A Commentary in Simple English on the letter to Jewish ChristiansHome Introduction Contents Notes Previous Page |
|
NOTES [0.0] R.P.Gordon, in his introduction pages 12-14, discusses the case for the Epistle to have been written to Christians with a non-Jewish background. The case seems poor and he does not seem to be convinced at all. [0.1] There is a case for 1 Timothy to have been written about 10 years before 2 Timothy. In that case, we cannot really assume that Timothy was in Ephesus when Paul sent 2 Timothy to him. As Paul seems sure that Timothy will go through Troas on his way to Rome, Timothy is probably well to the north of Ephesus. It also seems that Timothy does not know what is happening at Miletus, which was no great distance from Ephesus. From Ephesus, Timothy might well have chosen to make the journey via Corinth rather than Troas and Paul’s hint that Timothy should call on Demas for coffee in Thessalonica loses its point. So if Timothy took this northern route, the letter would have been sent to an unknown church in the north west of Asia Minor and might well have been written in Philippi. [1.1] (1:5) We should remember that New Testament quotations were generally made from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament which was made about 200 years before the time of Christ. This is called the Septuagint or Version of the Seventy (LXX for short) because it is supposed to have been made by seventy Jewish scholars. So the Old Testament Hebrew has been translated into the English in our Bibles. It was translated into Greek, which has then been translated into English in our New Testaments. This only partly explains differences between the Old Testament and the places where it is quoted in the New Testament. The LXX often shows a different way of understanding the Hebrew text from the way in which it was read and understood after the New Testament period. But the LXX does often show how Jewish scholars in Alexandria read the Hebrew long before the time of Christ. [1.2] (1:5) It may help us to understand the royal use of Psalm 2 if we remember that all through the history of Judah, a second king was anointed to succeed his father before the death of his father. The kingdom came to an end when there was no anointed successor to Zechariah. There is no one today who claims to be a 'Son of David‘; this is a proof that Jesus is the Messiah! No one can rise up and justly claim His place. The senior king could well have spoken psalm 2 vv 7-9 to his anointed successor. [1.3] (1:7) F.F. Bruce (p.18) rather favours the idea that what is meant is that God changes angels into wind, thunder and lightning. This is speculative and we should be very careful of any teaching that dishonours the angels, as this seems to. We know too little about them. [2.1] (2:1) Or the meaning could be that it is like a ring slipping off your finger and getting lost. There is no certainty about the exact meaning of the words, but their purpose is very clear! ‘So great salvation’ here may imply a contrast with the (lesser) salvation of Israel at the Exodus. [2.2] (2:10) It is not easy to see quite why God is spoken of in this way at this point. Even John Owen does not make this part of the argument really clear. R.P.Gordon (page 50) is helpful here. ‘Made perfect’ is an echo of verses Exodus 29:9, where the O.T. Priest is consecrated by having his hands filled. [2.3] (2:11) F.F. Bruce (p.44 note 64) accepts the view that the oneness of Christ and His people is that He is Son of God by nature and we are Sons of God by adoption and new birth. 'Sanctify' in this verse must not be restricted to meaning 'consecrate, separate, dedicate'; even in this Epistle this is sometimes the meaning. Here it means to make 'internally and really holy'. (Owen p. 363), inwardly pure. Owen prefers to take the oneness of Christ and His people as deriving from shared humanity, as in verse 14. [2.4] (2:14) Richard Sibbes, 'Works' Volume 7 p 115. Banner of Truth. [3.1] (3:6) The variety of English translations, complicated by the various reading, is interesting. R. E. B. is simplest, but not necessarily the best. [4.1] (4:12) Not everyone would agree that there is a clear distinction between soul and spirit here. See, for example, F.F. Bruce. However, the practical value of the passage in the Christian life seems to me dependent on understanding it to mean 'thoughts of the soul' or mind. [4.2] (4:14) This point is true but it should not be stressed too much because 'High Priest' in the Old Testament is actually 'great priest'. [4.3] (4:15) On 20 January 1773, Daniel Rowland, arguably the greatest
preacher the Christian church has ever had, preached from Hebrews 4: 15
in his remote church at Llangeitho in South Wales. One of his congregation
