Hebrews wrap up

The book of Hebrews, as its name implies, is written exclusively for Hebrew believers in Jesus. It was written at an unknown time, around the first two centuries of the christian era, by an unknown author, who does not claim to be inspired or to be writing the word of god. Hebrews defines the gospel as the teaching that there is still "god's sabbath rest",  or an afterlife to come, for the believing Jews. In the old covenant, god's rest had to do with rest or freedom from from dealing with their enemies in the land God gave the Hebrews. When this book was written, there probably was still no rest from dealing with enemies in the land of the Hebrews, even after centuries of living under the old covenant. A new interpretation is being made of "god's rest," along with everything else associated with the old covenant.

This book can not have been written by Paul, who was convinced that the gospel message was the salvation of the gentiles as well as Jews. Some writings attributed to Paul even make  gentile believers the chosen ones. There are no gentiles saved in this book. "The people" frequently referred to are the Hebrews or Jews. This is a Jewish letter to Jewish christians. For gentile christians to believe it applies to them is misguided. Gentiles aren't even mentioned.

The book is a jumble of bad metaphors and false equivalences. Jesus =son of god = son of man = speaker of old testament words once attributed to god and others = great high priest. God's rest = the seventh day of creation = an afterlife for believers. We are also treated to multiple instances of  bad logic and circular reasoning, especially in the convoluted explanation about how Jesus is a high priest in the order of Melchizedek.

Also, elements of physical worship in the old covenant are claimed to be shadows of more perfect spiritual elements in heaven. Jesus is a more perfect, heavenly high priest with a more perfect, heavenly sacrifice presented to god in the more perfect, heavenly tabernacle. Jesus's high priesthood is of the "order of Melchizedek," which, using convoluted logic, is somehow superior to the levitical priesthood. Jesus's sacrifice not only makes him the heavenly high priest and god's right hand man, but also a living curtain through which believers go to get to god in the holy place.

The author of Hebrews uses multiple reference quotes from the old testament to prove his points. The problem is they are often pulled randomly from passages that have nothing to do with what he is claiming. They are not even the words of the personages he is claiming, namely god, Jesus, or the holy spirit. The author repeats many of the old testament quotes multiple times. He also repeats his reasons for using those quotes. He sometimes adds words and phrases that weren't in the original passages.

The only reality based things we are told about Jesus's life in the book of Hebrews are that he was a human, he prayed a lot,  he was crucified, and died. This very similar to what Paul tells us about Jesus. We are, however, given extensive passages on the imaginary high priesthood of Jesus. No birth story, no teachings, or miracles of Jesus are mentioned. There is no genealogy, but It is assumed Jesus is a descendant of David, possibly David reincarnated. I say that because passages once attributed to David are attributed to Jesus by the Hebrew author.

No New Testament characters or events are mentioned, except Jesus and his death. No secular figures    or events that could place this writing in time are named. Besides Melchizedek, quite a few Old Testament characters are mentioned as examples of faith. Angels and the devil are mentioned. Baptism is kind of mentioned, communion is not. Faith is the focus. A Hebrew who believes that Jesus is now the great high priest who presented himself as a perfect sacrifice to god will get to enter god's sabbath rest, if he stops sinning. Hell is not mentioned by name, but there will be burning of sinners and the unfaithful.

I previously posted portions of this on the Roll to Disbelieve comments.

Hebrews part nineteen

Today we finish up the last chapter of Hebrews starting at verse 15. We've  been told that there are no more blood sacrifices because Jesus was the last most perfect sacrifice. But wait. What is this? The author is now telling his readers there are sacrifices they need to make: "a sacrifice of praise-- the fruit of lips that confess his name, doing good, and sharing with others." God likes those sacrifices. Notice that praising god comes first in that list and "doing good" is not defined. The only useful specific thing god seems to want is sharing with others.

There is more. The author tells the readers to obey their leaders and "submit to their authority." This is the classic definition of authoritarianism. Why must they obey? So that the leader's work "will be a joy and not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you." Do you see the implied threat? It's all about the leaders.

The letter ends with a paulinesque wrap up. The author asks for prayers for a clear conscience and desire to live honorably. This makes hims sound good. He also asks them to pray for him to be restored to the readers soon. Remember we have no idea who the author is or who this supposed letter is written to. How do we know if they wanted him back?

