “decided to enclose the words within square brackets in order to indicate a certain doubt that they belong there” (Textual Commentary, 669). It may be speculated that copyists over time added “and the goats” to conform to the earlier reading of 9:12. In spite of this, though, most English Bibles read with “the calves and the goats.” The NIV/TNIV is the only major Bible version that follows the correct form “he took the blood of calves,” also followed by Lane’s rendering in WBC, “taking the blood of calves” (47b:229). The CJB also has, “After Moshe had proclaimed every command of the Torah to all the people, he took the blood of the calves,” followed by the 2011 The Messianic Writings, “he took the blood of the calves.”

10

1 For the Torah, having a shadow of the good things to come and not the very image of the things, can never by the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect those who draw near.

2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshippers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins?

3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year.

4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, “SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, BUT A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME;

6 “IN WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE TAKEN NO PLEASURE.

7 “THEN I SAID, ‘BEHOLD, I HAVE COME (IN THE SCROLL OF THE BOOK IT IS WRITTEN OF ME) TO DO YOUR WILL, O GOD’” [Psalm 40:6-8].

8 After saying above, “SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS AND WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, NOR HAVE YOU TAKEN PLEASURE in them” [Psalm 40:6] (which are offered according to the Torah),

9 then He said, “BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL” [Psalm 40:7]. He takes away the first in order to establish the second.

10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Yeshua the Messiah once for all.

11 And every priest indeed stands daily ministering and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins;

12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD [Psalm 110:1];

13 then waiting UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET [Psalm 110:1].

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

15 And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,

16 “THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY TORAH[a] UPON THEIR HEART, AND UPON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE IT[b]”; He then says,

17 “AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE” [Jeremiah 31:34].

18 Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.

Exhortation and Warning

19 Having therefore, brothers and sisters, confidence to enter into the holy place by the blood of Yeshua,

20 by the way which He inaugurated for us, a new and living way, through the veil, that is, His flesh,

21 and having a great priest over the house of God,

22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our body washed with pure water.

23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful;

24 and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good works,

25 not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the custom of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more, as you see the day drawing near.

26 For if we sin willfully[c] after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,

27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and A FURY OF FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES [Isaiah 26:11].

28 Anyone who has set aside the Torah of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.

29 How much severer punishment, do you think, will be deemed worthy, of one who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?

30 For we know He who said, “VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY” [Deuteronomy 32:35]. And again, “THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE” [Deuteronomy 32:36; Psalm 135:14].

31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

32 But remember the former days, in which, after you were enlightened, you endured a great conflict of sufferings,

33 partly, being made a public spectacle, both by reproaches and tribulations, and partly by becoming partakers with those who were so treated.

34 For you both had compassion on the prisoners, and accepted joyfully the seizure of your property, knowing that you have for yourselves a better possession and an abiding one.

35 Therefore, do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward.

36 For you have need of perseverance[d], so that having done the will of God, you may receive the promise.

37 FOR YET IN A VERY LITTLE WHILE, HE WHO IS COMING WILL COME, AND WILL NOT DELAY.

38 BUT MY RIGHTEOUS ONE SHALL LIVE BY FAITH; AND IF HE SHRINKS BACK, MY SOUL HAS NO PLEASURE IN HIM [Habakkuk 2:3-4, LXX; cf. Isaiah 26:20, LXX].

39 But we are not of those who shrink back to perdition[e]; but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul.

HEBREWS 10 NOTES

[a] Grk. nomous mou; lit. “My laws” (NASU) in the plural; The Messianic Writings follows suit with “My laws”; the rendering provided here conforms to the TLV, “My Torah.”

[b] Grk. autous; lit. “them,” conforming to nomous mou or “My laws.”

[c] Grk. hekousiōs; sometimes rendered as “deliberately” (RSV/NIV/NRSV).

[d] Grk. hupomonē; often rendered as “endurance” (RSV/NASU/NRSV/ESV).

[e] Grk. apōleia ; more commonly rendered as “destruction” (NASU), but actually rendered as “lost” in the NRSV. The rendering here has left the ASV’s “perdition” intact.

11

Faith

1 Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen.

2 For by it the elders[a] received approval.

3 By faith we understand that the ages[b] were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

4 By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, through which he received approval that he was righteous, God testifying about his gifts, and through faith[c] though he is dead yet he speaks.

5 By faith Enoch was translated[d] so that he would not see death; AND HE WAS NOT FOUND, BECAUSE GOD TRANSLATED HIM [Genesis 5:24]; for he obtained the witness that before his translation he was pleasing to God.

6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

7 By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, having been reverent, prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.

8 By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going.

9 By faith he lived as a sojourner in the land of promise, as in a land not his own, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, fellow heirs with him of the same promise;

10 for he was looking for the city which has the foundations, whose architect and builder is God.

11 By faith he received the ability to deposit seed, even though Sarah herself was past the proper age, since he counted Him faithful who had promised;[e]

12 therefore, also, there was born of one, and him as good as dead, so many AS THE STARS OF HEAVEN IN NUMBER, AND AS THE SAND, WHICH IS BY THE SEASHORE, INNUMERABLE [Genesis 15:5-6; 22:17; 32:12; Exodus 32:13; Deuteronomy 1:10; 10:22; Daniel 3:36, LXX].

13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them and welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and sojourners on the Earth.

14 For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a country of their own.

15 And indeed if they had been thinking of that country from which they went out, they would have had opportunity to return.

16 But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a Heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed of them, to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them.

17 By faith Abraham, being tested, offered up Isaac; and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son;

18 it was he to whom it was said, “IN ISAAC SHALL YOUR SEED BE CALLED” [Genesis 21:12].

19 He considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead; from which he also received him back as a type.

20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau, even concerning things to come.

21 By faith Jacob, when he was dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph; and WORSHIPPED, leaning UPON THE TOP OF HIS STAFF [Genesis 48:15-16, LXX].

22 By faith Joseph, when he was dying, made mention of the exodus of the Israelites[f], and gave orders concerning his bones.

23 By faith Moses, when he was born, was hidden for three months by his parents, because they saw he was a beautiful child; and they were not afraid of the king's edict.

24 By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;

25 choosing rather to share ill-treatment with the people of God, than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin;

26 considering the reproach of Messiah greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward.