was a young man of 18 called Thomas Charles. He recorded the occasion
as 'the day of the gladness of his heart'.' A day much to be remembered
by me as long as I live...I had such a view of Christ as our High priest,
of His love, compassion, power and all-sufficiency, as filled my soul
with astonishment, with joy unspeakable and full of glory. My mind was
overwhelmed...The truths exhibited to my view appeared too wonderfully
gracious to be believed. I could not believe for very Joy. The glorious
scenes then opened to my eyes will abundantly satisfy my soul millions
of years hence...' (Daniel Rowland, by Eifion Evans pp 331; 332: The Banner
of Truth Trust, Edinburgh 1985). This was Thomas Charles, who was to become
minister at Bala in North Wales, where there was revival. In 1787 young
Mary Jones walked from her home near Cader Idris over the mountains for
50 miles to Bala to try to obtain from Thomas Charles a Welsh Bible. She
had been saving up for it for six years. This led in 1804 to the foundation
of the Bible Society (originally the British and Foreign Bible Society). [4.4] (4:12-14) It seems to me that in these verses we can hear echoes of Matthew 11: 28-30, with the thoughts of rest, finding and giving, and learning (verses 12-14). Hebrews does not seem to get much attention from scholars at present, and whereas we are aware of the numerous echoes of teaching of Jesus in the Epistle of James, I am not aware of any study of Hebrews from this point of view. Hebrews 5: 7 is another example. [5.1] (5:1) A simple 'chiasmus' is like this: - Do not.... Live.... to eat Such 'chiastic' structures are a matter of great interest to Biblical scholars at the present time. They are being found, - or at least, scholars think they are finding them - in many places in Scripture. Recognition of them can be a very real help in understanding Scripture. [5.2] (5:10) The figure of Melchizedek is mysterious. Jerusalem is mentioned in records of the Syrian city of Ebla about 2350BC according to the conventional chronology. ('The Bible in its World‘, K A Kitchen. Paternoster Press, Exeter 1977; see p.44.) Although if the proposal in 'Centuries of Darkness' (Peter James etal; Jonathan Cape 1991) is adopted this should perhaps be amended to about 2100 BC. The event should be dated between 1841 and 1831BC. This is on the basis of the dating of Genesis I proposed in 'Current Archaeology' 120 p. 430 (1990) based on the secure dating by dendrochronology of the Santorini explosion to 1628 BC. This would be the starting point of the seven year famine in Egypt. The Hebrews seem to have been a people who moved out at about this period from northern Arabia probably as it dried out. They appeared in the countries of the 'Fertile Crescent' to the north, west and east. They were the 'dusty ones' who lived by plodding along after their donkeys. Abraham belonged to one group, which went east to Ur. He had contacts in the north in Haran and there seems no reason why Melchizedek should not represent another branch in the west. The worship of 'God Most High' might well have been preserved in northern Arabia and carried by the Hebrews - 'the dusty ones' - as they trudged behind their donkeys into the Fertile Crescent. [6.1] (6:1 and 2) There are all sorts of problems in this list. Many good churches do not keep up ‘The laying on of hands’, because the thing signified does not now seem to be joined with the action. There are gaps in the list. The most obvious is the Lord's Supper. Not every one agrees that there are six 'principles' here - although there was once a group known as 'Six Principle Baptists'! Owen had only four - Repentance; Faith, teaching on which is set out in baptism and the laying on of hands; Resurrection; and Judgment. Chrysostom, followed by - for example - Coneybeare and Howson - found seven by separating Teaching from Baptism. Part of the problem here is in the word used for baptism here, which should rather be translated 'washing'. We may suspect that the Jewish character of both writer and readers is something to do with it. He may be saying 'These basic things do not take you far from the synagogue worship. You must go on much further with Christ'. The Lord's Table may be 'the heavenly gift' in verse 4. [6.2] (6:4-6) Owen argues that they have tasted the Word in its truth not in its power. They have known worship in its outward order, not its inward beauty. They have known the gifts of the church but not its graces. He is of course concerned to show that apostates were never born again of the Spirit. [6.3] (6:7 and 8) In addition to the Isaiah passage, there are echoes here of God's blessing on the land in Genesis 1: 11 and the curse of Genesis 3: 17,18. Our Lord's parables - the wheat and the tares in Matthew 13: 24-30 and 36-43 rather than the parable of the Sower - are no doubt in the writer's mind. [6.4] (6:9) The Greek word 'kreisson' (better) comes 13 times in Hebrews. Among these are the following: - 1:4 Christ is better than the angels. [6.5] (6:18) Again R.P.Gordon develops this idea a good deal on page 78. [6.6] (6:19) See Biblical Archaeology Reader IV p 381 (1983) (The Almond Press, Sheffield) for an article by C.A.Kennedy 'Early Christians and the Anchor', reprinted; it first appeared in 1975. Although the anchor appears frequently in the Catacombs of ancient Rome its use there is because of a play on words. 