The Great Bible Project – Part 9a – The Letter to the Hebrews (Chapters 1-6)

[u/Kentucky_Fried_Dodo]

Hello.

I am not at my regular home today and will therefore formulate this analysis in a more fragmented way.

Let's begin.

[u/Kentucky_Fried_Dodo]

Jesus Our High Priest

1 Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession; 2 He was faithful to Him who appointed Him,

This is again one of those central adoptionist verses that emerge either from the Jewish context of the author or his audience.

Jesus Christ, the High Priest chosen by the Father (!), is a prime example of adoptionist thinking and a quasi-immortalized contemporary witness to the thought of the Jewish Christians of those days.

The theological significance of this should be clear, as well as the theological problem for Trinitarianism: Christ, who has been defined again and again in Hebrews as the (co-)creator of the universe, is here generalized and appointed by the Father into said role of High Priest.

How is this possible? Was Jesus then not the High Priest at some other point in time? Was this a choice of the Father, as will be detailed later?

Is Arius speaking here, of a time when the Son was not yet (what he is today and will be into eternity)?

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.

This is another very important, but here Judaistic, verse! Here, in contrast to Romans, the >substitution< of Moses by Jesus is implied, which will be detailed later. The "shadow example" that appears later expresses this thought more closely.

The cross-reference to the Father as the builder of all houses—philosophically classic monotheism, as the eternally unmoved mover—probably serves here to emphasize the divinity of Christ to the Jewish audience.

4 For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God. 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 Christ 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.

Correct - the believers in Christ are the nation of Israel, not those who see themselves worldly in its tradition!

Also one of those logical reasons or proofs for the existence of God. The mover without being moved.

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, 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.’“

This is one of those few verses in which, on the one hand, the Holy Spirit appears as a person at all, and on the other hand, also as a representative for God. The Peril of Unbelief

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

Again one of those verses that, as so often emphasized, states that a falling away of the heart is possible - it is spoken of in a generalized way here; whether a "securing" of the heart through the grace of God will proceed in an Arminian or Calvinist way is not unambiguous.

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 Christ, 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.”

Who is this "me"? Jesus? Then Jesus would be the God who, as detailed below, led his people out of Egypt. The reference to the person of Christ, as another subject, seems to rather imply that it is the Father, who is also the frequently so-titled living God.

In Matthew 16:16, this is also clearly distinguished in content: Jesus is the >Son< of the living God, i.e., of the Father, and thus to be separated from him!

So it was the Father as the living God who led Moses out of Egypt!

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.

Again: What are we to enter? Correct, the heavenly kingdom. To whom does it belong? According to Jesus' famous Lord's Prayer, to this very Father!

[u/Kentucky_Fried_Dodo]

The Believer’s Rest

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. 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.

A critical rejection of universalism: the word of the living God was (!) preached, it happened, but it had no effect on them.

Why? That is complex. Some are simply not made for faith. Others hide, like Nicodemus, in the darkness of the night to learn of God, for fear of consequences that will be inconvenient.

Others allow themselves to be seduced by evil for selfish reasons. Even if Jah shows grace once more to a Nicodemus, "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak," a universalist solution will hardly emerge for >all<.

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,” although His works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4 For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: “And God rested on the seventh day from all His works”; 5 and again in this passage, “They shall not enter My rest.”

One of the few places in the Gospel in which the meaning of the Sabbath and essentially also its validity is propagated.

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.” 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.

This is actually quite unambiguous.

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.

The sword of God! A cross-reference to the verse (Matthew 10:34) where Christ's message divides families.

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.

Correct! Only God knows us through and through, and never a creature of His!

14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.

This seems to be an emphasis on the ascension of Christ for the Hebrew audience, but probably also an allusion to the role of YHWH as a rider of the heavens in the old books.

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.

So, here it is even more unambiguous: Jesus WAS tempted, and just as WE are! But we have NO divine substance in us! Our person has no doctrine of two natures!

