The Letter To Hebews

[Eleanor]

● Heb 6:17-18 . . Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his
purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an
oath.God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for
God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly
encouraged.

Two unchangeable things: God's promise and God's oath confirming the promise,
upon which fulfillment we can look back while Abraham saw it only in anticipation.

The oath wasn't only for Abraham's sake, but also all nations on earth that would
be blessed thru his offspring. They all, both Jew and Gentile alike, can rest assured
that the oath will be, and is being, fully implemented.

● Heb 6:19-20 . .We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It
enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, where Jesus, who went before us,
has entered on our behalf.

Like an anchor holding a ship safely in position, our hope in Christ guarantees our safety.
And while the ship's anchor goes down to the ocean bed, the Christian's anchor goes up
into the true heavenly sanctuary, where he is moored to God himself.

He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.

And now the grand theme that the author is about to develop (chp 7).

Aaron's official garments included two onyx stones, one on each shoulder engraved
with the names of the twelve tribes of Israel; six tribes on each stone (Ex 28:9-12).
Those stones, in essence, were the people of Israel. So, in effect then, Aaron's
constituents came inside the holy place with him every time he went beyond the
curtain.

In that vein, the Jews and Gentiles blessed by God's oath are represented before
Him in the person of Messiah; who is currently seated at God's right hand whereas
Moses' people, in the person of Aaron, weren't permitted to sit down. They were
allowed beyond the curtain for no longer than his priesthood's rituals required.

The difference in quality between Messiah's Melchizedekian priesthood, and Aaron's
Levitical priesthood, is really significant. The one allows its constituents only a brief
moment with God, whereas the other takes them into association with Him
permanently.

Most Christians readily attest that Jesus (a.k.a. Y'shua) is both God and Man, but
typically without knowing why he's God, nor knowing how he obtained divine
status. Well; the thing is; Jesus could not be a high priest seated at the right hand
of God in Heaven without divinity; so that had to be addressed.

Jesus is divine because it was God who became man (Jn 1:1, 14).

● Heb 7:1-3 . .This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He
met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him,

Melchizedek holding both offices, priest and king, is one of the ways he prefigured Christ.

and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything.
. . . .(Omission added): First his name means "king of righteousness;" then also, "king of Salem"
means "king of peace.

Both are Messianic titles (Isa 9:6-7, Jer 23:5-6, 33:15-16).

Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life,
like the Son of God he remains a priest forever.

Ge 14:18-20 does not mention Melchizedek's parentage and children or his birth and death.
The author, in accordance with Jewish tradition on this, uses the silence of Scripture about
Melchizedek's genealogy to protray him as a prefiguration of Christ. Melchizedek's priesthood
anticipates Christ's eternal existence (no beginning) and his unending, eternal priesthood.

From a certain point of view, Mel is a self-existent eternal being, viz: there's no
record of his birth and there's no record of his death; indicating that priests
patterned after Melchizedek have to be men who were never born, and who have
yet to die.

Jesus is often claimed to be a self-existent eternal being right from his mother's
womb, but no, he wasn't. From the information we have to work with; Jesus was a
normal Jewish man whose blood was David's and Abraham's, i.e. Jesus wasn't some
sort of divine hominid. The Bible has his genealogy, plus a record of his birth, and a
record of his death. However; Jesus is no longer reckoned a mere mortal in Heaven
due to a very strange administrative procedure.

As compensation for his exceptional service to both God and fellow men; Isa 52:13
and Phil 2:6-11 reveal that God bestowed upon Jesus Christ the name that is above
every name that can be named either in Heaven, on earth, and under the earth.
That name is Jehovah, a.k.a. Yahweh. (Isa 42:8)

So; Jesus is now officially authorized to be respected, to be identified, to be spoken
of, to be spoken to, and to speak for himself, by the name of God, i.e. The
Almighty. (Ps 45:1-7, Rev 1:8)

Ergo: as far as the Bible is concerned, Jesus is a self-existent eternal being because
his identity by the name of God affords him all the attributes of God: the whole ball
of wax, so to speak.

The gospel of John reveals that Jesus is the Word who was God before he became flesh
to dwell among us.

Cont.

 

[Eleanor]

Continued From No.39
OBJECTION: The Bible says God doesn't share His divinity. (Isa 42:8)
REPLY: That passage speaks of pagans and their religions: it doesn't preclude the
possibility of God sharing divinity with His only begotten son within the walls of His
own home.

God didn't "share his divinity" with a human Jesus.
Jn 1:1 - "and the Word (Jesus) was God, who became flesh and dwelled among us." (Jn 1:14)
He was God before he came to earth in a human body.

Bottom line: Jesus easily qualifies for the position of a high priest seated at the
right hand of God in Heaven because as Jehovah he had neither father nor mother,
nor is there a record of his birth or of his death. In other words; it is perfectly
legitimate for Jesus to claim to be the I AM of Ex 3:14.
Messiah's path to divinity may seem a tad ridiculous-- maybe even fraudulent --but
it's the path chosen for him so we have to work with it.

What is ridiculous is the assertion that Jesus became God, when the NT testimony is that he was God and became man! (Jn 1:1, 14)

OBJECTION: Your explanation can't possibly be right; not when Deut 6:4 says;
"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, The Lord is one." You Christians have two acting
as Jehovah, whereas the Law allows for only one.

God is one God, one divine being, in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit,
demonstrated throughout the NT.**

REPLY: Jesus' identity as Jehovah is an administrative credential which can be
roughly compared to the purpose of the signature ring that Pharaoh lent Joseph.
(Gen 41:39-44)

* Jesus' credential was promised to his ancestor Zerubbabel by Haggai 2:21-23
_

Contraire. . .the divinity of Jesus and the humanity of God in the Messiah is not "an administrative credential."

That is a flat-out denail of Jn 1:1,14 - "and the Word was God. . .the Word became flesh and dwelled among us."

** 1) We have three separate persons (divine agents), Father, Son and Holy Spirit, presented in the work of salvation:
a)--at its beginning (Luke 1:35),
-----at the inauguration of Jesus' public ministry (Matthew 3:16-17) and
-----in the work of atonement (Hebrews 9:14),

b) the Holy Spirit completing the work (salvation) of the Father through the Son
(Acts 2:38-39; Romans 8:26; 1 Corinthians 12:4-6; Ephesians 1:3-14, Ephesians 2:13-22; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Peter 1:2),

c) the only way to enter the kingdom of the Father (salvation) is through faith in the Son and regeneration by the Holy Spirit (John 3:1-15).

2) And where Jesus shows the personhoods of three distinct and separate divine agents:

The Son is sent by the Father, in the Father's name (John 5:23, 36, 43).
The Spirit is sent by the Father in the Son's name (John 14:26).
The Spirit is subject to the Son as well as to the Father, for the Spirit is sent by the Son as well as the Father (John 15:26, 16:7, 14:26).

One doesn't send oneself, one sends another who is separate from oneself.

The Trinity--one God in three separate divine persons--is presented in NT teaching from the beginning.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Heb 7:4-7 . . Just think how great he was: Even the patriarch Abraham gave him
a tenth of the plunder! Now the law requires the descendants of Levi who become
priests to collect a tenth from the people-- that is, their brothers --even though
their brothers are descended from Abraham. This man, however, did not trace his
descent from Levi, yet he collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed him who had
the promises. And without doubt the lesser person is blessed by the greater.

Mel was not only a priest but also a king. (Heb 7:2) Abraham was neither. So, this
man Melchizedek, because of his royalty and the manner of his priesthood, was
higher in rank, and closer to God, than Abraham. And he outranked everyone
descending from Abraham; which would've ultimately impacted Messiah were he a
nondescript Jewish man.

● Heb 7:8 . . In the one case, the tenth is collected by men who die; but in the
other case, by him who is declared to be living.