'en kurioo' - 'in the Lord' - sounded like 'ankura', or the Latin 'ancora'. So the anchor on the tombs means 'in the Lord' and its use died out by the end of the third century as the Roman church switched over from the use of Greek to Latin. [6.7] (6:19) The Roman navy had cleared the Mediterranean of pirates. Even on the Indian Ocean a fleet of 120 ships sailed each year from the Red Sea to Ceylon for luxury goods. Note Revelation 18: 16-19. Tacitus, in the Annals (p 353) tells us that in AD 62, nearly two hundred grain ships were destroyed by a storm in harbour and a hundred more were destroyed by fire in the river Tiber. Rome depended for its food supply on such ships. There were 276 people involved in the shipwreck on Malta (Acts 27: 37) but when Josephus was shipwrecked, about 600 people were on the ship and perhaps only 80 were saved. Surviving a shipwreck was all the worse because slavery was a likely fate of survivors! The early Church used its funds - amongst other things! - to help shipwrecked mariners. The Mediterranean was free of tides and had only slight currents, so that Julius Caesar was faced with new, unfamiliar problems in his conquest of Gaul and his raids on Britain! The sea was closed through the winter months (Acts 27: 9; 28: 11). One reason for this appears in Acts 27:20. Sun, moon and stars were the only navigational aids, and sailing in winter was dangerous because you did not know where you were or which way you were going. [6.8] (6:19) An anchor consists of an iron bar, (the shank). At the top is an iron ring. A heavy rope (or 'cable') is fastened to it there and joins the anchor to the ship. At the other end there is another bar fixed at right angles to the 'shank'. Both ends of this are sharp points or 'flukes'. When the anchor rests on the sea bed, one of these digs in and with the weight of much of the cable resting on the sea bed, holds the ship. Near the ring is another cross piece, the 'stock'. This is set at right angles to the flukes and turns the anchor so that it does not lie flat. [7.1.] (7:16) I like to think there is something more than even that in this word ('endless'). It is not an easy word. Some words come only once or twice in the New Testament. This one comes in only this one place in the New Testament and it has not been found anywhere else. But there is a word that means just the opposite. People used this word in various ways. One of them may help us. When a man ploughed his land, he used two cattle (called 'oxen') to pull his plough. He put a strong wooden bar (a 'yoke') on their shoulders so that they would pull together. At the end of the day's work the 'yoke' was taken off the 'oxen'. They were 'unyoked'. Now Jesus is God and Man. He is one Person. He is God the Son, and He is a real Man. The two are 'yoked' together. Good 'oxen' would pull steadily together. So with our Saviour. He is God the Son: He is the Son of Man. The two 'pull' together. But He will never be 'unyoked'. He always will be God. He always will be Man, with the wounds He suffered on Calvary. (Revelation 5: 6) [7.2] (7:24) A note by P Ellingworth in JSNT 25 at p 23 discussed the question whether the meaning is 'permanent' or 'without a successor'. He prefers 'permanent, unchangeable' although 'without a successor' may be supported by some ancient Greek writers. [8.1] (8:1) There is an article by G.C.Cockerill on 8:1 - 10:`18 in Bulletin for Biblical Research 11.2 at page 179. I believe that this would repay careful study. [8.2] (8:8) The meaning is strictly that God 'found fault with them' which would mean 'found fault with the Jewish people' - presumably because they did not keep their side of the Old Covenant. One would have expected 'found fault with it' - meaning the first Covenant. [8.3] (8:8) The doctrine of the two Covenants gives rise to some difficulty; some writers deny the distinction between the two. It seems to me that the beginnings of the Covenant of Grace are in God's promises to Abram commencing in Genesis 12. From Genesis 17 there seems to be a Covenant of Works between God and Abraham, which is fulfilled in the Mosaic Covenant. Calvin at times in his