27 By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured, as seeing Him who is invisible.

28 By faith he kept the Passover and the sprinkling of the blood, that the destroyer of the firstborn would not touch them.

29 By faith they passed through the Red Sea as though they were passing through dry land, on which the Egyptians, having made an attempt to pass, were then swallowed up.

30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they had been encircled for seven days.

31 By faith Rahab the prostitute did not perish with those who were disobedient, having received the spies in peace.

32 And what more shall I say? For the time will fail me if I tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets,

33 who through faith conquered kingdoms, worked righteousness[g], obtained promises, shut the mouths of lions,

34 quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from weakness were made strong, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight.

35 Women received back their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better resurrection;

36 and others experienced mockings and scourgings, yes, even chains and imprisonment.

37 They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were tempted, they were put to death with the sword; they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill-treated

38 (people of whom the world was not worthy), wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and holes in the ground[h].

39 And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised,

40 God having provided something better for us, that apart from us they would not be made perfect.

HEBREWS 11 NOTES

[a] Grk. hoi presbuteroi; other versions render it as “men of old” (RSV/NASU), but this can be misleading, considering how there are females mentioned among the faithful in ch. 11.

[b] Grk. tous aiōnas; the same as in 1:2.

[c] Grk. kai di’ autēs; lit. “and through it” (ASV).

[d] Grk. verb metatithēmi; more commonly rendered as “taken up” (RSV/NRSV/ESV).

[e] Grk. Pistei kai autē Sarra steira dunamin eis katabolēn spermatos elaben kai para kairon hēlikias, epei piston hēgēsato ton epangeilamenon; more commonly rendered as “By faith even Sarah herself received ability to conceive, even beyond the proper time of life, since she considered Him faithful who had promised” (NASU).

There is some controversy over how to translate 11:11, and whether or not Sarah or Abraham is the subject. The Greek offers us a challenge, reading with eis katabolēn spermatos. Bruce points out how “the phrase traditionally rendered as ‘to conceive seed’ just does not mean that; it refers to the father’s part in the generative process, not the mother’s. A literal translation would be, ‘for the deposition of seed’” (NICN, 296). Bruce has in his author’s translation, “he received power to beget a child” (Ibid., 289).

Most versions will render 11:11 with something like “By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive” (RSV), as Sarra appears in the nominative case (indicating subject) in most critical versions. However, Metzger suggests that it is best to view v. 11 “to be a Hebraic circumstantial clause, thus allowing [Abraam] (ver. 8) to serve as subject of [elaben] (‘by faith, even though Sarah was barren, he [Abraham] received power to beget…’)” (Textual Commentary, 672), thus reading Sarra in the dative case (indicating indirect object). This is why the NIV reads as “By faith Abraham, even though he was past age—and Sarah herself was barren—was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise.” Lane in his WBC volume renders 11:11 as, “By faith Abraham was enabled to become a father, even though Sarah herself was sterile and past the normal age of child-bearing, because he considered the one who had made the promise faithful” (47b:343).

The author’s rendering provided hopefully offers a fair synthesis of what is seen in the ASV, NASB, and WBC.

[f] Grk. huiōn Israēl; lit. “sons of Israel” (NASU) or “children of Israel” (ASV).

[g] Grk. eirgasanto dikaiosunēn; rendered as either “performed acts of righteousness” (NASU) or “enforced/administered justice” (RSV/NIV/NRSV/ESV/HCSB). The ASV has “wrought righteousness,” followed by the LITV and HNV with, “worked out righteousness.” What is offered here is “worked righteousness” (Brown and Comfort, 787).

[h] Grk. tais opais tēs gēs; more lit. “the holes of the earth” (ASV).

12

The Discipline of the Lord

1 Therefore let us also, seeing that we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with perseverance[a] the race that is set before us,

2 looking to Yeshua, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

3 For consider Him who has endured such hostility by sinners against Himself, so that you will not grow weary, fainting in your souls[b].

4 You have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood[c], striving against sin;

5 and you have forgotten the exhortation which addresses you as children[d], “MY CHILD, DO NOT REGARD LIGHTLY THE DISCIPLINE OF THE LORD, NOR FAINT WHEN YOU ARE REPROVED BY HIM;

6 “FOR THOSE WHOM THE LORD LOVES HE DISCIPLINES, AND HE SCOURGES EVERY CHILD WHO HE RECEIVES” [Proverbs 3:11-12].

7 It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with children[e]; for what child is there whom his father does not discipline?

8 But if you are without discipline, of which all have been become partakers, then are you bastards and not children.

9 Furthermore, we had the fathers of our flesh[f] to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live?

10 For they indeed, for a few days, disciplined us as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our benefit, that we may be partakers of His holiness.

11 All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet afterward it yields peaceable fruit to those who have been trained by it, the fruit of righteousness.

12 Therefore lift up the hands that hang down, and the feeble knees,

13 and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame not be put out of joint, but rather be healed.

Warning against Rejecting God’s Grace

14 Pursue peace with everyone, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord.

15 See to it that there be no one who falls short of the grace of God; that no root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and by it many be defiled,

16 and that there be no fornicator or profane person like Esau, who for one meal sold his own birthright.

17 For you know that even afterwards, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance[g], though he sought for it with tears.

18 For you have not come to a mountain that may be touched, and that burned with fire, and to darkness and gloom and whirlwind,

19 and the sound of a trumpet and the voice of words, which voice was such that those who heard entreated that no further word should be spoken to them.

20 For they could not bear that which was ordered, “IF EVEN A BEAST TOUCHES THE MOUNTAIN, IT WILL BE STONED” [Exodus 19:12-13].

21 And so fearful was the sight, that Moses said, “I AM EXCEEDINGLY FEARFUL and trembling” [Deuteronomy 9:19].

22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the Heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels,

23 to the festal gathering and assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in Heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect,

24 and to Yeshua, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.

25 See that you do not refuse Him who is speaking. For if those did not escape when they refused him who warned them on Earth, much more shall we not escape who turn away from Him who warns from Heaven,

26 whose voice shook the Earth then, but now He has promised, saying, “YET ONCE MORE I WILL SHARE NOT ONLY THE EARTH, BUT ALSO THE HEAVEN” [Haggai 2:6].