Within the allegory, Melchizedek outlived both Levi and Aaron, and continues to
outlive all of Aaron's sons too because Melchizedek is reckoned-- from a certain
perspective --to still be alive. According to Moses' Law, Aaron and his sons lose
their jobs the instant they die. Their office then passes down to another of Aaron's
male descendants. But death can't bump a Melchizedekian priest from office
because the position isn't transferable upon death for the very simple reason that,
within the allegory, Melchizedekian priests are eternal beings, i.e. they always
were, they always are, and they always shall be.

● Heb 7:9-10 . . One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the
tenth through Abraham, because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in
the body of his ancestor.

Now if true that Levi paid Mel a tithe thru Abraham, then it must be true that Levi
was also blessed by Mel thru Abraham when he said: "Blessed be Abram of God
Most High, creator of heaven and earth." And by extension, everyone descending
from Abraham was blessed.

The language and grammar of some of the passages coming up are tricky, and if
one isn't careful; they can be led to conclude Moses' law has been revised to
accommodate a priest from the tribe of Judah; but where the author of the letter to
Hebrews says that a change in the priesthood requires a change in Moses' law; he
assumes his Jewish audience has enough yeshiva under their belts to be well aware
that changes to the priesthood will never happen because the successful
administration of Moses' law depends upon it. (cf. Jer 33:17-22)

● Heb 7:11a . . The law was given to the people on the basis of the Levitical
priesthood,

Moses' law would be an impractical code to live by in a theocratic kingdom without
a priesthood to keep the peace between God and His people.

When Moses came down from the mount with the first set of stone tables, a
priesthood wasn't in the law then. God later revised the law to include a priesthood
after the people broke it. In fact, when Moses saw what the people had been up to
while he was away, he smashed the first tables and didn't bring them into camp
because there were no provisions in the law at that time for someone to stand
between violators and God to protect them from retribution.

So Moses destroyed the original law and threw it away; and I hardly blame him. He
couldn't possibly obligate his people to the law in its original form. Those first
tables, if permitted to enter the camp, would have endangered his people beyond
measure. Moses destroyed the first form of the law out of concern for his people's
safety.

● Heb 7:11b . . If perfection could've 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?

Aaron's priesthood, although a vital necessity for sinners under the jurisdiction of
Moses' Law, has its limits.

For one thing: Aaronic priests cannot represent their constituents in the very
presence of God. In point of fact, Aaron himself couldn't stay in the holy place on
earth for any longer than his rituals required let alone be allowed for any length of
time in Heaven's holy place.

But the thing is: it isn't within the scope of Aaron's office to obtain an absolution for
the people. The best those priests can do is a stay of execution, i.e. a reprieve.
_

 

[Eleanor]

● Heb 7:4-7 . . Just think how great he was: Even the patriarch Abraham gave him
a tenth of the plunder! Now the law requires the descendants of Levi who become
priests to collect a tenth from the people-- that is, their brothers --even though
their brothers are descended from Abraham. This man, however, did not trace his
descent from Levi, yet he collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed him who had
the promises. And without doubt the lesser person is blessed by the greater.

In both ways Melchizedek was greater than Abraham.

Mel was not only a priest but also a king. (Heb 7:2) Abraham was neither. So, this
man Melchizedek, because of his royalty and the manner of his priesthood, was
higher in rank, and closer to God, than Abraham. And he outranked everyone
descending from Abraham; which would've ultimately impacted Messiah were he a
nondescript Jewish man.
● Heb 7:8 . . In the one case, the tenth is collected by men who die; but in the
other case, by him who is declared to be living.

Within the allegory, Melchizedek outlived both Levi and Aaron, and continues to
outlive all of Aaron's sons too because Melchizedek is reckoned-- from a certain
perspective --to still be alive. According to Moses' Law, Aaron and his sons lose
their jobs the instant they die. Their office then passes down to another of Aaron's
male descendants. But death can't bump a Melchizedekian priest from office
because the position isn't transferable upon death for the very simple reason that,
within the allegory, Melchizedekian priests are eternal beings, i.e. they always
were, they always are, and they always shall be.

It's not an allegory. Jesus is a High Priest in the order of Melchizedek, an eternal High Priest.

● Heb 7:9-10 . . One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the
tenth through Abraham, because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in
the body of his ancestor.
Now if true that Levi paid Mel a tithe thru Abraham, then it must be true that Levi
was also blessed by Mel thru Abraham when he said: "Blessed be Abram of God
Most High, creator of heaven and earth." And by extension, everyone descending
from Abraham was blessed.

The language and grammar of some of the passages coming up are tricky, and if
one isn't careful; they can be led to conclude Moses' law has been revised to
accommodate a priest from the tribe of Judah; but where the author of the letter to
Hebrews says that a change in the priesthood requires a change in Moses' law; he
assumes his Jewish audience has enough yeshiva under their belts to be well aware
that changes to the priesthood will never happen because the successful
administration of Moses' law depends upon it. (cf. Jer 33:17-22)

So the writer of Hebrews is lying, and you are telling the truth?

● Heb 7:11a . . The law was given to the people on the basis of the Levitical
priesthood,

The law of Moses and the Levitical priesthood went together. All the people were under
the law's condemnation for all without exception were sinners, and were in need of a
priestly system to mediate between them and God.

Moses' law would be an impractical code to live by in a theocratic kingdom without
a priesthood to keep the peace between God and His people.
When Moses came down from the mount with the first set of stone tables, a
priesthood wasn't in the law then.

Not according to Ex 25-30, and Moses came down in Ex 32.

God later revised the law to include a priesthood after the people broke it.

God did not "revise" the law, he substantially added to Ex 25-30 in Leviticus, including the
ordination of Aaron as High Priest (Lev 8).

In fact, when Moses saw what the people had been up to
while he was away, he smashed the first tables and didn't bring them into camp
because there were no provisions in the law at that time for someone to stand
between violators and God to protect them from retribution.

Provision was given on the mountain before Moses came down with the tablets--instructions for
a tabernacle, ark, table, lampstand, sacrificial altar, priestly garments, consecration of priests,
altar of incense, laver, and anointing oil.

So Moses destroyed the original law and threw it away; and I hardly blame him. He
couldn't possibly obligate his people to the law in its original form. Those first
tables, if permitted to enter the camp, would have endangered his people beyond
measure. Moses destroyed the first form of the law out of concern for his people's
safety.

Totally contrary to the text of Ex 25-32. Moses destroyed the tablets of the Decalogue, not the law
of Ex 25-32 given on the mountain. And it had nothing to do with the law endangering the people.

● Heb 7:11b . . If perfection could've 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?
Aaron's priesthood, although a vital necessity for sinners under the jurisdiction of
Moses' Law, has its limits.
For one thing: Aaronic priests cannot represent their constituents in the very
presence of God.

It was not about representing their constituents. It was about a perfect High Priest offering
a perfect sacrifice that would actually pay their sin debt.

In point of fact, Aaron himself couldn't stay in the holy place on earth for any longer
than his rituals required let alone be allowed for any length of time in Heaven's holy place.

Irrelevant to the perfect priest offering the perfect sacrifice to pay their sin debt.

But the thing is: it isn't within the scope of Aaron's office to obtain an absolution for
the people. The best those priests can do is a stay of execution, i.e. a reprieve.
_

It was in the scope of Aaron's office to be a type of the perfect High Priest who would offer the
perfect sacrifice, himself.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Heb 7:12-14 . . For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be
a change of the law. He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe,
and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. For it is clear that our Lord
descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.

There's no way that Moses' Law can be changed now. That is just out of the
question. Therefore, no one from the tribe of Judah, nor any other tribe for that
matter, can serve in the Temple as a high priest. So Messiah's priesthood has to be
one that serves in a another Temple. It is in fact a whole different arrangement
altogether, separate from Moses' Law; just as Melchizedek's was.

● Heb 7:15-17 . . And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like
Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation
as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. For it is
declared: "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek."