eagerness to find a basis for his doctrine of Infant Baptism blurs the distinction. Our understanding of the idea of the Old Covenant has been helped by the translation of ancient covenants from about 2300 BC onwards. See, for example, 'The Bible in its World', K A Kitchen, Paternoster Press, Exeter 1977 and pp 79-85. The point that seems to come through is that the terms of a Covenant were not negotiated and reached by consultation between the parties. It was given by the greater party to the weaker one. [9.1] (9:1) See F F Bruce p 181, note 3 for the suggestion that we should understand the writer to mean 'worship and the holy ritual'. This seems likely to me, if it is legitimate as a translation. This is only the first of the difficulties in this chapter. [9.2] (9:4) The second difficulty of this passage is that the writer seems to place the altar of incense in the Most Holy Place, not in the Holy Place. There is no easy explanation of this. (a) The expression in verse 4, 'having' the golden altar, is unusual. (b) Exodus 30: 6 is a little unusual but it may mean only that the incense altar stood immediately in front of the second veil and in the middle of it. (c) There is a question as to whether verse 4 is speaking of the incense altar or of a censer, which the High Priest might carry into the Most Holy Place. (d) The incense altar was quite small - a metre high and half a metre square - and would be portable. (e) It is often suggested that the writer is thinking of the great Day of Atonement when the veil might be drawn back, so that the incense altar would stand before the Covenant Chest, or might be taken into the Holy Place. See Luke 1:9. Is this the altar of Revelation 11:1, or is that the bronze altar, the place of sacrifice in the court? R,P,Gordon’s discussion on page 96 is valuable. In any case, the writer's main purpose is clear. He wants to show the close relationship between the altar of incense and the inner sanctuary and the Ark of the Covenant. [9.3] (9: 8 and 9) There is another problem in these verses. (a) Is the writer saying that the way into the real Most Holy Place - the heavenly reality answering to the earthly Most Holy Place - is now open because the Tent (and Temple) no longer retain their status? (b) Or is the point that the heavenly reality itself has changed? Is it that whereas once it was necessary to pass through the - heavenly - 'Holy Place' to reach the heavenly Most Holy Place, now because of the work of Christ, the Holy Place no longer has to be traversed? The time (or age) may either be 'the time then present' or 'the present time - now'. [9.4] (9:11) 'The good things that are already here' is yet another of the problems of this chapter. Probably the point is that since Christ is with the Father, all the 'good things' are now in His custody, at His disposal. They are not yet ours. (So H Bonar 'Light and Truth', Vol.4. chapter 51) [9.5] (9:12) The R.S.V. translation of this verse - 'taking.... His own blood' is objected to strongly by F.F.Bruce. We should not think of Christ actually taking His blood to heaven as the High Priest took the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place. It was by the merit, the virtue, the worth of His blood that Christ entered God's glory. It is a much more dangerous mistake to think of 'eternal redemption' as 'redemption from eternity'. Those who have adopted this idea have tended to deny the real meaning of Christ's sufferings and the need for present experience of salvation. This teaching is the mark of Hyper-Calvinism - as distinct from High Calvinism. The meaning of the words is, of course, 'redemption to all eternity'; 'final redemption'. (See James Denney, 'The Death of Christ', p 129 for the use of 'eternal' in this Epistle). An article in Bulletin for Biblical Research 12.1. at page 17 by M.Emmerich on ‘Through the Eternal Spirit’ did not satisfy me at all. [9.6] (9:13) The Jewish writers said that if there were two white or black hairs together, that was a blemish! See Athalya Brenner, 'Colour Terms in the Old Testament', JSOT. Supplement Series 21. Sheffield 1982, p 62-65. Hebrew had no word for 'brown' so the word for 'red' covered a range from orange to brown. [9.7] (9:13) The meaning of much of the ritual may go back long ages before the time of Moses. The problem here is that the hyssop (or marjoram) and scarlet are mentioned in Hebrews 9: 19; they are not mentioned in the Old Testament passage which the writer is talking about there. See also Leviticus 14: 4. [9.8] (9:13) The Jews believed that the 'red heifer' ritual had not been done between the time of Moses and the time of Ezra. The Samaritans are said to have burnt the red heifer as recently as 1348 and to have stored the ashes until 1600. They had