Next the author says a kind of prayer for the reader, which is actually a doctrinal statement and sermon in disguise. "May the god of peace , who through the blood of the eternal covenant  brought back from the dead our lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will, and may he work in us what is pleasing to him, through Jesus christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen." Whew!

You would think that's where the letter should end, but it does not. This next part actually looks like something tacked on later. The writer  tells the reader to bear with his word of exhortation, after all it's only a short letter. Actually, it's quite long for a letter. Consider that all that makes up the thirteen chapters we have read was written out by hand on papyrus or some other such handmade paper. The text alone takes up about eleven whole pages of my standard sized bible with relatively small typeface.

Verse 23 tells the reader "Timothy has been released" from some unknown place, presumably having been imprisoned. The author,  however, dies not appear to be imprisoned because he says, if Timothy comes to him soon, they will both travel to see the readers, wherever they are. This sentence looks like name dropping to me, in an attempt to influence the reader's belief that the letter was written by Paul.

Last, the unknown readers are told to greet their unknown leaders and all god's people. Wouldn't the leaders be the ones to receive this letter? Considering the contents of this "letter," all god's people must be Jews in exile somewhere. Then we read that "those in Italy send you their greetings. Grace be with you all." Again, unknown people, in an undisclosed location in Italy, send their greetings. It looks like another attempt to tie this writing to Paul.

Well that's the end of the book of Hebrews. Next time we do a wrap up. Till then.

Hebrews part eighteen

We are now at Hebrews chapter thirteen, the last chapter. The end is in sight! In this chapter, the Hebrews are told to continue loving each other as brothers, because they might entertain angels without knowing it. They also need to remember those in prison and those being mistreated, as if it were they themselves suffering. What good will being remembered do for the people who are actually suffering?

The author goes on to say " marriage should be honored by all and the marriage bed be kept pure." That means nobody gets to have sex with a non spouse. Why? Because God hates adulterers and the sexually immoral. What is the difference between an adulterer and a sexually immoral person? I don't know, maybe they are the same thing. I was wrong when I previously wrote that Jesus said nothing about sex. He was clearly against adultery and lust.

The readers are also told not to love money. They need to be content with what they have, "because god has said I will never leave you or forsake you." (A quote from Moses to the Israelites in Deuteronomy 31:6) What good is god's invisible presence when you have no food or shelter or means to obtain it?

The Hebrews are also told to say with confidence, "The lord is my helper, I will not be afraid. What can man do to me." (Psalm 118:6-7) In case you didn't already know, man/mankind can do a lot of harm, to other people and property, in spite of a god who is supposed to be a helper. At many times, there are legitimate reason to be very afraid. It's almost like there is no god.

The readers are also told to remember their leaders who spoke the word of god to them.(Like maybe the author of this book?) The leaders are providing an example of life and faith that needs to be imitated. "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and forever." Amen. That means every believer should be living and believing the exact same way. "Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings." Like stories about crucified and risen saviors, who became invisible heavenly high priests, and sprinkle their invisible blood, making people have eternal life?

Next, the Hebrews are to that it is good for their hearts "to be strengthened by grace, not by ceremonial foods, which are of no value to those who eat them." Huh? First of All, what in tarnation is grace? How can it strengthen a heart?  Second, what do ceremonial foods have to do with anything? The author appears to be sharply veering right back into his  high priest and temple metaphor, or the heavenly reality of which that earthly stuff is a shadow. He speaks of people having no right to eat from the altar they minister at. Presumably he is talking about the earthly high priests.

Again, the author talks about the earthly high priest carrying the blood of animals into the holy place. He says the bodies of the animals were burned outside the city, after the sacrifice. Then the author somehow associates this with Jesus "suffering outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood." So, likewise the believers should bear the disgrace Jesus bore by being outside the city. (Presumably Jerusalem) They don't need the city, because they are looking for the enduring city that is to come. Hmm. This seems like the kind of thing outcasts might say.

I'm going to revise my ruminations and guess that this book may have been written before the fall of Jerusalem after all, in the infancy of Christianity.  It definitely appears to be pre synoptic gospels, and maybe even pre Paul.

Till next time.

Hebrews part seventeen

We are at Hebrews 12:14. My bible has an added heading for the coming passage, "Warning against refusing god." Uh oh. It starts by telling the reader to "Make every effort to live in peace with all men." Nothing wrong with that. The author adds, "and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the lord." A command and a threat. But what exactly is holiness? How do I know if I don't have it? The reader is also to take care not to "miss the grace of god." What exactly is the grace of god? How do I miss it? The reader is also not permitted to allow a "bitter root" to grow up and cause trouble. Um, you guessed it, what in the world is he talking about? My guess is the author expects the reader to understand because they have a similar knowledge and experience that I don't have. It's 2000 year old insider language.