Aaron's descendents become priests much too easily. The position falls into their
laps by heritage, and other than a physical examination (Lev 21:17-23) they don't
even have to take a test and qualify for it. But still, any man serving in the Aaronic
priesthood has to be one of Aaron's male descendants. That is an inflexible rule.

However, the primary qualification for Melchizedek's particular kind of priesthood is
not a man's biological ancestry, rather that the man chosen for it has to be
immortal because the wording of Psalm 110:4 states that the benefactor of that
promise is to be a priest forever. So any man subject to old age and death is
automatically disqualified.

● Heb 7:18 . .The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless

Aaron's priesthood isn't entirely useless, but it's ineffective for obtaining absolution
- in that respect its utility is severely limited.

● Heb 7:19a . . for the law made nothing perfect,

Exoneration is God's ideal for Man. Unfortunately, Moses' covenant has no dynamic
for that. All it does is specify codes of religious and civil conduct, and criminal
justice; while lacking a means for expunging the sinner's criminal history so that on
the books it appears they have never been anything but 100% innocent.

● Heb 7:19b-22 . . and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.
And it was not without an oath. Others became priests without any oath, but he
became a priest with an oath when God said to him; "The Lord has sworn and will
not change his mind: You are a priest forever." Because of this oath, Jesus has
become the sponsor of a better covenant.

Aaron's priesthood can be superseded because it wasn't meant to be supreme
whereas Melchizedek's is meant to be superior to Aaron's. (Heb 7:4-10)

● Heb 7:23-25 . . Now there have been many of those priests, since death
prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a
permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save those who come to God through
him from start to finish, because he always lives to intercede for them.

The situation is such now that the only way to put a stop to Jesus' pathway to God
is to put a stop to Jesus; but seeing as how he's immortal, any endeavor to take
him down would likely not succeed.
_

 

[Eleanor]

● Heb 7:12-14 . . For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be
a change of the law. He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe,
and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. For it is clear that our Lord
descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.
There's no way that Moses' Law can be changed now. That is just out of the
question. Therefore, no one from the tribe of Judah, nor any other tribe for that
matter, can serve in the Temple as a high priest. So Messiah's priesthood has to be
one that serves in a another Temple. It is in fact a whole different arrangement
altogether, separate from Moses' Law; just as Melchizedek's was.

There is no other law as long as there is Moses' law.
And when there is another law (Heb 7:12), there will be no Moses' (ceremonial) law.

And now there is another priestly law because the laws of Moses, apart from the Decalogue, are abolished (Eph 2:15).

● Heb 7:15-17 . . And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like
Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation
as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. For it is
declared: "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek."
Aaron's descendents become priests much too easily. The position falls into their
laps by heritage, and other than a physical examination (Lev 21:17-23) they don't
even have to take a test and qualify for it. But still, any man serving in the Aaronic
priesthood has to be one of Aaron's male descendants. That is an inflexible rule.

However, the primary qualification for Melchizedek's particular kind of priesthood is
not a man's biological ancestry, rather that the man chosen for it has to be
immortal because the wording of Psalm 110:4 states that the benefactor of that
promise is to be a priest forever. So any man subject to old age and death is
automatically disqualified.

Not just live forever, for all believers are subject to death before his resurrection, including Christ.
And no believer is subject to death after his resurrection, including Christ.
So, while all believers have their beginning in time. In the Biblical record, Melchizedek
does not have a beginning. In that regard, Melchizedek is a pre-figure of Christ.

● Heb 7:18 . .The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless,
Aaron's priesthood isn't entirely useless,

So the writer of Hebrews got it wrong again, as you assert he did in post #44,
where you stated the writer got it wrong because "changes to the priesthood will never happen."

but it's ineffective for obtaining absolution - in that respect its utility is severely limited.

It was not just severely limited, it was absolutely powerless to make righteous those who sin by
breaking the law, nor can it give the power necessary to fulfill its demands. That means useless.

● Heb 7:19a . . for the law made nothing perfect,

The law was only preparatory (Gal 3:23-25) and brought nothing to fulfillment (Mt 5:17).

Exoneration is God's ideal for Man. Unfortunately, Moses' covenant has no dynamic
for that. All it does is specify codes of religious and civil conduct, and criminal
justice; while lacking a means for expunging the sinner's criminal history so that on
the books it appears they have never been anything but 100% innocent.
● Heb 7:19b-22 . . and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

The new covenant was better because it assures us of complete redemption
and brings us unto the very presence of God (Col 1:5).

And it was not without an oath. Others became priests without any oath, but he
became a priest with an oath when God said to him; "The Lord has sworn and will
not change his mind: You are a priest forever."

No divine oath was associated with the establishment of the Levitical priesthood. The priesthood pledged
in Ps 110 is superior because it was divinely affirmed with an oath, "You are a priest forever."

Because of this oath, Jesus has become the sponsor of a better covenant.

See chps 8-10. And why alter the Biblical terminology? Jesus is not "sponsor," he is Mediator, for all eternity.

Aaron's priesthood can be superseded because it wasn't meant to be supreme
whereas Melchizedek's is meant to be superior to Aaron's. (Heb 7:4-10)

Melchizedek's is meant to be supreme; i.e., forever. There will never be another priesthood nor priest.

● Heb 7:23-25 . . Now there have been many of those priests, since death
prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a
permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save those who come to God through
him from start to finish, because he always lives to intercede for them.
The situation is such now that the only way to put a stop to Jesus' pathway to God
is to put a stop to Jesus; but seeing as how he's immortal,

Contra-gospel:
Jesus does not have a pathway to God Jesus is the pathway to God.

Contra-Biblical:
Jesus is not just immortal (without end), Jesus is eternal (without beginning), as was Melchizedek.

any endeavor to take him down would likely not succeed.

There is no taking down God, whom Jesus is, being the second person, the son of God, in the divine Trinity.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Heb 7:26 . . Such a high priest meets our need-- one who is holy, blameless,
pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens.

Though Christ is a man, his elegance resembles that of a divine being rather than
human; yet retains his humanness so he can be a high priest because they have
to be selected from among men rather than the gods.

* It's sometimes alleged that Christ is a demigod, i.e. half human and half divine.
Well; we can't accept that proposal because our understanding is that Christ is
100% human and 100% divine. In words: he isn't half and half, rather; he's one
and one. This is of course impossible, but it's Christianity so we have to accept it
while keeping in mind that our faith is anchored in supernatural realities rather than
logical realities.

● Heb 7:27 . . 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 for all when he offered himself.

The sacrifices required by Moses' law cover the people's sins up to that point, but
from thence they began accumulating new sins that require sacrificing all over
again. In other words: with Christ, the people can never commit a sin for which he
didn't already die.

● Heb 7:28 . . 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.

Within the confines of Moses' law, the high priest isn't a mere convenience, he's an
essential; which means that should the high priest fall out of sorts with God, and/or
become lax in the performance of his duties, then his parishioners would experience
an interruption in services, i.e. a disconnect in their association with God.

Jesus will never let his people down due to his own personal fails. Were that not true,
then God would've skipped over him when searching for someone to serve humanity
in accord with Melchizedek's example. And best of all, Jesus is permanent. (Ps 110:4)
_

 

[Eleanor]

● Heb 7:26 . . Such a high priest meets our need-- one who is holy, blameless,
pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens.

Our need being salvation from sin and its consequences.

Though Christ is a man, his elegance resembles that of a divine being rather than
human; yet retains his humanness so he can be a high priest because they have
to be selected from among men rather than the gods.
* It's sometimes alleged that Christ is a demigod, i.e. half human and half divine.

Well; we can't accept that proposal because our understanding is that Christ is
100% human and 100% divine. In words: he isn't half and half, rather; he's one
and one. This is of course impossible, but it's Christianity so we have to accept it
while keeping in mind that our faith is anchored in supernatural realities rather than
logical realities.

Like the Trininty, three separate persons in one Being, God.