27 And this phrase, “Yet once more,” signifies the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that have been made, in order that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.

28 Therefore, receiving a Kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us have gratitude[h], by which we may offer to God an acceptable service with reverence and awe;

29 for our God is a consuming fire.

HEBREWS 12 NOTES

[a] Grk. hupomonē; often rendered as “endurance” (NASU).

[b] Grk. tais psuchais humōn ekluomenoi; often rendered as something like “lose heart” (NASU/NIV/NRSV).

[c] Grk. mechris haimatos; more lit. “to the point of blood” (Brown and Comfort, 788).

[d] Grk. huiois; more lit. “sons.”

[e] Grk. huiois; more lit. “sons.”

[f] Grk. tēs sarkos hēmōn pateras; other versions render it as “earthly fathers” (RSV/NASU/ESV); “human fathers” (NRSV); “natural fathers” (HCSB).

[g] Grk. metanoia; the ASV rendered this as “a change of mind in his father.”

[h] Grk. echōmen charin; more lit. “have grace” (ASV); the NASU has “show gratitude.”

13

Service Well-Pleasing to God

1 Let love of the brethren[a] continue.

2 Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels, unaware of it.

3 Remember the prisoners, as though in prison with them, and those who are ill-treated, since you yourselves also are in the body.

4 Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.

5 Let your character be free from the love of money, being content with the things you have; for He has said, “I WILL NEVER FAIL YOU, NOR WILL I EVER FORSAKE YOU” [Deuteronomy 31:6],

6 so that we can confidently say, “THE LORD IS MY HELPER, I WILL NOT BE AFRAID. WHAT WILL MORTALS[b] DO TO ME? [Psalm 118:6]”

7 Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct[c], imitate their faith.

8 Yeshua the Messiah is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever.

9 Do not be carried away by various and strange teachings; for it is good that the heart be established by grace, not by foods, through which those who were so occupied were not benefited.

10 We have an altar, from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat.

11 For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy place by the high priest as an offering for sin, are burned outside the camp.

12 Therefore Yeshua also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate.

13 So, let us go forth to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach.

14 For we do not have a lasting city here, but we are seeking the city which is to come.

15 Through Him then, let us offer up a sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of lips confessing His name.

16 And do not neglect doing good and sharing; for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.

17 Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they keep watch over your souls, as those who will give an account. Obey them in order that they may do this with joy, and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.

18 Pray for us, for we are persuaded that we have a good conscience, desiring to conduct ourselves honorably in all things.

19 And I urge you all the more to do this, that I may be restored to you the sooner.

Benediction and Final Greetings

20 Now the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep, in the blood of an eternal covenant, our Lord Yeshua,

21 make you complete in every good thing to do His will, working in us that which is pleasing in His sight, through Yeshua the Messiah, to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.

22 But I urge you, brothers and sisters, bear with this word of exhortation, for I have written to you briefly.

23 Know that our brother Timothy has been released, with whom, if he comes soon, I will see you.

24 Greet all of your leaders and all the saints. Those from Italy greet you.

25 Grace be with you all. Amen.

HEBREWS 13 NOTES

[a] Grk. philadelphia; “mutual love” (NRSV); “Keep on loving one another as brothers and sisters” (TNIV).

[b] Grk. anthrōpos; lit. in the singular as “MAN” (NASU); rendered as “human being” in CJB, “human beings” in TNIV.

[c] Grk. tēn ekbasin tēs anastrophēs; “the outcome of their {way of} life” (RSV/NIV/NRSV/ESV).

About the Author

John Kimball McKee is the founder and principal writer for TNN Online, an Internet website that specializes in a wide variety of Biblical topics. He has grown up in a family that has been in constant pursuit of God’s truth, and has been exposed to things of the Lord since infancy. Since 1995 he has come to the realization of the post-tribulational return of the Messiah for His own and the importance of our Hebraic Roots. He is a graduate of the University of Oklahoma (Class of 2003) with a B.A. in political science, and holds an M.A. in Biblical Studies from Asbury Theological Seminary (Class of 2009). He is a 2009 recipient of the Zondervan Biblical Languages Award for Greek. John holds memberships in the Evangelical Theological Society, the Evangelical Philosophical Society, and Christians for Biblical Equality.

John is an apologist for the Creator God and in helping people understand their faith heritage in Ancient Israel and Second Temple Judaism. Much of his ministry in the past has been campus based to the multitudes in evangelical Christianity who are associated with a wide variety of Protestant denominations and persuasions. John has introduced college students to things that are Messianic such as the original Hebrew name of our Savior, Yeshua HaMashiach (Jesus the Messiah), a name that he has known since 1983.

John’s testimony before his Christian friends at college challenged much of their previous thinking about the whole of the Holy Scriptures and the need to follow the commandments of the Most High. His college peers asked him many questions: Why do you not believe in the pre-trib rapture? What do you think of the Left Behind books? Why do you observe the seventh-day Sabbath? Why do you eat kosher? Why do you wear a beard? Why do you celebrate the feasts of Israel? Why will you use a tallit and wrap tefillin/phylacteries during private prayer? Why do you consult original Hebrew and Greek language texts of the Bible? Why don’t you come to church with us on Sunday? This led John into Messianic apologetics and the defense of our faith. John strives to be one who is committed to a life of holiness and methodical Bible study, as a person who has a testimony of being born again and who sincerely desires to obey the Lord.

As the editor of TNN Online, John’s ministry has capitalized on the Internet’s ability to reach people all over this planet. The Theology News Network speaks with challenging, provocative, and apologetic articles to a wide Messianic audience, and those Christians who are interested in Messianic beliefs. In the past decade, TNN Online has emerged as a moderate and Centrist voice in a Messianic movement that is trying to determine its purpose, relevance, and mission to modern society. Given his generational family background in evangelical Christian ministry, as well as in academics and the military, John carries a strong burden to assist in the development and maturation of our emerging Messianic theology and spirituality, so that we might truly know the mission of God. John has had the profound opportunity since 1997 to engage many in dialogue, so that they will consider the questions he postulates, as his only agenda is to be as Scripturally sound as possible. John believes in demonstrating a great deal of honor and respect to both his evangelical Christian, Wesleyan and Reformed heritage, as well as to the Jewish Synagogue, and together allowing the strengths of both Judaism and Christianity to be employed for the Lord’s plan for the Messianic movement in the long term future.