In verse 16, we are given more specifics. No one is allowed to be sexually immoral, probably as defined in the Old Testament. I don't think Jesus actually said a word about sex in the gospels. Also, no one is permitted to be "godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son." That is an example of godlessness? What about his brother, who took advantage of a hungry man for personal gain? Victim blaming at its finest. Even worse, according to the author, Esau tearfully begged for his blessing back. Shame on him. Heathen.

The author goes on to tell the reader that they are so fortunate that they don't have to approach a physical burning mountain, covered with stormy dark clouds, with a loud and threatening voice issuing from it, like Moses did. That was terrifying. No, instead, they get to come to the "heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living god." (Isn't it the same terrifying god that was on Moses's mountain?)  The reader also gets to come to "thousands upon thousands of heavenly angels in joyful assembly." And that's not terrifying?

The reader also comes to the "church of the first born, whose names are written in heaven." I don't think the author means literal first born children here, but metaphorical first born "children of god." They also have come to "god, the judge of all men and the spirits of righteous men made perfect." Not women. They are not made perfect. (Sarcasm) They also come to "Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood (eww) that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel." What is the reality behind all this metaphor, anyway?

You know Jesus's speaking blood? The author says it better not be disobeyed. Those of the past, who were warned on earth, did not escape when they were disobedient. (See the story of Moses and the people at the mountain.) Does the reader think he will escape a warning from heaven? Gasp! There were only earthquakes at that mountain of old. God has promised that, "once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens." This is sort of a piece of a quote from Haggai 2:6. It's context is the building of the second temple, greater than the first, a purely physical building, not some heavenly temple. The author goes on to say that the words "once more" in the Haggai quote "indicate the removing of what can be shaken--that is created things--so that what cannot be shaken may remain." How in the world did he come to that conclusion?

Chapter twelve ends by telling the readers they need to be thankful because they are getting a kingdom that can't be shaken. "So, worship god acceptably with reverence and awe, for our god is a consuming fire." Is that a physical fire or a metaphorical fire?

Till next time.

Hebrews part sixteen

We are currently at Hebrews 11:32. The author does some name dropping here. He says Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jepthah, David, Samuel, and the prophets, all did amazing things because of faith. We are told about some of those recorded events. Go back to the old testament and read about each of those people. They also did some horrendous things, according to the stories. In fact a couple of them were pretty horrible people. The author also clearly alludes to Daniel but does not mention his name. But none of that matters, does it, because there is no reason to believe any of it actually happened. Yet again, if any of it did happen, it clearly was not because of faith in Jesus and a far distant resurrection.

Verses 35-38 describe tortures, persecutions, mistreatments,  and trials, endured for the gain of a better resurrection. Better than what? "These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised." What exactly was promised anyway? According to the author, "God planned something better for us (the Hebrews) so that only together with us would they be made perfect." Great. It took hundreds of years and immeasurable death, pain, and suffering, but God's had a plan that's coming together perfectly right now, as in 2,000 years ago. Maybe.

We are now in chapter twelve. I managed to escape faith in god. What about you? The author continues on by claiming all the aforementioned characters as witnesses to god's plan. That should be enough, he says, to make the readers throw off whatever is holding them back and run the race with perseverance. The goal: Jesus, "the author and perfecter of our faith." He was so looking forward to the pleasure of perfecting their faith that he endured the shame and pain of the cross. What's six hours  in trade for an eternity at the right hand of god? When the reader gets tired and loses heart, he can think about Jesus, who also endured opposition from sinful men. So waht if their pain lasts years instead of hours.

Now the Hebrews writer gets deadly serious. The readers haven't yet laid their blood on the line for Jesus. What's up with that? They've also forgotten Proverbs 3:11-12, which  addresses them as sons (them as in the readers, or the Hebrews of all time?). It says, " My son, do not make light of the lord's discipline and do not lose heart when he rebukes you, because the lord disciplines those he loves." Oh, but the author of Hebrews does not stop there. He adds one more bit that isn't in the Psalm, as though it is actually part of it. "And he punishes everyone he accepts as a son." My study bible states that the word punish here means "to whip." This is corporal punishment, from god, and is evidence that the Hebrew writer made stuff up to influence his readers into believing that hardships endured were a direct proof of god's love for them. He is prepping them for martyrdom.