● Heb 7:27 . . Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day
after day,

Evidence that these sacrifices never effectively and finally dealt with sin.

first for his own sins,

Christ's priesthood is superior because he has no personal sins for which sacrifice must be made.

and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all

"Once for all," a key phrase in Hebrews (9:12, 16). The Levitical priests had to bring daily offerings
to the Lord, whereas Jesus sacrificed himself once for all.

when he offered himself.

Levitical priests offered up only animals; our high priest offered himself, the perfect sacrifice--
man for man.

The sacrifices required by Moses' law cover the people's sins up to that point, but
from thence they began accumulating new sins that require sacrificing all over
again. In other words: with Christ, the people can never commit a sin for which he
didn't already die.

● Heb 7:28 . . For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak;

Because they
1) are mortal and therefore impermanent (v. 23),
2) are sinful (v. 27), and
3) could only offer animals, which could never provide a genuine substitute for man, who is made
in the image of God.

but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.

Christ was made perfect in that he faced temptation without succumbing to sin. Instead he
perfectly obeyed the Father, thereby establishing a perfection that is eternal.

Within the confines of Moses' law, the high priest isn't a mere convenience, he's an
essential; which means that should the high priest fall out of sorts with God, and/or
become lax in the performance of his duties, then his parishioners would experience
an interruption in services, i.e. a disconnect in their association with God.
Jesus will never let his people down due to his own personal fails. Were that not true,
then God would've skipped over him when searching for someone to serve humanity
in accord with Melchizedek's example. And best of all, Jesus is permanent. (Ps 110:4)
_

God wasn't "searching for someone to serve humanity in accordance with Melchizedek's example."
God sent his own Son to be High Priest forever in the order of Melchizedek, and to offer the
perfect sacrifice; i.e., himself, for the sin of his people for all time.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Heb 8:1-2 . . 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, a minister in the sanctuary, and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord
pitched, not man.

The Greek word translated "tabernacle" refers to tents, which are hasty shelters
made of fabric rather than permanent structures made of sturdy materials like wood,
stone, and brick.

A Greek word for temple is nowhere to be found in the letter to Hebrews, viz: these
passages are keeping us pinned in the covenant that Moses' people agreed upon with
God per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. In point of fact, God didn't
want a temple up until the time that David got the bright idea to build one +/- 400
years after Mt. Sinai.

● 2Sam 7:5-7 . . Go and tell my servant David; This is what The Lord says. Are you
the one to build me a house to dwell in? I have not dwelt in a house from the day I
brought the Israelites up out of Egypt to this day. I have been moving from place to
place with a tent as my dwelling. Wherever I have moved with all the Israelites, did
I ever say to any of their rulers whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel:
Why have you not built me a house of cedar?

The right hand of God is significantly more important than his left. For example Jacob
laid his right hand upon Ephraim; thus designating him as Joseph's firstborn instead
of Manasseh whose birthright it was by primogeniture. (Gen 48:13-19) So; what's that
tell us about Jesus? Well it tells me that Jesus is in a position designating him as God's
firstborn son, i.e. The Almighty's next of kin and heir apparent. For example Psalm 110:1
which says:

"The Lord said unto my lord: Sit thou at My right hand, until I make thine enemies
your footstool."

NOTE: The birthright of the son born first isn't inalienable; rather, quite transferable
to a younger member of the family, e.g. Esau to Jacob (Gen 25:23) Rueben to
Joseph (1Chrn 5:1) Mannasah to Ephraim (Gen 48:13-19) and David to Christ
(Ps 101:1 cf. Matt 22:42-45)
_

 

[Eleanor]

● Heb 8:1-2 . . 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, a minister in the sanctuary, and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord
pitched, not man.

The true tabernacle in contrast to the tabernacle erected by Moses, which as an imperfect and impermanent copy of the heavenly one.
The heavenly sanctuary built by God corresponds to the Most Holy Place, the innermost
sanctuary in Moses' tabernacle, into which the high priest briefly entered with the blood of
the atonement only once a year. In the heavenly sanctuary, however, our great high priest
dwells eternally as our intercessor (7:25).

The Greek word translated "tabernacle" refers to tents, which are hasty shelters
made of fabric rather than permanent structures made of sturdy materials like wood,
stone, and brick.
A Greek word for temple is nowhere to be found in the letter to Hebrews, viz: these
passages are keeping us pinned in the covenant that Moses' people agreed upon with
God per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. In point of fact, God didn't
want a temple up until the time that David got the bright idea to build one +/- 400
years after Mt. Sinai.

● 2Sam 7:5-7 . . Go and tell my servant David; This is what The Lord says. Are you
the one to build me a house to dwell in? I have not dwelt in a house from the day I
brought the Israelites up out of Egypt to this day. I have been moving from place to
place with a tent as my dwelling. Wherever I have moved with all the Israelites, did
I ever say to any of their rulers whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel:
Why have you not built me a house of cedar?

The right hand of God is significantly more important than his left. For example Jacob
laid his right hand upon Ephraim; thus designating him as Joseph's firstborn instead
of Manasseh whose birthright it was by primogeniture. (Gen 48:13-19) So; what's that
tell us about Jesus? Well it tells me that Jesus is in a position designating him as God's
firstborn son, i.e. The Almighty's next of kin and heir apparent. For example Psalm 110:1
which says:

"The Lord said unto my lord: Sit thou at My right hand, until I make thine enemies
your footstool."

The position at the right hand is one of co-rulership.

NOTE: The birthright of the son born first isn't inalienable; rather, quite transferable
to a younger member of the family, e.g. Esau to Jacob (Gen 25:23) Rueben to
Joseph (1Chrn 5:1) Mannasah to Ephraim (Gen 48:13-19) and David to Christ
(Ps 101:1 cf. Matt 22:42-45)_

Jesus' right of firstborn didn't come from David, of whom Jesus was Lord.[/quote]

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Heb 8:3 . . Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so
it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer.

The Aaronic priests are models of the heavenly priesthood. So it only stands to
reason that if gifts and sacrifices are made by the earthly priesthood, then
something has to be offered by the heavenly priesthood too. After all, the primary
function of a priesthood is reconciliation-- to protect its constituents from
retribution, and to soothe irritations that exist between a righteous God and a
rather unrighteous human race.

● Heb 8:4-5 . . If [Jesus] were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are
already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. They serve at a sanctuary
that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned
when he was about to build the tabernacle: "See to it that you make everything
according to the pattern shown you on the mountain."

The letter to Hebrews was apparently written sometime before 70 AD, which is
when Titus the Roman destroyed the Temple because the author spoke of it as still
fully functioning.

Think about this for a second: Jesus is a priest in the highest possible priesthood
office there is. But if he were on the earth, he would not be permitted to officiate
because his priesthood has no jurisdiction down here. The earth is Aaron's
jurisdiction.

Locale dictates the performance of Jesus' duties just as locale dictates the
performance of Aaron's. His boys had to work in a sanctuary housed in a temple on
Earth; and Jesus has to work in sanctuary hosed in a tabernacle out of country up
in Heaven. They, and he, when away from their posts, are technically off duty; like
a waitress who's gone home for the day.

* So where does that leave Mormon men who claim membership in the priesthood
order of Melchizedek? If you are reading this, and are an advanced Mormon; I
mean you no harm and I certainly mean you no insult. I'm sure you are just as
conscientious about your religion as everyone else is about theirs. But if Jesus
cannot officiate as a priest in the order of Melchizedek down here on earth, then
neither can any of yours.

The earth is still the domain of Aaron and his sons in spite of Jesus' intrinsically
superior priesthood. And one day, in Messiah's very kingdom itself, Aaron's family,
and the Levites, will once again be at their posts discharging their official duties in a
brand new Temple at Jerusalem. (Ex 40:12-13 & Jer 33:17-22)

● Heb 8:6 . . But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the
covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on
better promises.