J.K. McKee is the son of the late K. Kimball McKee (1951-1992) and Margaret Jeffries McKee Huey (1953-), and stepson of William Mark Huey (1951-), who married his mother in 1994, and is the executive director of Outreach Israel Ministries.

John has a very strong appreciation for those who have preceded him. His father, Kimball McKee, was a licensed lay minister in the Kentucky Conference of the United Methodist Church, and was a very strong evangelical Christian, most appreciative of the Hebraic and Jewish Roots of the faith. Among his many ministry pursuits, Kim brought the Passover sedar to Christ United Methodist Church in Florence, KY, was a Sunday school teacher, and was extremely active in the Walk to Emmaus, leading the first men’s walk in Madras, India in 1991. John is the grandson of the late William W. Jeffries (1914-1989), who served as a professor at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD from 1942-1989, notably as the museum director and founder of what is now the William W. Jeffries Memorial Archives in the Nimitz Library. John is the great-grandson of Bishop Marvin A. Franklin (1894-1972), who served as a minister and bishop of the Methodist Church, throughout his ministry serving churches in Georgia, Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi. Bishop Franklin was President of the Council of Bishops from 1959-1960. John is also the third cousin of the late Charles L. Allen (1913-2005), formerly the senior pastor of Grace Methodist Church of Atlanta, GA and First Methodist Church of Houston, TX, and author of numerous books, notably including God’s Psychiatry. Among all of his forbearers, though, he considers his personality to be most derived from his late paternal grandfather, George Kenneth McKee (1903-1978), and his maternal grandmother, Mary Ruth Franklin Jeffries (1919-).

J.K. McKee is a native of the Northern Kentucky/Greater Cincinnati, OH area. He has also lived in Dallas, TX, Norman, OK, Kissimmee-St. Cloud, FL, and Roatán, Honduras, Central America. He presently resides in Dallas, TX, and is a member in good standing at Eitz Chaim Messianic Jewish Synagogue.

Bibliography

Articles

Altmann, Alexander.“Angels and Angelology,” in EJ.

Attridge, Harold W. “Hebrews, Epistle to the,” in ABD, 3:97-105.

Badgley, Michael, and Tim Hegg, Daniel Lancaster, Boaz Michael. Answering the Questions Regarding the Epistle of Hebrews. First Fruits of Zion. Retrieved 22 September, 2005, from <http://ffoz.org/Home/downloads.shtml>.

Behm, J. “thought, insight,” in TDNT.

Beitzel, B.J. “Hebrew (people),” in ISBE.

Bertram G. “education, instruction,” in TDNT.

Biven, David. A Gospel Written in Hebrew?. Jerusalem Perspective Online. Retrieved 03 August, 2004, from <http://articles.jerusalemperspective.com/>.

Boyd Gregory A., and Paul R. Eddy. “How Should Evangelicals ‘Do’ Theology? The Theological Method Debate,” in the online Appendix from Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology accessible at <www.bakeracademic.com/acrossthespectrum/>.

Bruce, F.F. “Hebrews, Letter to the,” in IDBSup, pp 394-395.

Carr, G. Lloyd. “shālôm,” in TWOT.

Coppes, Leonard J. “nuach,” in TWOT.

Delling, G. “archēgós,” in TDNT.

_________. “teléō,” in TDNT.

_________. “teleióō,” in TDNT.

Dinkler, E. “Hebrews, Letter to the,” in IDB, 2:571-575.

Feldman, Seymour. “The Binding of Isaac: A Test-Case for Divine Foreknowledge,” in The Jewish Philosophy Reader.

Foerster, W. “ eirēnē,” in TDNT.

Grundmann, W. “ ákakos,” in TDNT.

______________. “mémphomai,” in TDNT.

______________. “to be able,” in TDNT.

Guthrie, Donald. “Hebrews, Epistle to the,” in ISBE, 2:663-670.

Harder, G. “ponērós,” in TDNT.

Harris, R. Laird. “chesed,” in TWOT.

Harrison, R.K. “cherubim,” in ISBE.

Hartman, Lars. “Baptism,” in ABD.

Hauck, F. “agonóēma,” in TDNT.

________. “amíantos,” in TDNT.

________. “koinós,” in TDNT.

Hegg, Tim. “Covenant or Last Will & Testament?” Messiah Magazine Issue 89, Shemot 5766.

Hyatt, J.P. “Circumcision,” in IDB.

Jefford, C.N. “Syrophoenician,” in ISBE.

Judah, Monte. “The 7 Everlasting Covenants, Part 1 of 2” Yavoh: He is coming! Vol. 11 No. 9, September 2005.[*]

____________. “The 7 Everlasting Covenants, Part 2 of 2” Yavoh: He is coming! Vol. 11 No. 10, October 2005.*

____________. “The Paradigm of Hebrews” Yavoh: He is coming! Vol. 11 No. 11, November 2005.*

Kelber, G. “charactēr,” in TDNT.

Kittel, G. “to hear, listen,” in TDNT.

Lohse, E. “the Sabbath,” in TDNT.

MacLeod, M.A. “Massah and Meribah,” in ISBE.

MacRae, Allan A. “olam,”in TWOT.

Michaelis, W, “metriopathéō,” in TDNT.

___________, “power, strength,” in TDNT.

Mickleson, A. Berkley. “Hebrews, Letter to the,” in NIDB, pp 427-429.

“Novation, Novationists,” in A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs.

Preisker, H. “ éngyos,” in TDNT.

__________. “nōthrós,” in TDNT.

Quell, G. “Lord, lord,” in TDNT.

Reicke, B. “chrēmatízō,” in TDNT.

Sasse, H. “aiōn,” in TDNT.

Seesemann, H. “paroxýnō, paroxysmós,” in TDNT.

Würthwein, E. “metanoéō, metánoia,” in TDNT.

Bible Versions & Study Bibles

Abegg, Jr., Martin, Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich, trans. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible (New York: HarperCollins, 1999).

American Standard Version (New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1901).

Barker, Kenneth L., ed., et. al. NIV Study Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002).

Berlin, Adele, and Marc Zvi Brettler, eds. The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).