priests but no temple. [9.9] (9:14) Yet another difficulty. What does the writer mean by 'through the eternal Spirit'? (a) Does he mean 'the Holy Spirit'? (b) Does he mean Christ's divine nature? John Owen does not reach a conclusion in this. F.F.Bruce says that it is extremely difficult to interpret these words with satisfactory precision. Denney's thought that 'eternal' in Hebrews conveys the idea of finality does not seem to help. [9.10] (9:15) Michael Winger in an article in JSNT 53 at pages 65-86 - 'Tradition, Revelation and Gospel: a Study in Galatians' is very useful on 'the call of God'. [9.11] (9:16) The same word, which means 'covenant' or agreement at the end of verse 15 means 'will' or testament in verses 16 and 17. This is another of the problems of this chapter. Some writers - wrongly in my view - try to impose the meaning 'covenant' all through. There are those who try to impose 'will' all through the passage. The majority rightly accept that the word is used in two different senses. R.P.Gordon (page 103) makes the important point that in Greek and Roman society a will could come into force without death. Was this also true among the Jews? This is what happened in Luke 15:12 in the parable of the prodigal son. [9.12] (9:19) The verses contain almost the last of the problems in this chapter. The water, scarlet wool and hyssop (or marjoram) and the Book or Scroll of the Law are not mentioned in the passage in Exodus 24. Apart from the Book, these had a place in the Red Heifer ritual. F.F.Bruce suggests that the writer of Hebrews had some other account of what Moses did, and that he was not using Exodus. This cannot be proved, of course. R.P.Gordon notes that the scroll takes the place of the altar. [9.13] (9:23) But why does the writer speak of 'better sacrifices' when it is so clear from the verses which follow that he is speaking of the one sacrifice of Christ? The plural may be used because of the excellence of Christ's sacrifice; or it may be that the one sacrifice by its sheer greatness sums up the great variety of Old Testament sacrifices. I am reluctant to introduce here some notion of a cosmic effect of Christ's death, so that heavenly things are in some way affected for the better by Christ's death. After all, the 'copies of heavenly things' which were purified by the Old Testament sacrifices were things on earth. Although we are on earth, the analogy of the argument requires that we are intended. The discussion by F.F.Bruce (pp 218-220) is tending this way - that is, if I understand what he is saying. Andrew Murray provides a line of interpretation at this point that is, I think, quite tolerable yet hardly compatible with the mind of the author of Hebrews. The 'cleansing' he envisages is not much more than a subjective experience on our part (pp319 - 320). 'God's word speaks of our sins rising up as a cloud... As the blood was brought in.... the heavens were cleansed; the heavens are now clear and bright...' Old Dr Gill leaves room for my interpretation of the words amongst a mass of others, but expresses no preference! [9.14] (9:27) 'Consider, thou must die but once, I mean but once as to this world, for if thou, when thou goest hence, dost not die well, thou canst not come back again and die better'. John Bunyan, 'The Excellency of a Broken Heart', p 82. Published privately by Mr O G Pearce, 1959. This was Bunyan's last published work. There is no place for the repeated sacrifice of Christ in the Mass in these verses! [10.1] (10:5) The second line - 'but a body you prepared for me' - follows the Greek LXX translation and does not agree with the Hebrew which is translated as 'but my ears have you pierced' or hollowed out. This should not be explained by the ritual described in Exodus 21: 6, Deuteronomy 15: 17. Rather, the Greek translation sees the 'ears' in the Hebrew as representing the whole body. [10.2] (10:4,5) We have avoided the use of the word 'sacrifice' but here we have four different words. In Hebrews, the strict meaning of the words is not kept exactly but the four words here mean: - (a) sacrifice - an offering where blood is shed; There were many different offerings in the Old Testament. Christ's death sums them all up to show that though we commit many different sins, the death of Jesus atones for them all. [10.3] (10:10) It is likely that 'sanctify' in the Epistle to the Hebrews has roughly the same meaning as 'justify' in Paul's writings. Here it is translated in NIV. 