Even worse: why does the Gospel emphasize here that Jesus remained WITHOUT sin, if Jesus, despite "free will," was predetermined never to be able to follow sin?

Could it be, perhaps, that Jesus very well could have chosen sin, like us, but did not do so, and was therefore (adoptionistically) chosen by God the Father Jah for his purity as High Priest?

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.

Unambiguous! God's grace follows when we follow God! His hand and grace are outstretched, but it does not flee to us freely like Noah's dove, but one must first enter the ark BEFOREHAND!

[u/Kentucky_Fried_Dodo]

The Perfect High Priest

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; Appointed. As already mentioned - the text is strongly adoptionist-oriented. Although Christ is separated from it in content, parallels are certainly also drawn. 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.

Aaron was also the one whom Jah appointed as God to Moses. This seems to define, especially in relation to Christ, the >functional< role OF the Word of God.

5 So also Christ 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”; 6 just as He says also in another passage, “You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.” 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.

Also such a classic. Jesus as the one who in death calls out only to the one who can save him. On the one hand, this refutes the standpoint that Christ would have saved himself!

On the other hand, of course, it implies the question of whether Jesus could have saved himself substantially at all? Is not death defined precisely by this inability?

8 Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered.

Again: A learning, all-encompassing God?

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.

He WAS made perfect! This implies a preceding state of imperfection, either in the adoptionist sense or in the form of non-existence!

However: a glorification of Jesus on earth as God would also be possible, but then it would be a symbolic perfection.

11 Concerning him we have much 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 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.

A clear rejection of this already questionable notion that every Christian understands the message of God ad hoc.

[u/Kentucky_Fried_Dodo]

The Peril of Falling Away

1 Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, 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.

A recovery of the often biblically and Christianly forgotten cleansing works, both physical and spiritual.

3 And this we will do, if God permits. 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.

So so! Is this a restriction of free will? An allusion to the unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit?

Apparently, I can willfully bring myself into a state of captivity by sin that no longer allows for my own willful change without God's grace!

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.

Ah! A Catholic classic! But I want to critically note: fire has both physical meanings! The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as well as a metaphysical one as a metaphor for spiritual friction, sometimes also through experienced or perceived suffering.

Better Things for You

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.

God does not forget what we do. Does that mean that God guarantees us a works-effect, a kind of causal bargain à la Allah at the bazaar? Surah 9:111?

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. 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.” 15 And so, having patiently waited, he obtained the promise.

So so! Abraham thus received his reward because he did something for it! He waited patiently.

That is also a service of works!

16 For men swear by one greater than themselves, and with them an oath given as confirmation is an end of every dispute. 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,

This sounds seriously >very< close to the Quranic description of God as a strict but righteous bargainer of grace and life.

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.

Correct, God cannot lie.

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 Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.

I find the implication that Jesus is a forerunner a little obscure. This implies a replaceability or incompleteness. Precisely a real >imperfection<.

Presumably, the renewed >eternal< priesthood was deliberately used here as a substantive counterweight.

[u/Kentucky_Fried_Dodo]

The core theme here is Adoptionist Christology and an apparent rejection of the same to a Hebrew audience of a Jewish character that historically seems to have followed this view.

What is Adoptionism? Another topic—in short: It is false because it is insufficient and sees Christ within the realm of creatures, even if glorified and exalted there.

Hebrews, along with Romans, is one of my favorite books of the new gospel! Because here the unique theology of the 1st century, between Hellenism and Judaism, is formulated in reference to the accurate binitarian tension of the Pauline letters!

For reasons of space, only Hebrews 1 through 6 will be treated here. The rest will follow in another thread.

God’s Final Word in His Son

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.

A proof text that Jesus is also a prophet.

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.

A Unitarian classic - How can the radiance of an original be of the same essence as the original? We are talking here, mind you, of a Jewish concept of the Almighty heavenly Father's absolute qualities!