The author continues on in this vein, declaring that god is treating them as his sons by disciplining them, because aren't all sons disciplined. Obviously the Hebrew writer must have been, because, according to him, discipline makes you a true son, not an illegitimate one. (We all know illegitimate children never get disciplined). What?! The author says we respect our human fathers for disciplining us. Maybe he did, but it is clear that is not universal. Nevertheless, to the author, that is proof we should obey "the father of our spirits" even more "and live!" (The implication being that we won't get eternal life if we don't.) Supposedly, just like our fathers, god disciplines us because he thinks it is for our own good. (I think a father's harsh discipline is usually for the father's own good.) We think discipline is painful when it is happening, but the author wants us to see the long term benefits. "It produces a harvest of righteousness and peace." For whom?

Verse twelve calls the readers weaklings with feeble arms and weak knees who need to walk on straight paths so they will be healed. This makes no sense in the surrounding context. However it appears to partly be a reference to Isaiah 35:3, which is part of an admonition to "be strong, do not fear; your god will come...with vengeance, with divine retribution...to save you." Now that makes more sense. Why didn't the author quote the whole passage? Maybe he didn't want to give them false hope. Instead he combined a small bit of it with another small bit from Proverbs 4:26 and made nonsense.    Till next time.

Till next time

Hebrews part fifteen

We are now at Hebrews 11:17. It's time to read more about Abraham's faith. Abraham's faith was so great that he offered his son Isaac as a sacrifice when god tested him. God was being a sadistic bastard. He had previously  told Abraham that the promise of numerous offspring would be fulfilled through Isaac. The Hebrews author claims Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac because he "reasoned" that god could raise the dead. Baloney. The author of Hebrews is trying to use the old testament story to prove that belief in resurrection has always been part of Hebrew beliefs. There is actually no indication in most of the old testament that anyone of the ancient Abrahamic tradition believed in a resurrection of the dead. Sheol was the fate of every dead person. The author of Hebrews goes on to say that "figuratively speaking, he (Abraham) did receive Isaac back from the dead." Just so you know, figurative speech doesn't have any more substance than faith.

Next, the author says, that by faith Isaac blessed Jacob's and Esau's future. In other words, he said magical words at them that were supposed to have some mystical power over their lives. By faith, Jacob also "blessed" Joseph's sons. By faith, Joseph spoke of the exodus from egypt and what he wanted done with his bones. Joseph did speak of the Israelites leaving Egypt, going to the promised land, and taking his bones with them, in Genesis 50,  but there were no other specifics. We are not going to go into the fact that none of the stuff we are reading about actually happened. So, it doesn't matter what these supposed patriarchs supposedly said or did and why they did it. It's the same as if we would take the Iliad and the Odyssey seriously.

The author goes on to say, "by faith Moses's parents hid him for three months after he was born because they saw that he was no ordinary child, and they were afraid of the king's edict." Any parent worth being called a parent would try to do anything they could to save their child from death. Faith has nothing to do with it.

 We are also told that "by faith, Moses refused to be called the son of Pharoah's daughter. He chose to be mistreated along with the people of god rather than enjoy the pleasures of sin for a short time." Again, this never actually happened, but let's look at what Exodus says. Did Moses refuse to be called the son of Pharoah's daughter? Nope, can't find that. Did Moses choose to be mistreated along with the people of god? Nope, can't find that either. In fact, Exodus 2:11 says Moses went out and watched his people doing hard labor.

In Hebrews 11:26, the author says, Moses "regarded disgrace for the sake of christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt because he was looking ahead to his reward." This is blatant nonsense. Go back and read Exodus 2. Moses killed a man and became a fugitive, eventually going incognito as a shepherd. He had no eternal reward in mind only saving his own skin. Moses had no christ in mind.

Next, the author says, "By faith (Moses) left Egypt, not fearing the king's anger, because he saw him who is invisible." At least that part is true to the Exodus story. The reader is also told,"By faith (Moses) kept the passover and the sprinkling of the blood, so that the destroyer of the firstborn would not touch the firstborn of Israel." That also happened in the story. Plus, Moses never pleaded on behalf of all the innocent children that would die that night. Nice guy.