The covenant that Moses' people agreed upon with God is an outstanding religious
and civil code; but it not only lacks provisions to atone for willful sins and capital
crimes, but it also sorely lacks provisions to cure the sinner's inclination to sin.
Moses' covenant merely punishes sinners; it doesn't reconstruct them in any way.
But Jesus' ministry does just that. We know from the wording of the new covenant
that the new heart and the new spirit, promised in it, work to generate improved
attitudes within the sinner-- attitudes inclined to listen to God coupled with a good
natured willingness to comply.

The newer covenant works very well to the Jews' advantage; namely: it has the
potential to remove the sinful urges resident in human nature. Not just to atone for
them-- but to surgically remove them so that they never cause problems again.

Moses' law demands a self-performed, inward circumcision.

● Deut 10:16 . . Cut away, therefore, the thickening about your hearts and stiffen
your necks no more.

However, Moses promised that God would one day perform the operation Himself.

● Deut 30:4-6 . . Even if your outcasts are at the ends of the world, from there the
Lord your God will gather you, from there He will fetch you. And the Lord your God
will bring you to the land that your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it; and
He will make you more prosperous and more numerous than your fathers. Then the
Lord your God will open up your heart and the hearts of your offspring to love the
Lord your God with all your heart and soul, in order that you may live.
_

 

[Eleanor]

● Heb 8:3 . . Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so
it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer.

The Aaronic priests are models of the heavenly priesthood. So it only stands to
reason that if gifts and sacrifices are made by the earthly priesthood, then
something has to be offered by the heavenly priesthood too. After all, the primary
function of a priesthood is reconciliation-- to protect its constituents from
retribution, and to soothe irritations that exist between a righteous God and a
rather unrighteous human race.

● Heb 8:4-5 . . If [Jesus] were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are
already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law.

By his human birth, Jesus belonged to the tribe of Judah, which was not the priestly tribe.
The men who offered gifts were of the tribe of Levi.

They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven.

The heavenly reality is the sanctuary of God's presence, into which Christ our high priest
entered with his own blood (Heb 9:11-12).

This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: "See to it
that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain."

Because both the tabernacle and its ministry were intended to illustrate symbolically
the only way sinners may approach a holy God and find forgiveness.

The letter to Hebrews was apparently written sometime before 70 AD, which is
when Titus the Roman destroyed the Temple because the author spoke of it as still
fully functioning.
Think about this for a second: Jesus is a priest in the highest possible priesthood
office there is. But if he were on the earth, he would not be permitted to officiate
because his priesthood has no jurisdiction down here. The earth is Aaron's
jurisdiction.

Locale dictates the performance of Jesus' duties just as locale dictates the
performance of Aaron's.

It is not locale that dictates his duties, it is his office that dictates his duties,
the eternal High Priest of all the people of God.

His boys had to work in a sanctuary housed in a temple on
Earth; and Jesus has to work in sanctuary hosed in a tabernacle out of country up
in Heaven. They, and he, when away from their posts, are technically off duty; like
a waitress who's gone home for the day.
* So where does that leave Mormon men who claim membership in the priesthood
order of Melchizedek? If you are reading this, and are an advanced Mormon; I
mean you no harm and I certainly mean you no insult. I'm sure you are just as
conscientious about your religion as everyone else is about theirs.

But if Jesus cannot officiate as a priest in the order of Melchizedek down here on earth,
then neither can any of yours.

Jesus is not limited to heaven in his priesthood. He is limited to offering the one and
only eternal sacrifice. He is the eternal High Priest of all the people of God always.

The earth is still the domain of Aaron and his sons in spite of Jesus' intrinsically
superior priesthood. And one day, in Messiah's very kingdom itself, Aaron's family,
and the Levites, will once again be at their posts discharging their official duties in a
brand new Temple at Jerusalem. (Ex 40:12-13 & Jer 33:17-22)

None of that is presented in the letter to the Hebrews. You are adding to the word of God here.

● Heb 8:6 . . But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the
covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one,

The new covenant that Jesus mediates is superior to the covenant God made through
Moses at Sinai.

and it is founded on better promises.

Presented in vv. 10-12.

The covenant that Moses' people agreed upon with God is an outstanding religious
and civil code; but it not only lacks provisions to atone for willful sins and capital
crimes, but it also sorely lacks provisions to cure the sinner's inclination to sin.
Moses' covenant merely punishes sinners; it doesn't reconstruct them in any way.
But Jesus' ministry does just that. We know from the wording of the new covenant
that the new heart and the new spirit, promised in it, work to generate improved
attitudes within the sinner-- attitudes inclined to listen to God coupled with a good
natured willingness to comply.

The newer covenant works very well to the Jews' advantage; namely: it has the
potential to remove the sinful urges resident in human nature. Not just to atone for
them-- but to surgically remove them so that they never cause problems again.

Moses' law demands a self-performed, inward circumcision.

● Deut 10:16 . . Cut away, therefore, the thickening about your hearts and stiffen
your necks no more.

However, Moses promised that God would one day perform the operation Himself.

● Deut 30:4-6 . . Even if your outcasts are at the ends of the world, from there the
Lord your God will gather you, from there He will fetch you. And the Lord your God
will bring you to the land that your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it; and
He will make you more prosperous and more numerous than your fathers. Then the
Lord your God will open up your heart and the hearts of your offspring to love the
Lord your God with all your heart and soul, in order that you may live.
_

Fulfilled under Nehemiah and Ezra in the return from exile when the walls were rebuilt,
the temple was rebuilt and the people rededicated themselves to God with great rejoicing
that could be heard from afar.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Heb 8:7-8a . . For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no
place would have been sought for another. But God found fault with the people

This is pretty much the crux of the weakness in the covenant that Moses' people
agreed upon with God per Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. According to Rom
7:12 the Law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good; so there is
nothing wrong with the covenant in that respect. The weakness in it has always
human nature. (cf. Rom 7:10-23)

● Heb 8:8b-9 . . So He said: 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.

The new covenant is very brief in comparison to the length of the first covenant
because there are no rules and regulations governing a priesthood, no extensive
sacrificial system, and no code of civil conduct including retributions for non
compliance. Nor does the new covenant give God cause to turn away from His
people.

● Heb 8:10-12 . .This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that
time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in 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."

* That passage quotes Jer 31:31-34

● Heb 8:13 . .When God speaks of a new covenant, it means He has made the first
one obsolete. It is now out of date and ready to be put aside.

Although Moses' covenant is obsolete, it's not out of business just yet. Millions of
Jews are still under its jurisdiction because that is their covenant by default (Deut
29:10-15) The first covenant still has teeth. According to Ezek 20:33-38 numbers
of the Diaspora will be granted/denied entry into Messiah's kingdom on the basis of
their compliance with the first covenant.

Now, whereas the first covenant is involuntary, the new is just the opposite. No one
is born into it like they are the first covenant. Jews wishing to enroll in the new
covenant have to step up for it, and if they don't, they'll remain stuck in the first;
which is a very dangerous position to be in because that covenant doesn't allow
God to forget sins; viz: sins stay on the books; even sins that God has forgiven.

"Then The Lord passed by in front of Moses and proclaimed: The Lord, The Lord
God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in loving-kindness
and truth; who keeps loving-kindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity,
transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished: visiting
the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and
fourth generations." (Ex 34:6-7)

When you think about it, a new covenant was pretty much inevitable because God
didn't find fault with the old covenant, rather, He found fault with His people, viz:
it's the Jews' overall human nature that makes the first covenant impractical.

But also; the first covenant contains no provisions for regenerating the Jews and
making them a better person, viz: the first covenant is a rigid code that makes
exacting demands upon them while having no promise of renovating the core of
their being. Their improvement can be forged only within the terms and conditions
of the new covenant.