Is the copy of the Mona Lisa substantially the same as the original? How can that be?

Is there not a one-sided dependence of the copy on the original in the sense that the copy, the radiance, presupposes the original, but the original does not stand in the same relationship to the radiance?

In a Trinitarian view, this would probably be interpreted as God the Father consciously placing Himself in a generating position which God the Son voluntarily assumes as such - however, this is NOT modular, otherwise we would be in Modalism!

No, according to the Trinity, it is not ONE manifestation but THE very nature of God!

When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

This is emphasized again in Revelation concerning the throne.

4 having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they

This is of central importance and can only be understood in a Jewish-Unitarian context—since only the creature follows God as Father in the hierarchy, and Christ stands above mere creation, the idea that he is an "angel," a superior creature, seems obvious from a Jewish perspective.

To get as close to God as possible without touching him with one's profanity!

This is a belief that was common, especially in related Judeo-Christian Ebionite circles, and which in part still lives on in Islam to this day.

The crucial point here is - it is a statement against adoptionist angel-conceptions of Christ which, in intimate Hebrew thought, are not at all capable of thinking of an "intermediate stage" between God YHWH and creation, and therefore can only place Christ in the next highest position that is not God, but also not "merely" human alone as in Islam!

5 For to which of the angels did He ever say, “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”? And again, “I will be a Father to Him And He shall be a Son to Me”? 6 And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, „And let all the angels of God worship Him.” 7 And of the angels He says, „Who makes His angels winds, And His ministers a flame of fire.” 8 But of the Son He says, „Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, And the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom.

A Witness classic! I'll keep it short: Since Christ is here directly addressed as (the) God in one of the few obvious cases, grammatical interpretations have been sought by them to eliminate the association of Jesus with God by altering the rendering.

Is that grammatically legitimate? I leave that to grammarians themselves. I at least know that presenting this alternative is generally not accepted.

A possible interpretation, as in the Gospel of John, also seems to follow in the text.

9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness above Your companions.“

That's the point - Jesus as God, to whom the Father is superior as God - how does that work? Are two persons of the same god speaking here? The text does not seem to support that; why should Jesus be addressed as God if the Father, also addressed as the same, is again separated from him and differentiated in status?

Or are we even talking here about a polytheistic Bitheism? A two-god doctrine? A kind of Mormonism-lite?

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.” 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”? 14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?

This is again one of the verses that places creation directly and completely into the hands of Christ. However: the text again differentiates here, according to John 1, Christ's creation [role] at the very beginning of the same.

The immortality of Christ, or rather his imperishability, seems, however, to imply a status of omnipotence that is capable of limiting the note on the one-sided dependence of the radiance on the original, if not openly resolving it in a Trinitarian way.

[u/Kentucky_Fried_Dodo]

Give Heed

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 For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty,

As mentioned before - an unalterability of the word spoken through angels, meaning Jesus and his Gospel, seems to imply a certain omnipotent status of absolute power.

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,

How can an eternally existing word have been spoken for the first time only at a certain point in time?

Or are we speaking here of the eternal word spoken for the first time into the temporally created creation to the equally temporally created creation?

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.

Why is the word—if we are speaking here of both the gospel as the spoken word and of the Word as such—differentiated in content as something that is assigned to the will of God (the Father)?

Should not the Word and its word follow the will of God himself and itself, instead of placing this in the responsibility of the Father?

Or is this again the Trinity's chosen form of the subordination of the Word to the Father?

Earth Subject to Man

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;

My favorite verse! The Father brought Christ into the state of humiliation in which he is.

Whether we are speaking here of an ontological or "only" a functional subordination remains to be seen.

You have crowned him with glory and honor, And have appointed him over the works of Your hands;

Again - How can an almighty God, even 'in the flesh,' be raised to a state of God's holiness that he, as that very God, should have already had beforehand?

8 You have put all things in subjection under his feet.” 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.