Some more things that supposedly happened by faith: the people walked through the Red Sea on dry land, the walls of Jericho fell, Rahab welcomed spies and was not killed. These are all stories that most likely never happened, so faith had nothing to do with them. Besides, if faith was a factor, it wasn't faith in Jesus or a resurrection, was it?

Till next time.

Hebrews part fourteen

We are now at Hebrews chapter eleven, verse 4. Will the famous faith chapter convince us to have faith in Jesus our heavenly high priest? We shall see. The reader is now going to be told about various old testament characters who had faith. First up is Abel. According to the author, faith made Able give a better sacrifice than Cain did. What was different about Abel's sacrifice? It was a Blood sacrifice. The Hebrews author has already told us blood needs to be shed for god to keep his promises. Cain didn't get the blood sacrifice thing so he offered grain. God liked Abel's sacrifice better. As we all know, Cain killed Abel. Now Abel is dead. (Genesis 4)However, according to Hebrews, Abel still speaks by faith. I can't hear him. Can you?

The next faithful person mentioned is Enoch. Enoch didn't die. The old testament tells us god took him away. (Genesis 5) Enoch pleased god because he had faith. "Without faith it is impossible to please god....Anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." You gotta believe, or you get nutthin'. And sometimes you get nothing even when you believe.

Next up: Noah. He built the ark by faith when he was warned about the future flood. By faith he saved his family and condemned the rest of the world. That way he became one of the heirs of righteousness. Great job Noah! It's so righteous to watch everyone die while you float away to safety.

Abraham is fourth on the faithful list. Abraham went to a far away land because a voice in his head told him that the land would eventually be his. He believed it. Abraham lived in the foreign land. So did his son Isaac and grandson Jacob. They were also supposed to be  heirs of the promise that had been given to Abraham. I don't remember if they  heard the voice in their heads too. Abraham's faith made him believe the voice in his head when it told him he would have descendants that were as numerous as stars or grains of sand. Even though his wife was barren and Abraham was no spring chicken, his faith in the voice enabled him to become a father. Is that how babies are made, through faith?

Each of the faithful people mentioned are said to have remained faithful till they died. (Let that be a lesson to you.) They never actually got what the voice in their heads promised them. They just "saw and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted they were aliens and strangers on earth." Except, the Old testament never says that those faithful people  saw and welcomed a promise from a distance. And the only time any of them said they were aliens and strangers was in Genesis 23:4, when Abraham told the Hittites that he was a stranger among them.

Even though those people never said those things, the Hebrews author says that people who do say those things are "looking for a country of their own." (Or one that they can take away from someone else?) Otherwise, they would have taken the opportunity to return to the country they had left. He must be talking just  about Abraham, because this doesn't apply to all the others. The author goes on to say "They (Who's they?) were looking for a better country-- a heavenly one." Of course they were. That's why they never actually mentioned it. Must have slipped their minds.Nevertheless, that''s why god has prepared a (heavenly) city for them. Lucky dogs.

Till next time.

Hebrews part thirteen

We are now at Hebrews 10:32. The author is reminding the readers of earlier days when they had "received the light" and stood their ground "in a great contest in the face of suffering." They were publicly insulted and persecuted, and supported others who were similarly treated. They sympathized with those in prison and "joyfully accepted the confiscation of their property." (What do you want to bet they weren't as joyful as the author makes out.) They did all this because they had "better and lasting possessions." You know, those perfect heavenly things of which earthly things are only a shadow: shadow furniture, shadow clothes, shadow food.

The readers need to remember their perseverance in doing the will of god will be richly rewarded, after they are dead, or maybe even sooner. After all, Habbakuk 2:3-4 says, "He who is coming will come and not delay. But my righteous one will live by faith. And if he shrinks back, I will not be pleased with him."

As usual there is a problem with the author quoting the passage from Habakkuk. It's not a person, but a thing, that will come without delay, specifically a revelation about "the end." Also, the author left out a couple of words and phrases that don't fit his narrative. He also completely makes up that bit at the end about not pleasing god if you shrink back. It's not in Habbakuk. That doesn't stop him from making it important though. He goes on to say, "We are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed but of those who believe and are saved." He's got that kind of backward, hasn't he? The believers often ended up being destroyed. Those who recanted were saved. At least in this shadow world.