'made holy'. But the Greek word also means 'set apart, consecrated'. See for example Weymouth who translates 'set free from sin and made a holy people'. John 17:19 is a very important illustration of this double meaning. There I believe Jesus says: 'For their sake I consecrate Myself - set Myself apart as a sacrifice - in order that they may become genuinely holy'. I am concerned that modern writers on the New Testament place so much emphasis on the idea of 'sanctification' as being separated rather than as meaning 'made genuinely pure, holy'. The stress on real holiness is necessary for the health of the Christian Church! But the two ideas come together provided we remember that we are separated to God for service to others. [10.4] (10: 24) The chapter and verse divisions in the Bible were added in the Middle Ages to help reference. They are not part of the sacred text. This is a case where there should really be a chapter division. It is the dividing point between the two main sections of Hebrews. [10.5] (10:24) The word for 'spur one another on' or stimulate is a remarkably strong one - something like 'paroxysm' - having a violent fit! Even 'stir up' is rather weak. Perhaps the Jewish pride stopped them from encouraging other Christians in the work of God! [10.6] (10:25) It is not quite clear what is meant here by the 'epi-synagogue'. It may be that the Jewish Christians still joined in the Jewish synagogue worship, but also met as a 'fringe group'. But they may have met with other Christians- non-Jews - and the epi-synagogue was then a Jewish 'fringe group' of the church - as Calvin, for example, thought. 'The Day' here may mean either the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, or the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. [10.7] (10:19,20) One would have expected the 'Most Holy Place' here and most transations assume this, although the writer actually says 'Holy Place'. There are also slight differences in the translation of what follows - eg. NEB renders 'the way of His flesh'. Verse 20 says 'freshly killed and living way', but the word for 'freshly killed ' had come to mean simply 'new' by this time. ‘Curtain’ here should mean the ‘Vail’ between the Holy and Most Holy Place rather than the entry to the Holy Place from outside. So for example R.P.Gordon thinks. [10.8] (10:29) A footnote in A.S.Way (p 219) suggests this. I think he is right. [10.9] (10:29) View Him grovelling in the Garden; [10.10] (10:32) This does not sound like the Jerusalem church. At the time of writing they were not suffering. See 12 :4, which implies that up to the time of writing, none of them had died for the faith. In Acts 19 :23 - 20 :1, Luke tells of the great riot at Ephesus. Jewish Christians could have suffered at this time. Acts does not tell us the whole story. See 1 Corinthians 15 :32, and 2 Corinthians 1 :8-10 which indicate acute sufferings which are not mentioned in Acts. [11.1] (11:1) Based on Calvin's Commentary on this verse. [11.2] (11:1) The word 'assurance' or 'Substance' - 'Being sure' in NIV - had several meanings and no one can be sure exactly what it means here. It was used for the title deeds of a property, which is an attractive way to understand it. F.F. Bruce does not consider this secure. The same word is used in Chapter 1 : 3 and 3 :14. [11.3] (11:3) God's 'word' or command here is not 'Logos', the word which is used in John's Gospel chapter 1 for Jesus. It means here the word which God spoke. The second half of the verse is sometimes - not wrongly! - translated ‘that the visible was made from things that are not visible’. R.P.Gordon (page 128) prefers the NIV. [11.4] (11:4) In JSOT 52 at pages 25-41 there is a careful study - 'The Story of Cain and Abel' - of this passage in Genesis by Ellen van Wolde. [11.5] (11:5,6) The 'Books of Enoch' which have come down to us have nothing to do with the real Enoch. [11.6] (11:7) Many peoples around the world remember the story of Noah. Archaeologists have found several ancient versions of the story in what is now Iraq. [11.7] (11:8) Abraham's family probably came from the west to Ur, out of the Northern Arabia, which is now desert but was then more fertile. I reckon Abram was born in 1916BC. (Genesis 11: 27). Some have suggested that Ur was already in decline, but I think it was still at the height of its prosperity. Abram's family were tent dwellers who could not settle in Ur, the great port which traded with India. The coastline of the Persian Gulf has moved steadily south east down the ages, and Ur was probably built close to the sea. There were several other places called Ur in the ancient world and Biblical Archaeology Review for January 2000 carries an article at p 16 which argues that ‘Ur of the Chaldees ‘is the wrong one. [11.8] (11:10) The great ages attributed to people in Genesis are also found in other ancient documents, so that we cannot just dismiss the Genesis record. [11.9] (11:11) F.F. Bruce discussed the problem of the translation of verse 11. Most versions seem to agree in understanding it to be