Bratcher, Robert G., ed. Good News Bible: The Bible in Today's English Version (New York: American Bible Society, 1976).

Esposito, Paul W. The Apostles’ Bible, An English Septuagint Version (http://www.apostlesbible.com/).

Garrett, Duane A., ed., et. al. NIV Archaeological Study Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005).

Green, Jay P., trans. The Interlinear Bible (Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Publishers, 1986).

God’s Game Plan: The Athlete’s Bible 2007, HCSB (Nashville: Serendipity House Publishers, 2007).

Harrelson, Walter J., ed., et. al. New Interpreter’s Study Bible, NRSV (Nashville: Abingdon, 2003).

Harris, W. Hall, ed. The Holy Bible: The Net Bible, New English Translation (Dallas: Biblical Studies Press, 2001).

Holman Christian Standard Bible (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2004).

Holy Bible, King James Version (edited 1789).

Holy Bible, New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978).

LaHaye, Tim, ed. Tim LaHaye Prophecy Study Bible, KJV (Chattanooga: AMG Publishers, 2000).

Lattimore, Richmond, trans. The New Testament (New York: North Point Press, 1996).

May, Herbert G., and Bruce M. Metzger, eds. The New Oxford Annotated Bible With the Apocrypha, RSV (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977).

Meeks, Wayne A., ed., et. al. The HarperCollins Study Bible, NRSV (New York: HarperCollins, 1993).

Newman, Barclay M., ed. Holy Bible: Contemporary English Version (New York: American Bible Society, 1995).

New American Standard Bible (La Habra, CA: Foundation Press Publications, 1971).

New American Standard, Updated Edition (Anaheim, CA: Foundation Publications, 1995).

New English Bible (Oxford and Cambridge: Oxford and Cambridge University Presses, 1970).

New King James Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982).

New Revised Standard Version (National Council of Churches of Christ, 1989).

Packer, J.I., ed. The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2001).

Peterson, Eugene H. The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2002).

Phillips, J.B., trans. The New Testament in Modern English (New York: Touchstone, 1972).

Pietersma, Albert, and Benjamin G. Wright, eds. A New English Translation of the Septuagint (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2007).

Ryrie, Charles C., ed. The Ryrie Study Bible, NASB (Chicago: Moody Press, 1978).

Scherman, Nosson, and Meir Zlotowitz, eds. ArtScroll Tanach (Brooklyn: Mesorah Publications, 1996).

Siewert, Frances E., ed. The Amplified Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1965).

Suggs, M. Jack, and Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, and James R. Mueller, et. al. The Oxford Study Bible, REB (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992).

Stern, David H., trans. Jewish New Testament (Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1995).

_____________, trans. Complete Jewish Bible (Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1998).

Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1999).

The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Cokesbury, 1952).

The Jerusalem Bible (Jerusalem: Koren Publishers, 2000).

Today’s New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005).

Tree of Life Messianic Family Bible—New Covenant (Shippensburg, PA: Destiny Image, 2011).

Williams, Charles B., trans. The New Testament: A Private Translation in the Language of the People (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1937).

Young, Robert, trans. Young’s Literal Translation.

Zodhiates, Spiros, ed. Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, NASB (Chattanooga: AMG Publishers, 1994).

Books

Berkowitz, Ariel and D’vorah. Torah Rediscovered (Lakewood, CO: First Fruits of Zion, 1996).

__________________________. Take Hold (Littleton, CO: First Fruits of Zion, 1999).

Boyd, Gregory A., and Paul R. Eddy. Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002).

Bruce, F.F. New Testament History (New York: Doubleday, 1969).

Edgar, Brian. The Message of the Trinity (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004).

Fee, Gordon D., and Douglas Stuart. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003).

Friedman, David. They Loved the Torah (Baltimore: Lederer Books, 2001).

Gundry, Robert H. A Survey of the New Testament, third edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994).

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990).

Hegg, Tim. Interpreting the Bible (Tacoma, WA: TorahResource, 2000).

__________. The Letter Writer: Paul’s Background and Torah Perspective (Littleton, CO: First Fruits of Zion, 2002).

__________. It is Often Said: Comments and Comparisons of Traditional Christian Theology and Hebraic Thought, 2 vols. (Littleton, CO: First Fruits of Zion, 2003).

Juster, Daniel C. Jewish Roots (Shippensburg, PA: Destiny Image, 1995).

Kaiser, Walter C. Toward Old Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983)

______________. The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable and Relevant? (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001).

______________. The Promise-Plan of God: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008).

Kaiser, Walter C., and Moisés Silva. An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994).

Kitchen, K.A. Ancient Orient and Old Testament (Madison, WI: InterVarsity, 1966).

Kolatch, Alfred J. The Jewish Book of Why (Middle Village, NY: Jonathan David Publishers, 1981).

_______________. The Second Jewish Book of Why (Middle Village, NY: Jonathan David Publishers, 1985).

Lancaster, D. Thomas. King of the Jews: Resurrecting the Jewish Jesus (Littleton, CO: First Fruits of Zion, 2006).

McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2001).

McKee, J.K. Torah In the Balance, Volume I (Kissimmee, FL: TNN Press, 2003).

__________. The New Testament Validates Torah (Kissimmee, FL: TNN Press, 2004).

__________. Galatians for the Practical Messianic (Kissimmee, FL: TNN Press, 2004).

__________. James for the Practical Messianic (Kissimmee, FL: TNN Press, 2005).

__________. A Survey of the Apostolic Scriptures for the Practical Messianic (Kissimmee, FL: TNN Press, 2006).

Thompson, David L. Bible Study That Works (Nappanee, IN: Evangel Publishing House, 1994).

Walvoord, John F. Israel In Prophecy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962).

Wilson, Marvin R. Our Father Abraham (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989).

Christian Reference Sources

Bercot, David W., ed. A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998).

Bromiley, Geoffrey, ed. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988).

Buttrick, George, ed. at. al. The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 4 vols. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962).

Cairns, Alan. Dictionary of Theological Terms (Greenville, SC: Ambassador Emerald International, 2002).

Crim, Keith, ed. Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume (Nashville: Abingdon, 1976).

Freedman, David Noel, ed. Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1992).

Geisler, Norman L., ed. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999).

Grenz, Stanley J., David Guretzki, and Cherith Fee Nordling. Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999).