We are now in chapter eleven, the most famous chapter of this book. It is all about faith. The author has been leading us to this point so that he can make the case for faith. He believes that if you haven't got faith, you haven't got anything. He defines faith as: "Being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." That's the NIV version. You may be more familiar with the KJV, "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." The NIV version sounds almost like a definition of extreme optimism. The KJV version sounds delusional. What do tangible thing do you actually have when you have faith? No-thing! There is no substance to faith, so it can't be actual evidence of the invisible.

This author is playing fast and loose with reality. He's making bald assertions that make no sense. He's basically saying that having faith in something is what makes it true. People have faith in all kinds of things. Is all faith in unseen things equal evidence for those things' existence? The author continues to play on the theme of faith and the unseen by telling the reader that it is by faith that they "understand the universe was made at god's command (nothing but faith), so that what us seen was not made out of what was visible." Don't tell me...God made something out of nothing! How clever of him to do just what christians claim can't be done. God himself doesn't have substance.  So, if we don't have faith in this assertion, how was the universe made? Good question. We've got top minds working on it. In the meantime, you can get the general idea from here. You might also try reading A Universe From Nothing? by Sean Carrol.

Till next time.

Hebrews part twelve

We are at Hebrews chapter ten. The Hebrews are told, "The law is only a shadow of things that are coming-- not the realities themselves." Here we go again with earthly things being shadows of perfect heavenly things. Again the author goes over the previous necessity of regular earthly  sacrifices and how they were a shadow of christ's single sacrifice of himself.

In fact, the author claims christ said, "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. (Even though you mandated them.) Then I said, 'Here I am-- it is written about me in the scroll--I have come to do your will o god.'"

But Jesus never actually said that. Whoever wrote Psalm 40:6-8 did. My bible says it is a Psalm of David. Again, is the author of Hebrews suggesting Jesus is a reincarnation of David?  Also, the author of Hebrews left out a few parts of the original Psalm. There it claims god pierced the speaker's ears. Ear piercing was a sign that you were someone's slave. In this case David would be claiming to be god's slave. That's not in the letter to the Hebrews. Another thing: in verse eight of that Psalm, the writer says to god, "your law is in my heart." He looks on the law as the will of god, not a shadow of a greater reality. Nowhere in the Psalm is it said that the speaker (Jesus or David?) will be literally sacrificing his own body. That is the personal interpretation of the Hebrews writer.

The author goes on to say that after the christ made his one time sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of god. Again we are told about enemies becoming (Jesus or David's?) footstools. Again we are told that the holy spirit spoke in Jeremiah 31:33-34, when god says he will put his law in the Jews' hearts and minds, and forget their sins. Since they are forgiven, "there is no longer any need for sacrifice for sin."

So, now the brothers (Jews) get to enter the most holy place (the heavenly temple) by the blood of Jesus. Yay? Jesus's body has become the new living curtain into the holy place. Eww. The hearts of the faithful have been sprinkled (with Jesus's blood) to cleanse them from a guilty conscience. Is that invisible/metaphorical sprinkled blood? The author also mentions having their bodies washed with pure water. That seems to be a reference to actual water and bodies, so he must be referring to baptism. I think.

Next the readers are told to hold on to their faith, because of what they've been promised. They also need to "spur one another on to love and good deeds." (I'm sure it's figurative, but "spurring" sounds painful.) They also need to keep meeting together, even more as "the day" approaches. That day hasn't arrived yet, over 1,500 years later.

Also, no more sinning. (Define sin) If the readers keep sinning, jesus's sacrifice for sins will get used up and run out. That would make them enemies of god who will eventually be consumed by raging fire. After all, the law of Moses contained the death penalty, without mercy for sinners. How much worse should it be for those who "trample the son of god under foot?" This trampling of Jesus is obviously figurative, will the burning of sinners be as well? Sinners are treating the blood of the new covenant as unholy and insulting the spirit of grace. For shame! Uh, oh, don't forget, vengeance is god's and he will repay. "It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the lord." But don't worry, be happy.

Till next time.

Hebrews part eleven

We are at Hebrews 9:6. After mentioning all the temple accoutrements that he can't discuss yet, the author says the priests entered the outer room of the tabernacle regularly to carry out their duties, but only the high priest entered the inner room. He only entered that room once a year, and with blood to offer for the sins of the people and his own sins. However, the sacrifices couldn't actually clear the conscience of the worshipper. They are just external physical things based on ceremonial, external regulations.