Sarah's faith that is spoken of here. NIV follows F.F.Bruce in understanding it still of Abraham. [11.10] (11:29) We do not know exactly where this happened. In the last century this part of Egypt was greatly changed by the building of the Suez Canal. It seems likely however, that in ancient times there was a fairly shallow northward extension of the Gulf of Suez. The Bitter Lakes are a remnant of this. This would have been the Sea of Reeds, which the Jews crossed. [11.11] (11:30) The archaeological excavations at Jericho are famous, but the interpretation of them is still a matter of argument. (a) Collapsed walls from the Early Bronze age were found. We shall therefore be wise and not say confidently that the collapsed wall has been found; nor should we listen to those who say that the collapsed wall is of an earlier date. [11.12] (11:35) I suppose - as F.F. Bruce indicates - the 'better resurrection' could just be better than the two Old Testament cases in the first part of the verse. I feel it is unlikely. [12.1] (12:1) Paul often speaks of the Games. See Acts 20:24; Galatians 2 :2; 5 :7; I Corinthians 9:24 - 27, where Paul also has in mind boxing; as also in 1 Timothy 6 :12, perhaps 2 Timothy 4: 7; Philippians 3 :14,15; Colossians 2 :18; Paul may well have been at Corinth at the time of the Isthmian Games. There is an article in 'The Biblical Archaeologist Reader 2 ' (Scholars Press, Missoula, Montana, 1977) 'The Apostle Paul and the Isthmian Games' by Oscar Broneer (first published in February 1962). This explains what Paul would have seen if he visited the Games. We should remember that the Greek games were held in honour of the heathen gods of the Greeks. [12.2] (12: 1) But Cassirer, for example, translates: 'Let us clear every obstacle out of our way'. This is right: we do not want anything laying on the race track which is going to trip us up. [12.3] (12: 1) Greek athletes, of course, competed naked. We are not recommending this! [12.4] (12:4) This verse helps a little in deciding where the Letter was sent. In a church like Jerusalem, some Christians had already died for their faith, so they are ruled out. [12.5] (12: 5,6) These Proverbs were written by Solomon. The name means 'peaceable' - see verse 11. [12.6] (12:13) The Book of Proverbs does not get much attention from most people in the Western world. It may well be a portion of Scripture which will speak to many people of different cultures in the young churches around the world. [12.7] (12:14) The other references in Scripture to the 'beatific vision' are Job 19 :26; Psalm 11 :7; Psalm 17 :15; Isaiah 3: 17; John 17:24; 1 John 3: 2; 1 Corinthians 13:12; Revelation 22:4. [12.8] (12:17) The broad meaning of verse 17 is clear enough. The details are difficult. Could Esau find no way to repent of what he had done, or could he find no way to change his father's mind? Of course, he wanted to inherit the blessing. He despised the birth-right which he had already given away. Yet we cannot but feel sorry for Esau, the sportsman who tells the truth and obeys his father. But see Genesis 33 ;9. [12.9] (12:22) This doctrine of the 'Recapitulation ( giving of a new Head) of all things in Christ' is also taught in Ephesians 1:10; Colossians 1:20; 1 Corinthians 15:28; Ephesians 4: 5 and Philippians 2: 9-11. [12.10] (12:23) This is a fairly common matter in the New Testament. See for example, Acts 16:36-39; Acts 22: 25-29; Philippians 3 :20; Revelation 22:14. So also the thought of our names being enrolled as citizens in heaven is found in Revelation 20:15; Luke 10:20; Philippians 4:3; Malachi 3:16; Daniel 12:1. [12.11] (12:24) It is tempting at this point to speak of Christ as presenting His shed blood in heaven as an offering to God His Father. Several wise Christian writers warn against this. [12.12] (12:27) It does seem to me to be likely that since 'the things which cannot be shaken' here means the Kingdom of God, it is likely that the things which are shaken and removed are the Jewish worship in all its parts. These are 'things which have been made'. We should not necessarily here understand the removal of all creation, leaving behind a purely spiritual order. [13.1] (13:1) The word for 'love' here is 'philadelphia', not the word 'agape' which is more usual in the New Testament. The writer may have had in mind that there was a Christian Church in the city of Philadelphia, not too far from Ephesus. See verse 14 - even Philadelphia was not 'an enduring city'. (See Revelation 3:7-10) 'The continuance of the church depends on the continuance of brotherly love. All other pretences about the succession of the church are vain. Where faith and love are not, there is no church'. (John Owen) [13.2] (13: 1) Calvin's remark in his Commentary is near the mark. 