NOTE: It's not uncommon to encounter Christians claiming that it is impossible to
keep the law of Moses. Well; that's just not true. For example: Josiah was able to
keep it (2Kgs 23:25) Zacharias and his wife were able to keep it (Luke 1:5-6) and
Paul the apostle was able to keep it. (Phil 3:6) But those people kept the law by
means of will power. It is God desire that folks keep the law because it is in their
nature to do so.
_

 

[Eleanor]

● Heb 8:7-8a . . For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no
place would have been sought for another. But God found fault with the people

As in Heb 7:11, where the Levitical priestly order is shown to be inferior because it was replaced
by the order of Melchizedek, so if the Mosaic covenant were without defect, there would have
been no need to replace it with a new covenant, but it was powerless to make right those who
sin by breaking it.

This is pretty much the crux of the weakness in the covenant that Moses' people
agreed upon with God per Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. According to Rom
7:12 the Law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good; so there is
nothing wrong with the covenant in that respect. The weakness in it has always
human nature. (cf. Rom 7:10-23)
● Heb 8:8b-9 . . So He said: 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.
The new covenant is very brief in comparison to the length of the first covenant
because there are no rules and regulations governing a priesthood, no extensive
sacrificial system, and no code of civil conduct including retributions for non
compliance. Nor does the new covenant give God cause to turn away from His
people.

● Heb 8:10-12 . .This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that
time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in 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."

The superior benefits of the new covenant are:
1) God's laws will become inner principles (v.10a) that enable his people to delight
in doing his will (Eze 36:26-17, Ro 8:2-4);
2) God and his people will have intimate fellowship (v.10b);
3) sinful ignorance of God will be removed forever (v.11); and
4) forgivenss of sin will be an everlasting reality (v.12).

* That passage quotes Jer 31:31-34
● Heb 8:13 . .When God speaks of a new covenant, it means He has made the first
one obsolete. It is now out of date and ready to be put aside.t

The announcement of the new covenant clearly proved the impermanence of the one
already in existence (Mosaic). To return to the old system would be to return to what is
no longer valid or effective.

Although Moses' covenant is obsolete, it's not out of business just yet. Millions of
Jews are still under its jurisdiction because that is their covenant by default (Deut
29:10-15)

That is contrary to NT apostolic teaching that all unbelieving Jews have been cut off the
one olive tree of God's one and only people, going all the way back to Abraham (Ro 11:16-22), and
the only destiny of the Jeww is to be grafted back into that one olive tree IF they do not persist in unbelief (Ro 11:23).
Israel has no other destiny than the one taught by Jesus' apostles.

The first covenant still has teeth. According to Ezek 20:33-38 numbers
of the Diaspora will be granted/denied entry into Messiah's kingdom on the basis of
their compliance with the first covenant.

That is interpreting prophetic riddles not spoken clearly (Nu 12:8), and subject to more
than one interpretation, in contradiction to authoritative NT apostolic teaching.

Now, whereas the first covenant is involuntary, the new is just the opposite. No one
is born into it like they are the first covenant. Jews wishing to enroll in the new
covenant have to step up for it, and if they don't, they'll remain stuck in the first;
which is a very dangerous position to be in because that covenant doesn't allow
God to forget sins; viz: sins stay on the books; even sins that God has forgiven.

This is contra-NT gospel.
There is no more Mosaic covenant. You are either in the new covenant of God's people
through faith in and trust on Jesus Christ for the remission of your sin, or you are in no
covenant at all and without hope.

"Then The Lord passed by in front of Moses and proclaimed: The Lord, The Lord
God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in loving-kindness
and truth; who keeps loving-kindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity,
transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished: visiting
the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and
fourth generations." (Ex 34:6-7)

When you think about it, a new covenant was pretty much inevitable because God
didn't find fault with the old covenant, rather, He found fault with His people, viz:
it's the Jews' overall human nature that makes the first covenant impractical.

The old covenant is not "impractical," it is powerless to make righteous those who break it.

But also; the first covenant contains no provisions for regenerating the Jews

There are no provisions anywhere for regenerating anybody.
Regeneration (new birth) is by sovereign act of the Holy Spirit, and is as unaccountable as the wind (Jn 3:3-8).

making them a better person, viz: the first covenant is a rigid code that makes
exacting demands upon them while having no promise of renovating the core of
their being. Their improvement can be forged only within the terms and conditions
of the new covenant.

It's not uncommon to encounter Christians claiming that it is impossible to
keep the law of Moses. Well; that's just not true.

Authoritative NT apostolic teaching is that all who rely on the law are under a curse (Gal 3:10).
Authoritative NT apostolic teaching is that the law was not given to make righteous, it was given to reveal sin (Ro 3:20),
for righteousness (justification) is from God only through faith (Ro 1:17, 3:21-23, Gal 3:16).

For example: Josiah was able to
keep it (2Kgs 23:25) Zacharias and his wife were able to keep it (Luke 1:5-6) and
Paul the apostle was able to keep it. (Phil 3:6).

Paul is speaking in terms of legalistic standards of scrupulous external conformity to the law, not in terms of the inner man.

But those people kept the law by means of will power. It is God desire that folks keep the law because it is in their
nature to do so._

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Heb 9:1a . . Now the first covenant had regulations for worship

Old covenant Judaism isn't just a code of rules comprising the so-called ten
commandments and kosher diet. No, it includes a very large body of rules
regulating worship too. So that old covenant Judaism is a two-part way of life-- a
civil part and a religious part. When Jews leave out one of those parts, they're not
practicing genuine old covenant Judaism, but rather, concise version.

● Heb 9:1b-5 . . and also an earthly sanctuary. A tabernacle was set up. In its first
room were the lampstand, the table and the consecrated bread; this was called the
Holy Place. Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, Above
the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover. But
we cannot discuss these things in detail now.

All those sacred items he listed were part of a portable, temporary place of worship
that could be dismantled in no time at all to be carried around on the march. The
atonement cover was nothing more than the lid of the ark, which was a pretty
simple wooden box overlaid with gold. All those sacred items have some pretty
important applications; but the author didn't want to focus upon those items in this
particular letter-- apparently having, at least in his estimation, much bigger fish to
fry.

● Heb 9:6-7 . .When everything had been arranged like this, the priests entered
regularly into the outer room to carry on their ministry. But only the high priest
entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which
he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance.

Don't miss that word "ignorance" because absolutely none of the old covenant's
rituals sufficed to atone for conscious sins. (We'll say more about that in the
10th chapter)

The tribe of Levi was designated by God for priestly duties. But of those, only Aaron
or one of his male descendants are permitted to hold the office of high priest. And
that is only one at a time. Aaron's male descendants each in turn hold the job until
they can't do it anymore, and then another one takes his place at it. The high priest
is the only one permitted to perform the atonement ritual within the innermost holy
place; none of the regular priests are allowed in there.

The specific liturgy to which the author refers is Yom Kippur; the great annual day
of atonement. Many of its details are explained in the 16th chapter of Leviticus.

Now the thing we're going to discover is that the high priest's ritual within the
innermost holy place serves to sanitize the people but is inadequate to obtain
exoneration, i.e. the people's guilt remains on the books and once a year they are
officially reminded of that fact.

Now really: that fact should be self evident because the earthly sanctuary is merely
a characterization of Heaven's sanctuary; and the high priest's ritual within the
earthly sanctuary is a characterization too; and in point of fact: the Aaronic high
priest himself is a characterization.

● Heb 9:8 . .The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy
Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing.

That verse is the very first mention of God's spirit in the letter to Hebrews, and
makes it clear that His spirit is the custodian of divine revelation; rather than a
special religion or any one particular religious denomination.

For liturgical purposes, the tabernacle's holy place is where God comes down to
meet with the people. But they themselves are never allowed inside because of
their intrinsic unworthiness to associate in person with God. So they meet with God
by proxy via the high priest-- who doesn't dare even himself to enter without some
means to sanitize his presence because he too is a sinner even as his constituents.