Harrison, Everett F., ed. Baker’s Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1960).

McLay, R. Timothy. The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003).

Roberts, Alexander, and James Donaldson, eds. The Apostolic Fathers, American Edition.

Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church, 8 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995).

Tenney, Merril C., ed. The New International Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987).

Commentaries

Bruce, F.F. New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990).

deSilva, David A. Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000).

Ellingworth, Paul. New International Greek Testament Commentary: The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993).

Evans, Jr., Louis H. The Preacher’s Commentary: Hebrews, Vol 33 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985).

Guthrie, Donald. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: The Letter to the Hebrews, Vol 15 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983).

Guthrie, D. and J.A. Motyer, eds. The New Bible Commentary Revised (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970).

Hagner, Donald A. New International Biblical Commentary: Hebrews (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1990)

Hegg, Tim. Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Author, n.d.).

Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993).

Keil, C., and F. Delitzsch, eds. Commentary on the Old Testament, 10 vols.

Lane, William L. Word Biblical Commentary: Hebrews 1-8, Vol. 47a (Nashville: Nelson Reference and Electronic, 1991).

______________. Word Biblical Commentary: Hebrews 9-13, Vol. 47b (Nashville: Nelson Reference and Electronic, 1991).

Laymon, Charles M., ed. The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 1971).

Morris, Leon. “Hebrews,” in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. et. al. Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 12:3-158.

Sacks, Stuart. Hebrews Through a Hebrew’s Eyes (Baltimore: Lederer, 1995).

Sarna, Nahum. JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991).

Stern, David H. Jewish New Testament Commentary (Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1995).

Walton, John H., and Victor H. Matthews and Mark W. Chavalas. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000).

Walvoord, John F., and Roy B. Zuck, eds. The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983).

____________________________________. The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985).

Greek Language Resources

Aland, Kurt, et. al. The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition (Stuttgart: Deutche Bibelgesellschaft/United Bible Societies, 1998).

Brenton, Sir Lancelot C. L., ed & trans. The Septuagint With Apocrypha (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999).

Bromiley, Geoffrey W., ed. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, abridged (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985).

Brown, Robert K. and Philip W. Comfort, trans. The New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 1990).

Danker, Frederick William, ed., et. al. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, third edition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000).

Liddell, H.G., and R. Scott. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994).

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London and New York: United Bible Societies, 1975).

Nestle, Erwin, and Kurt Aland, eds. Novum Testamentum Graece, Nestle-Aland 27th Edition (New York: American Bible Society, 1993).

Nestle-Aland Greek-English New Testament, NE27-RSV (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies/Deutche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001).

Newman, Jr., Barclay M. A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies/Deutche Bibelgesellschaft, 1971).

Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979).

Rogers, Cleon L., Jr., and Cleon L. Rogers III. The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998).

Thayer, Joseph H. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003).

Vine, W.E. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1968).

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996).

Zodhiates, Spiros, ed. Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament (Chattanooga: AMG Publishers, 1993).

Hebrew Language Resources

Arnold, Bill T., and John H. Choi. A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003).

Baker, Warren, and Eugene Carpenter, eds. Complete Word Study Dictionary: Old Testament (Chattanooga: AMG Publishers, 2003).

Brown, Francis, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979).

Davidson, Benjamin. The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970).

Dotan, Aron, ed. Biblia Hebraica Leningradensia (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001).

Elliger, Karl, and Wilhelm Rudolph, et. al., eds. Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stuttgart: Deutche Bibelgesellschaft, 1977).

Gabe, Eric S., ed. New Testament in Hebrew and English (Hitchin, UK: Society for Distributing the Hebrew Scriptures, 2000).

Harris, R. Laird, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, eds. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980).

Holladay, William L., ed. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden, the Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1988).

Jastrow, Marcus. Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Bavli, Talmud Yerushalmi, and Midrashic Literature (New York: Judaica Treasury, 2004).

Kelley, Page H., Daniel S. Mynatt, and Timothy G. Crawford, eds. The Masorah of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998).

Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner, eds. The Hebrew & Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 2 vols. (Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill, 2001).

Seow, C.L. A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew, revised edition (Nashville: Abingdon, 1995).

Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992).

Torah Nevi'im Ketuvim v'haBrit haChadashah (Jerusalem: Bible Society in Israel, 1991).

Unger, Merrill F., and William White. Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1980).

Historical Sources & Ancient Literature

Eusebius of Caesarea: Ecclesiastical History, trans. C.F. Cruse (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998).

González, Justo L. The Story of Christianity, Vol. 1 (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1984).

_______________. The Story of Christianity, Vol. 2 (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1985).

Harrington, Joel F., ed. A Cloud of Witnesses: Readings in the History of Western Christianity (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2001).

Irvin, Dale T., and Scott W. Sunquist. History of the World Christian Movement, Vol. 1 (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2001).

Josephus, Flavius: The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged, trans. William Whiston (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987).

Judeaus, Philo: The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged, trans. C.D. Yonge (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993).

Murray, Oswyn. Ancient Greece, second edition (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993).

Shanks, Hershel, ed. Ancient Israel: From Abraham to the Roman Destruction of the Temple (Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1999).

Jewish Reference Sources

Cohen, Abraham. Everyman’s Talmud: The Major Teachings of the Rabbinic Sages (New York: Schoken, 1995).

Eisenberg, Ronald L. The JPS Guide to Jewish Traditions (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2004).

Finkelman, Rabbi Shimon. Shabbos: The Sabbath—Its Essence and Significance (Brooklyn: Mesorah Publications, 1990).

Frank, Daniel H., Oliver Leaman, and Charles H. Manekin, eds. The Jewish Philosophy Reader (London and New York: Routledge, 2000).

Hertz, J.H., ed. Pentateuch & Haftorahs (London: Soncino, 1960).

Lieber, David L. Etz Hayim: Torah and Commentary (New York: Rabbinical Assembly, 2001).

Neusner, Jacob, trans. The Mishnah: A New Translation (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1988).

______________, and William Scott Green, eds. Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002).

Enyclopaedia Judaica. MS Windows 9x. Brooklyn: Judaica Multimedia (Israel) Ltd, 1997.

Scherman, Nosson, ed., et al. The ArtScroll Chumash, Stone Edition, 5th ed. (Brooklyn: Mesorah Publications, 2000).