'Perhaps a secret feud arising from the pride of the Jews might disrupt the churches'. This is, however, unsympathetic not to say unfair to the Jewish Christians. Their Messianic hopes must have influenced their thinking in earlier days. 'All these Gentiles are becoming Christians. Perhaps the Jewish Messianic Kingdom will be established through them'. I have no doubt that such thinking dominated some circles in the church at Jerusalem. If the Gentiles were circumcised and adopted a Jewish Christianity, then the Jewish Christians at Jerusalem would be forgiven for believing in Jesus! Such ideas must have fuelled the debate with Paul about circumcision, and inspired the 'false apostles' whose armoury probably included wild allegory of Scripture and - dare we say it? - charismatic gifts! [13.3] (13:3) Of course, there is still a great gospel work to be done by Christians in visiting those in prison for wrong doing. This is not, however, what the writer had in mind here. [13.4] (13:3) 'In the body' here does not mean: 'You are in the Body of Christ' (Calvin's view). It just means that you still have flesh and blood, and people may yet be cruel to you too. 'Whilst we have our bodily eyes, all tears will not be wiped from them'. (John Owen) [13.5] (13:18 and 19) If this writer is Apollos, he is a little like
George Whitefield in the 18th Century. He was at home on both sides of
the Atlantic. He made thirteen crossings of the ocean, and he had a full
time ministry both in old England and in New England. He could not satisfy
people in either country because he could not give them all his time.
Apollos had a ministry in Ephesus and in Corinth and probably many other
places - he came from Alexandria. People in Ephesus were asking: 'What
is he getting up to in Corinth? He is needed here!' Bibliography 1. Versions The English ' Authorised Version': 'The Newberry Bible', Hodder and Stoughton, London The 'Revised Version', Oxford University Press,1887 R A Knox, The New Testament, Burns Oates and Washbourne Ltd London 1951 'The Moffatt Translation of The Bible', Hodder and Stoughton, London 1957. Dr. R F Weymouth 'The New Testament in Modern Speech', James Clarke & Co London, 1908 'The Amplified New Testament', Marshall Morgan & Scott, London 1968 'The New English Bible', Oxford University Press & Cambridge University Press, 1970 'The Bible in Today's English Version', United Bible Societies 'The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English', Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan 1986 'The Revised English Bible', Oxford University Press & Cambridge University Press, 1989 'God's New Covenant', Heinz W Cassirer, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1989 'The Letters of St Paul', Arthur S Way, Marshall Morgan & Scott Ltd, London & Edinburgh. Reprinted 1951 Works on the Epistle to the Hebrews The Epistle of Paul the Apostle (sic) to the Hebrews (and I & II Peter) by John Calvin. Translated by W B Johnston, Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh & London. 1963 An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews by John Owen (Four Volumes) Thomas Tegg, London. 1840. 'The Pre-eminence of Christ', Addresses by James Stephens 1914-1916, published privately by Highgate Road Chapel. The Epistle to the Hebrews by T C Edwards in 'The Expositor's Bible' series, Hodder & Stoughton, London 1888. The Holiest of All, by Andrew Murray, Marshall, Morgan & Scott, London 1976 The Way into the Holiest by F B Meyer, Christian Literature Crusade, Fort Washington PA, 1988 Hebrews, by G B Wilson. The Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh and Carlisle PA, 1979 The Letter to the Hebrews in The Daily Study Bible series, William Barclay, St Andrews Press, Edinburgh 1966 Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews in the New London Commentary series, by F F Bruce, Marshall Morgan & Scott, London 1971. The Message of Hebrews in 'The Bible Speaks Today' series by Raymond Brown, Intervarsity Press, Leicester and Illinois, 1982. Hebrews in the Tyndale N.T. Commentaries series by Donald Guthrie, Intervarsity Press, Leicester and William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, 1990. An Exposition of the New Testament by John Gill, William Hill Collingridge, London 1852. Hebrews by R.P.Gordon in the series ‘Readings: A New Biblical Commentary’ (Sheffield Academic Press) 2000. (Many of these books have hardly been used. I am satisfied if I feel I have explained the text and the argument, although much more material of a purely devotional nature could have been added.) The Death of Christ by James Denney (the Tyndale Press, London, June
1950) includes a chapter on the Epistle to the Hebrews.
|
| Home Top Introduction Contents Notes Previous Page |