The whole affair is play-acting of course. Not even the high priest is actually in the
presence of the real person of the Supreme Being back in that gloomy little room
because He Himself resides in a holy place in the tabernacle in Heaven which, up till
Jesus' crucifixion, had been impossible for Man to access.
_

 

[Eleanor]

● Heb 9:1a . . Now the first covenant had regulations for worship

Old covenant Judaism isn't just a code of rules comprising the so-called ten
commandments and kosher diet. No, it includes a very large body of rules
regulating worship too. So that old covenant Judaism is a two-part way of life-- a
civil part and a religious part. When Jews leave out one of those parts, they're not
practicing genuine old covenant Judaism, but rather, concise version.

● Heb 9:1b-5 . . and also an earthly sanctuary. A tabernacle was set up. In its first
room were the lampstand, the table and the consecrated bread; this was called the
Holy Place. Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, Above
the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover. But
we cannot discuss these things in detail now.

All those sacred items he listed were part of a portable, temporary place of worship
that could be dismantled in no time at all to be carried around on the march. The
atonement cover was nothing more than the lid of the ark, which was a pretty
simple wooden box overlaid with gold. All those sacred items have some pretty
important applications; but the author didn't want to focus upon those items in this
particular letter-- apparently having, at least in his estimation, much bigger fish to
fry.

● Heb 9:6-7 . .When everything had been arranged like this, the priests entered
regularly into the outer room to carry on their ministry. But only the high priest
entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which
he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance.

Don't miss that word "ignorance" because absolutely none of the old covenant's
rituals sufficed to atone for conscious sins. (We'll say more about that in the
10th chapter)

The tribe of Levi was designated by God for priestly duties. But of those, only Aaron
or one of his male descendants are permitted to hold the office of high priest. And
that is only one at a time. Aaron's male descendants each in turn hold the job until
they can't do it anymore, and then another one takes his place at it. The high priest
is the only one permitted to perform the atonement ritual within the innermost holy
place; none of the regular priests are allowed in there.

The specific liturgy to which the author refers is Yom Kippur; the great annual day
of atonement. Many of its details are explained in the 16th chapter of Leviticus.

Now the thing we're going to discover is that the high priest's ritual within the
innermost holy place serves to sanitize the people but is inadequate to obtain
exoneration, i.e. the people's guilt remains on the books and once a year they are
officially reminded of that fact.

Now really: that fact should be self evident because the earthly sanctuary is merely
a characterization of Heaven's sanctuary; and the high priest's ritual within the
earthly sanctuary is a characterization too; and in point of fact: the Aaronic high
priest himself is a characterization.

The Biblical word is pattern (Ro 5:14) or shadow (Col 2:17), not characterization.

● Heb 9:8 . .The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place
had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing.

Showing by this, the veil, that divine grace, life and immortality were concealed until they
were brought to light by the gospel, which was signified by the rending of the veil at the death of Christ.

That verse is the very first mention of God's spirit in the letter to Hebrews, and
makes it clear that His spirit is the custodian of divine revelation; rather than a
special religion or any one particular religious denomination.

For liturgical purposes, the tabernacle's holy place is where God comes down to
meet with the people. But they themselves are never allowed inside because of
their intrinsic unworthiness to associate in person with God. So they meet with God
by proxy via the high priest-- who doesn't dare even himself to enter without some
means to sanitize his presence because he too is a sinner even as his constituents.

The whole affair is play-acting of course. Not even the high priest is actually in the
presence of the real person of the Supreme Being back in that gloomy little room

Actually, it was the place where God met--by appointment--with his people
and it was consecrated by his glory (Ex 27:21, 29:42-43, Lev 1:1).

because He Himself resides in a holy place in the tabernacle in Heaven which, up till
Jesus' crucifixion, had been impossible for Man to access.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Heb 9:9-10 . .This is an illustration pointing to the present time. For the gifts and
sacrifices that the priests offer are not able to cleanse the consciences of the people
who bring them. For that old system deals only with food and drink and ritual
washing-- external regulations that are in effect only until their limitations can be
corrected.

The original sacrificial system was effective-- to a point --for addressing the
peoples' sins, but totally ineffective for addressing the people themselves, viz: their
persons, the core of their being.

When Adam tasted the forbidden fruit, his perception of decency underwent a
radical change. Whereas before, he was comfortable seen undressed; afterwards he
was uncomfortable seen naked even by his wife.

The thing is: Adam's moral compass went awry, i.e. his conscience became
humanistic.

● Gen 3:22 . . And The Lord God said: The man has now become like one of us,
knowing good and evil.

In other words: Adam began looking to his own intuition for moral direction instead
of looking to his maker, viz: Adam became a tin God.

Point being: none of the Levitical system's rituals address the corruption inherent
within the human conscience that came about by means of the forbidden fruit
incident.

● Heb 9:11-12a . .When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are
already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not
man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. He 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,

There are some who feel that the new covenant hasn't been activated yet; that it
won't be activated till sometime in the future. But the writer said Christ came as a
high priest of the good things that are "already here".

The holy place in the earthly tabernacle became polluted by the presence of a
human being-- no doubt at least in part because of Man's inherently corrupt
conscience --so Aaron had to sanitized the earthly tabernacle's holy place with
blood during the course of his duties in the ritual of Yom Kippur.

The first covenant's tabernacle is a characterization of the temple in Heaven;
therefore the Most Holy Place itself had to be purified with blood so Jesus could
enter it. But the blood of a brute beast isn't near valuable enough for that purpose
because the temple in Heaven is far more sacred than the first covenant's;
requiring that the holy place above be purified with better blood than that of an
animal. Well the best blood is that of a human being because Man was created in
the image of God; whereas animals weren't.
_

 

[Eleanor]

● Heb 9:9-10 . .This is an illustration pointing to the present time. For the gifts and
sacrifices that the priests offer are not able to cleanse the consciences of the people
who bring them. For that old system deals only with food and drink and ritual
washing-- external regulations that are in effect only until their limitations can be
corrected.

The Mosaic tabernacle, though superseded, still provided instruction through its symbolic
significance and was a reminder that returning to the old order was useless, since it could
not cleanse from, but could only cover, sin (Ro 4:7).

The original sacrificial system was effective-- to a point --for addressing the
peoples' sins, but totally ineffective for addressing the people themselves, viz: their
persons, the core of their being.
When Adam tasted the forbidden fruit, his perception of decency underwent a
radical change. Whereas before, he was comfortable seen undressed; afterwards he
was uncomfortable seen naked even by his wife.
The thing is: Adam's moral compass went awry, i.e. his conscience became
humanistic.

● Gen 3:22 . . And The Lord God said: The man has now become like one of us,
knowing good and evil.

Adam now knew evil in the doing of it, and in the cutting off from God's gift of eternal life.

In other words: Adam began looking to his own intuition for moral direction instead
of looking to his maker, viz: Adam became a tin God.
Point being: none of the Levitical system's rituals address the corruption inherent
within the human conscience that came about by means of the forbidden fruit
incident.

● Heb 9:11-12a . .When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are
already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not
man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation.

It was not an earthly tabernacle, but the heavenly sanctuary of God's presence (v.24, 8:2).

He 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,

He did not enter repeatedly year after year as did the Levitical high priests. Christ's sacrifice
was perfect, because it was completely effective and did not need to be repeated.

There are some who feel that the new covenant hasn't been activated yet; that it
won't be activated till sometime in the future. But the writer said Christ came as a
high priest of the good things that are "already here".
The holy place in the earthly tabernacle became polluted by the presence of a
human being-- no doubt at least in part because of Man's inherently corrupt
conscience --so Aaron had to sanitized the earthly tabernacle's holy place with
blood during the course of his duties in the ritual of Yom Kippur.

The first covenant's tabernacle is a characterization of the temple in Heaven;
therefore the Most Holy Place itself had to be purified with blood so Jesus could
enter it. But the blood of a brute beast isn't near valuable enough for that purpose
because the temple in Heaven is far more sacred than the first covenant's;
requiring that the holy place above be purified with better blood than that of an
animal.