Miscellaneous Texts & Lexicons

Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol 1 (New York: Doubleday, 1983).

________________________. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol 2 (New York: Doubleday, 1985).

Langenscheidts New College German Dictionary, German-English (Berlin and Munich: Langenscheidt KG, 1995).

Robinson, James M., ed. The Nag Hammadi Library (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1990).

Sparks, H.F.D., ed. The Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984).

The Scriptures, second edition (Northriding, South Africa: Institute for Scripture Research, 1998).

Vermes, Geza, trans. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (London: Penguin Books, 1997).

Young, Robert. Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977).

Online Resources

Cassius Dio: Roman History, trans. anonymous (1914-1927). Accessible online at <http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/home.html>.

Cook, Edward M. (2001)., trans. The Psalms Targum: An English Translation. Accessible online at <http://www.tulane.edu/%7Entcs/pss/tg_ps_index.htm>.

Etheridge, J.W. (1862), trans. The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel On the Pentateuch With The Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum From the Chaldee. Accessible online at <http://www.tulane.edu/~ntcs/pj/psjon.htm>.

Lightfoot, J.B., trans. Clement of Rome, First Epistle. Accessible online at <http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/>.

Plato: Cratylus, trans. Benjamin Jowett. Accessible online at <http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/cratylus.html>.

Schaff, Philip (1885), trans. The Didache: Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Accessible online at <httphttp://www.catholicplanet.com/ebooks/didache.htm>.

Suetonius: De Vita Caesarum—Divus Claudius, trans. Rolfe. Accessible online at <http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/suetonius-index.html>.

Software Programs

BibleWorks 5.0. MS Windows 9x. Norfolk: BibleWorks, LLC, 2002. CD-ROM.

BibleWorks 7.0. MS Windows XP. Norfolk: BibleWorks, LLC, 2006. CD-ROM.

BibleWorks 8.0. MS Windows Vista/7 Release. Norfolk: BibleWorks, LLC, 2009-2010. DVD-ROM.

E-Sword 7.6.7. MS Windows 9x. Franklin, TN: Equipping Ministries Foundation, 2005.

E-Sword 9.9.1. MS Windows Vista/7. Franklin, TN: Equipping Ministries Foundation, 2011.

Judaic Classics Library II. MS Windows 3.1. Brooklyn: Institute for Computers in Jewish Life, 1996. CD-ROM.

Libronix Digital Library System 1.0d: Church History Collection. MS Windows XP. Garland, TX: Galaxie Software. 2002.

Visual Media

What’s so New about the New Covenant? Tim Hegg. First Fruits of Zion, 2004.

[*] This is to acknowledge that this article has been read, not that it has necessarily been quoted in this commentary.

Publications Available from TNN Press

TNN Press is the official publishing arm of TNN Online, and its parent organization, Outreach Israel Ministries. TNN Press is dedicated to producing high quality, doctrinally sound, challenging, and fair-minded Messianic materials and resources for the Twenty-First Century. TNN Press offers a wide array of new and exciting books and resources for the truth seeker.

TNN Press titles are available for purchase at www.outreachisrael.net or at Amazon.com

Hebraic Roots: An Introductory Study

is TNN Press’ main, best-selling publication, that offers a good overview of the Messianic movement and Messianic lifestyle that can be used for individual or group study in twelve easy lessons

Introduction to Things Messianic

is an excellent companion to Hebraic Roots, which goes into substantially more detail into the emerging theology of the Messianic movement, specific areas of Torah observance, and aspects of faith such as salvation and eschatology

The Messianic Helper series, edited by Margaret McKee Huey, includes a series of books with instructional information on how to have a Messianic home, including holiday celebration guides.

Messianic Winter Holiday Helper

is a guide to help you during the Winter holiday season, addressing the significance of Chanukah, the period of the Maccabees, and the non-Biblical holiday of Christmas

Messianic Spring Holiday Helper

is a guide to assist you during the Spring holiday season, analyzing the importance of Purim, Passover and Unleavened Bread, Shavuot, and the non-Biblical holiday of Easter

Messianic Fall Holiday Helper

is a guide for the Fall holiday season of Yom Teruah/Rosh HaShanah, Yom Kippur, and Sukkot, along with reflective teachings and exhortations

Messianic Sabbath Helper (coming soon in paperback)

is a guide that will help you make the seventh-day Sabbath a delight, discussing both how to keep the Sabbath and the history of the transition to Sunday that occurred in early Christianity

Messianic Kosher Helper

is a guide discussing various aspects of the kosher dietary laws, clean and unclean meats, common Jewish traditions associated with kashrut, common claims made that these are no longer important for Believers, and an extensive analysis of Biblical passages from the Tanach (OT) and Apostolic Scriptures (NT) about the Torah’s dietary laws and their relevance

Messianic Torah Helper

is a guide that weighs the different perspectives of the Pentateuch present in Jewish and Christian theology, considers the role of the Law for God’s people, and how today’s Messianics can fairly approach issues of halachah and tradition in their Torah observance

Outreach Israel Ministries director Mark Huey has written Torah commentaries and reflections that are thought provoking and very enlightening for Messianic Believers today.

TorahScope Volume I

is a compilation workbook of insightful commentaries on the weekly Torah and Haftarah portions

TorahScope Volume II

is a second compilation workbook of expanded commentaries on the weekly Torah and Haftarah portions

TorahScope Volume III

is a third compilation workbook of expanded commentaries on the weekly Torah and Haftarah portions, specifically concentrating on the theme of faith

TorahScope Haftarah Exhortations

is a compilation workbook of insightful commentaries on the specific, weekly Haftarah portions, designed to be used to compliment the weekly Torah reading

TorahScope Apostolic Scripture Reflections

is a compilation workbook of insightful reflections on suggested readings from the Apostolic Scriptures or New Testament, designed to be used to compliment the weekly Torah and Haftarah readings

Counting the Omer: A Daily Devotional Toward Shavuot

is a daily devotional with fifty succinct reflections from Psalms, guiding you during the season between the festivals of Passover and Pentecost

Sayings of the Fathers: A Messianic Perspective on Pirkei Avot

is a daily devotional for two years of reflection on the Mishnah tractate Pirkei Avot, introducing you to some of the key views present in the Apostolic period as witnessed by the Jewish Sages (intended to be read during the counting of the omer)

TNN Online editor and Messianic apologist J.K. McKee has written on Messianic theology and practice, including studies on Torah observance, the end-times, and commentaries that are helpful to those who have difficult questions to answer.