"When Jesus came as high priest... he went through a greater, more perfect tabernacle that was not manmade, that is to say, not part of this creation." Hmmm. Where would it be then? In another dimension? Jesus didn't enter that mystical, invisible holy place by the blood of animals, but by his own blood! When the blood of animals was ceremonially sprinkled on people, it made them outwardly clean. (Really? It sounds messy to me.) But the blood of Christ, having much greater power, can  cleanse consciences! When consciences are clean, people don't die (Really? People die every day.). Then they can serve god! Huzzah!

That makes christ the mediator of the new covenant. If you say so. Those who are called get to inherit eternal life! What does it mean to be called, and how do you know when you've been called? That doesn't matter, Jesus died to set people free from the sins they committed under the first covenant. What if they were born too late to commit sins under the first covenant? I'm a little confused.

Now the author moves into a metaphor of a will. A will only takes effect after a person has died, never when they are alive. This is why the first covenant need blood to make it effective. What?! That doesn't make sense to me. The author goes on to talk about the covenant, Moses, and blood. Moses sprinkled blood on everything, the scroll of the covenant, the tabernacle, and all the ceremonial stuff. That cleansed it. Blood cleanses everything, according to the author. That's sick. Seriously. Visualize blood literally being spattered and sprinkled everywhere, to "cleanse" things and people. Does that make any sense at all? Whose twisted idea was that any way?

The author tries to explain this earthly nonsense away by saying it is just a copy of the real heavenly stuff, with better sacrifices. Christ (as high priest with the blood) didn't enter the manmade sanctuary, but the true heavenly one. He appears in god's presence for the Hebrews (as "us" is meant by the author). He doesn't have to go in over and over again as the earthly high priests do with the blood of animals. That would be silly. Then he would have to suffer over and over again, since it's his own blood that he sacrificed. Nope. He only had to Sacrifice himself once to do away with sin. One wonders if the author is referring to a literal physical sacrifice with literal physical blood of a literal physical christ. Or did that also happen in another dimension? Is it spiritual blood from the spiritual sacrifice of a spiritual christ?

The author goes on to say people die once and then face judgment. So christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people. Is that bible logic again? There's more! He's going to appear a second time! (When was the first?) Next time he won't be bearing any sins, but saving "those who are waiting for him."  So, it appears Jesus died for the dead. He will come back for the living. Maybe the author of Hebrews thinks he will be among the living.

That ends chapter nine.

Hebrews part ten

We are now in Hebrews chapter eight. The author is still talking about highpriest!Jesus. He tells the displaced Hebrews they do have a high priest. Their high priest sits at the right hand of god and serves in the true tabernacle, the one in heaven.

High priests have the job of offering gifts and sacrifices to deities. They offer up stuff other people give them. If Jesus were on earth, he wouldn't be a high priest, because there are already people doing that job. But the temple they work in is merely a shadow of the one in heaven. This is very similar to the Platonist theory of forms, where earthly objects are mere shadows of some perfect Form which exists in another dimension. Strictly speaking, Plato's perfect forms probably wouldn't be actual tangible objects that are part of a heavenly kingdom ruled over by a specific deity. The author of Hebrews just appears to be using the idea of earthly shadows of "heavenly" forms for his own purposes. When philosophies become popular and mainstream, they too become shadows of their true forms, if they could be said to have true forms.

Of course shadows are inferior to the real thing. So, the heavenly temple is superior to the earthly one. The heavenly high priest is superior to the earthly one. The ministry Jesus received is superior to the one Moses received. The covenant he is mediator of "is superior to the old , and founded on better promises." Wait. When god made the old covenant, it was supposed to be an everlasting covenant. Yahweh promised. How does one everlasting covenant supersede another? Unless...a covenant is just a human invention?

Were yahweh's first promises defective in some way? Is Yahweh not perfect? Well, according to the author of Hebrews, there was something wrong with the first covenant. If there wasn't, "no place would have been sought for another." (?!) The proof, says the author,  is found in Jeremiah 31:31-34.
There, god said he will one day make a new covenant with the the house of Israel and the house of Judah. In other words, with the Hebrews, not with the Gentiles. The author of Hebrews was taking this passage in Jeremiah and saying that the new covenant god talked about making in the future was actually being made.

This new covenant was going to take god's laws and write them in the Israelites' hearts and minds, they wouldn't need to be taught them from other people. Everyone (Jews) would instinctively know god. This would eventually make the old covenant obsolete. Then after a while it would disappear as old things do. Pretty interesting. However, it seems that god is not doing that great a job of writing stuff on people's hearts and minds. Why else would the author have called them "slow to learn" back in 5:11.