The temple in heaven, the sanctuary of God's very presence, did not need to be cleansed
with any kind of blood so that Jesus could enter it.

requiring that the holy place above be purified with better blood than that of an
animal. Well the best blood is that of a human being because Man was created in
the image of God; whereas animals weren't._

After obtaining our eternal redemption, Christ ascended into the true heavenly sanctuary
to ever live to make intercession for us (Heb 7:25).[/quote][/quote]

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Heb 1:3b . . sustaining all things by his powerful word,

The Son's power as God's word is utterly baffling. The Son has a sentience all his
own as a person instead of only a voice, viz: the Son is God's right hand man, so to
speak; attuned to his master's mind and getting God's things done for Him the way
He wants them done. For example:

"As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without
watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the
sower and bread for the eater, so is My word that goes out from my mouth: It will
not return to Me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose
for which I sent it." (Isa 55:10-11)

In the beginning, the voice of God said: Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb
yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself,
upon the earth:" (Gen 1:11) and Voila! it was so because His sayings aren't just
noise, rather, they're dynamite, so to speak.

Why did God even bother to speak during creation? Why didn't the architect just do
His work silently without utterance or sound? To whom, or for whom, was He
speaking?

There's a creative, dynamic force in The Almighty's speech, a power and energy in
His words, a tangible release of divine life. His voice is an extension of His nature, a
movement of His will-- alive, powerful, and effective --not just letters, syllables,
and sounds. There is vigor and activity in God's speech extending far beyond the
applications of thought and communication.

● Heb 1:3c . . After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right
hand of the Majesty in heaven.

NOTE: The name "Jesus" is absent from the letter to Hebrews until the ninth verse
of the second chapter. Till then, all focus is upon this mysterious person called the
Son: a divine being who obviously preceded his human alter ego by a good many
thousands of years.

Anyway; the Son fulfilled Isaiah 53:5-6, and also the prophet's prediction that he
would be highly exalted (Isa 52:13-15). Today, right now, the Son isn't standing,
nor bowing, nor groveling, but seated at God's right hand per Psalm 110:1 which
says:

"Yahweh said unto my master: Seat yourself at my right hand, until I make your
enemies your footstool." (cf. Matt 22:42-45)

● Heb 1:4 . . So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has
inherited is superior to theirs.

The angels are classified as sons of God (Job 38:4-7). However, angels and God
aren't kinfolk; whereas the Son is. So his name merits a whole lots more respect.

● Heb 1:5a . . For to which of the angels did God ever say: You are my Son; today I
have become your Father?

That's a reference to the 2nd Psalm. The great rabbi Rashi admitted that: "Our
rabbis expound it as relating to Messiah." So it is proper Jewish thinking to regard
the Son as God's kin-- His proper kin.

Well; if you were truly God's proper kin, then your name-- your family name -
would be God; just as my son is my proper kin, so his family name is the same as
mine, ergo: the Son is entitled to be addressed as God because he obtained the
God name legitimately, i.e. from father to son.

● Heb 1:5b . . Or again: I will be his Father, and he will be my Son?

That's taken from 2Sam 7:14 which at first glance pertains to Solomon; which it
does, but it's not limited to Solomon. It actually pertains to every messianic king in
David's line.

Now, those guys were all God's sons by means of their royalty, whereas the Son is
God's son due to the fact that God is his progenitor, i.e. the Son is an actual
descendant: in point of fact, he's God's one and only descendant; which is repeated
at least five times in the New Testament at John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, John
3:18, and 1John 4:9.

* The phrase "I have become your Father" actually reads in the Greek: "I have
begotten you." The Greek verb there is gegénneeká which refers to procreation;
which may be, or may not be, literal seeing as how we've been discussing the Son
from a perspective that helps us to understand something supernatural that we
would likely not understand any other way except by explaining it in terms familiar
to us in the natural world.
_

 

[Eleanor]

● Heb 1:3b . . sustaining all things by his powerful word,

The Son's power as God's word is utterly baffling.

The Son is not "God's word," nor is he the word of God.
Jesus never referred to himself as either, and nowhere in the NT is he called either.

Jesus is the Word who is God (Jn 1:1), not the word of God.

The Son has a sentience all his own as a person instead of only a voice, viz: the Son is God's right hand man, so to speak;

The Son is God, the second person of the triune Godhead of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, three separate persons in the one God.

attuned to his master's mind and getting God's things done for Him the way
He wants them done. For example:
"As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without
watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the
sower and bread for the eater, so is My word that goes out from my mouth: It will
not return to Me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose
for which I sent it." (Isa 55:10-11)
In the beginning, the voice of God said: Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb
yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself,
upon the earth:" (Gen 1:11) and Voila! it was so because His sayings aren't just
noise, rather, they're dynamite, so to speak.
Why did God even bother to speak during creation? Why didn't the architect just do
His work silently without utterance or sound? To whom, or for whom, was He
speaking?

There's a creative, dynamic force in The Almighty's speech; a power and energy in
His words, a tangible release of divine life. His voice is an extension of His nature, a
movement of His will-- alive, powerful, and effective --not just letters, syllables,
and sounds. There is vigor and activity in God's speech extending far beyond the
applications of thought and communication.

The Son of God is not the word of God, he is not speech. He is God, the second person of the triune Godhead.

● Heb 1:3c . . After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right
hand of the Majesty in heaven.

NOTE: The name "Jesus" is absent from the letter to Hebrews until the ninth verse
of the second chapter. Till then, all focus is upon this mysterious person called the
Son: a divine being who obviously preceded his human alter ego by a good many
thousands of years.

Jesus is not an "alter ego." He is the ego of God incarnate, who is God.
The Son has existed as long as the Father and Holy Spirit have existed; i.e., always.

Anyway; the Son fulfilled Isaiah 53:5-6, and also the prophet's prediction that he
would be highly exalted (Isa 52:13-15). Today, right now, the Son isn't standing,
nor bowing, nor groveling, but seated at God's right hand per Psalm 110:1 which
says:
"Yahweh said unto my master: Seat yourself at my right hand, until I make your
enemies your footstool." (cf. Matt 22:42-45)

● Heb 1:4 . . So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has
inherited is superior to theirs.
The angels are classified as sons of God (Job 38:4-7). However, angels and God
aren't kinfolk; whereas the Son is. So his name merits a whole lots more respect.
● Heb 1:5a . . For to which of the angels did God ever say: You are my Son; today I
have become your Father?
That's a reference to the 2nd Psalm. The great rabbi Rashi admitted that: "Our
rabbis expound it as relating to Messiah." So it is proper Jewish thinking to regard
the Son as God's kin-- His proper kin.
Well; if you were truly God's proper kin, then your name-- your family name -
would be God; just as my son is my proper kin, so his family name is the same as
mine, ergo: the Son is entitled to be addressed as God because he obtained the
God name legitimately, i.e. from father to son.

● Heb 1:5b . . Or again: I will be his Father, and he will be my Son?
That's taken from 2Sam 7:14 which at first glance pertains to Solomon; which it
does, but it's not limited to Solomon. It actually pertains to every messianic king in
David's line.
Now, those guys were all God's sons by means of their royalty, whereas the Son is
God's son due to the fact that God is his progenitor, i.e. the Son is an actual
descendant: in point of fact, he's God's one and only descendant; which is repeated
at least five times in the New Testament at John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, John
3:18, and 1John 4:9.

* The phrase "I have become your Father" actually reads in the Greek: "I have
begotten you." The Greek verb there is gegénneeká which refers to procreation;
which may be, or may not be, literal

If it is not literal, then he is not the divine Son of God, which being a person of the Godhead, he necessarily is.

seeing as how we've been discussing the Son from a perspective that helps us to understand something supernatural

It's not a "perspective," it is spiritual fact from the God-breathed Scriptures (2 Tim 3:16), to be received and believed.

that we would likely not understand any other way except by explaining it in terms familiar
to us in the natural world.

Or that is explained in precisely factual terms breathed out by God.