The New Testament Validates Torah

Does the New Testament Really Do Away With the Law?

is a resource examining a wide variety of Biblical passages, discussing whether or not the Torah of Moses is really abolished in the New Testament

Torah In the Balance, Volume I

The Validity of the Torah and Its Practical Life Applications

examines the principal areas of a Torah observant walk of faith for the newcomer, including one’s spiritual motives

Confronting Critical Issues

An Analysis of Subjects that Affects the Growth and Stability

of the Emerging Messianic Movement

compiles a variety of articles and analyses that directly confront negative teachings and trends that have been witnessed in the broad Messianic community in the past decade

TNN Press has produced a variety of Messianic commentaries on various books of the Bible under the “for the Practical Messianic” byline. These can be used in an individual, small group, or congregational study.

general commentaries:

A Survey of the Tanach for the Practical Messianic

A Survey of the Apostolic Scriptures for the Practical Messianic

specific book commentaries:

Acts 15 for the Practical Messianic

Galatians for the Practical Messianic

Ephesians for the Practical Messianic

Philippians for the Practical Messianic

Colossians and Philemon for the Practical Messianic

The Pastoral Epistles for the Practical Messianic

1&2 Thessalonians for the Practical Messianic

James for the Practical Messianic

Hebrews for the Practical Messianic

TNN Press has produced a selection of confronting issues mini-books, specifically designed to address controversial theological topics facing a widely divided Messianic movement

One Law for All

From the Mosaic Texts to the Work of the Holy Spirit

by J.K. McKee

addresses the different passages that are significant to the whole discussion of “one Law” or “one Torah” to be followed by the people of God, and the widespread polarization of the Torah being a Divine Invitation or Covenant Obligation for non-Jewish Believers

Are Non-Jewish Believers Really a Part of Israel?

by J.K. McKee

addresses the basic choices of ecclesiology for today’s Messianic Believers: either God (1) has two groups of elect, or sub-peoples: Israel and “the Church”; or God (2) recognizes us all as a part of an enlarged Kingdom realm of Israel. How are we to approach non-Jewish Believers in the Messianic movement, and things like the Commonwealth of Israel (Ephesians 2:11-13), the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16), or being grafted-in (Romans 11:16-18)?

Confronting Yeshua’s Divinity and Messiahship

by J.K. McKee

examines some of the top reasons given by Messianic people who deny Yeshua as being God, why the Godhead can indeed be plural, and some of the top reasons given by Jewish anti-missionaries against Yeshua being the Messiah of Israel

To Be Absent From the Body

by J.K. McKee

confronts the debate over the intermediate state, what occurs to a person between death and the resurrection, and how the Scriptures do indeed affirm that people will be in a disembodied condition in another dimension for a limited time

Why Hell Must Be Eternal

by J.K. McKee

addresses the rather uncomfortable and unpopular topic of eternal punishment, considering some of the common proof texts given in support of annihilationism, and also weighs in the perspective of the metaphorical view of eternal punishment present in theological studies since the Protestant Reformation

One of the goals of TNN Press is to always be in the mode of producing more cutting edge materials, addressing head on some of the theological and spiritual issues facing our emerging Messianic movement. In addition to our current array of available and soon-to-be available publications, the following are a selection of Future Projects, in various stages of planning and pre-production, most of which involve research at the present time (2013). Look for their release sometime over the next two to five years and beyond.

Torah In the Balance, Volume II

The Set-Apart Life in Action—The Outward Expressions of Faith

by J.K. McKee

will examine many of the finer areas of Torah observance, which has a diversity of interpretations and applications as witnessed in both mainstream Judaism and the wide Messianic community

Salvation on the Line/in View

by J.K. McKee

is a planned/anticipated multi-volume series which will directly tackle the subject of apostasy in today’s Messianic movement, first considering the Divinity of Yeshua, the doctrine of salvation, and later the Messiahship of Yeshua, the reliability of the Scriptures, and human origins

Table of Contents

PROLOGUE

INTRODUCTION

HEBREWS 1

HEBREWS 2

HEBREWS 3

HEBREWS 4

HEBREWS 5

HEBREWS 6

Excursus on Calvinism, Arminianism, and the Messianic Movement

HEBREWS 7

HEBREWS 8

Excursus on the "New Covenant" or "Renewed Covenant"?

HEBREWS 9

HEBREWS 10

HEBREWS 11

HEBREWS 12

HEBREWS 13

EPILOGUE

THE MESSAGE OF HEBREWS

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS: AN AUTHOR'S RENDERING

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]

[65]

[66]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]

[65]

[66]

[67]

[68]

[69]

[70]

[71]

[72]

[73]

[74]

[75]

[76]

[77]

[78]

[79]

[80]

[81]

[82]

[83]

[84]

[85]

[86]

[87]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]

[65]

[66]

[67]

[68]

[69]

[70]

[71]

[72]

[73]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]

[65]

[66]

[67]

[68]

[69]

[70]

[71]

[72]

[73]

[74]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]

[65]

[66]

[67]

[68]

[69]

[70]

[71]

[72]

[73]

[74]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]

[65]

[66]

[67]

[68]

[69]

[70]

[71]

[72]

[73]

[74]

[75]

[76]

[77]

[78]

[79]

[80]

[81]

[82]

[83]

[84]

[85]

[86]

[87]

[88]

[89]

[90]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[a]

[a]

[b]

[

c]

[

d]

[

e]

[f]

[g]

[h]

[a]

[a]

[b]

[a]

[b]

[c]

[a]

[b]

[c]

[a]

[b]

[c]

[d]

[e]

[f]

[g]

[h]

[a]

[b]

[

c]

[

d]

[e]

[a]

[b]

[c]

[d]

[e]

[f]

[g]

[h]

[i]

[j]

[k]

[a]

[

b]

[c]

[d]

[e]

[a]

[b]

[c]

[d]

[e]

[f]

[g]

[h]

[a]

[b]

[c]

[d]

[e]

[f]

[g]

[h]

[a]

[b]

[c]

[*]