We are now at chapter nine. Verses 1-4 list many of the physical objects that were placed in the original tabernacle that god requested the Israelites create. There were lamp stands, tables, curtains, an altar, the ark of the covenant, a jar of manna, Aaron's staff, etc. Surely each of those was a shadow of something heavenly. Do tell. Nope. The author says he can't discuss those things in detail right now. I don't think any new testament author ever gets around to explaining the heavenly meaning of all the temple/tabernacle paraphernalia. Next, we go back to comparing Jesus to the high priest.

Till then.

Hebrews part nine

We are now at Hebrews 7:11. The author has just tried to convince us that Melchizedek is greater than Abraham, the Levites, and all Abraham's descendants. This is important to the author because he is trying to convince his readers that Jesus is a priest in the order of Melchizedek. That would make Jesus greater than all of them as well.

The author now tells us that the Levitical priesthood was not perfect. If it was, why would we need a another priest in the order of Melchizedek? Um. Why do we need one anyway? And who decided we needed one? As far as I can tell, this is of the author's own invention. The concept of Jesus as a high priest in the order of Melchizedek is found only in the book of Hebrews. In fact, the concept of Jesus as any kind of priest is found only in Hebrews.

1 Peter 2:5 and 9 mentions the body of believers as being a "holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices to god through Jesus christ." But that's not the same thing as what the author of Hebrews is saying, is it? Revelation 5:10 speaks of people of all nations being made into a kingdom of priests to serve god while they reign on earth. Revelation 20:6 speaks of the same thing and adds that these future priests of god are going to be the ones who were beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus. No high priest Jesus is mentioned.

The author of Hebrews goes on to say, "when there is a change of priesthood, there must also be a change of law."   Why? Because he says so. He goes on to say that it is clear that Jesus belonged to a tribe that  never served at the altar, the tribe of Judah. How does the author know this? What makes it clear? My study bible refers me to Psalm 11, which is assumed by christians to be a prophecy about the messiah, or Jesus. This Psalm speaks of the tribe of Judah and "the root of Jesse." It is interpreted as meaning a messiah that comes from the lineage of David. It is possible that this author presupposes Jesus was the messiah. Therefore, he must be of the Davidic line, if the Psalm was talking about the messiah. If you want to make scripture work for your pet belief, there is always a way.

According to the author, all this becomes clear if another Melchizedek like priest 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." But it doesn't hurt if we say he is from the lineage of David. Does all of this circular thinking make your head spin?

We go on to read that the old Mosaic law was weak and useless because it didn't make anything perfect. Could that be because there is no such thing as perfection? That old law is set aside and now there is a better hope. God swore, and will not change his mind, that someone is a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek. Guess what, that someone is Jesus! Other priests died in office. Jesus lives forever, so he has a permanent priesthood. That way he can save everyone who comes to god through him, because he can intercede for them forever. And boy do they need it.

Jesus is not like other high priests. He is holy and sinless. He doesn't have to offer daily sacrifices for his own sins and the sins of the people (Jews). "He sacrificed for their sins once and for all when he offered himself." If I remember correctly, Jesus did not go willingly to his death. He had a change of heart near the end. At least according to Mark.

Chapter seven end with the author telling us  the law appoints high priests who are weak. God's oath about the priest in the order of Melchizedek came after the law. It appointed "the son, who has been made perfect forever." Or at least that is what is assumed.

As a reminder: I am using an NIV study bible. All opinions are my own, unless otherwise stated. Share this site if you think anyone you know might enjoy it.

Hebrews part eight.

We continue at Hebrews 6:9-12. The author appeals to the readers to continue to be be diligent and faithful to the end, imitating those faithful who have already inherited the promised salvation by their faith and patience.

In verse 13, the author invokes Abraham, the original Hebrew patriarch. God swore on himself to Abraham a promise to bless him with many descendants. Abraham waited patiently and got what he was promised! After he was dead. Of course this promise is referring to the Hebrews to whom the author is writing.

Next the author goes on to use biblical logic to explain how god's oath was so special because god cannot lie; and it should be clear to the heirs of the promise that the nature of his purpose is unchanging. Next, is an interesting sentence: "We who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged." Whoah. "We who have fled?" The author is including himself among a group of Jews who has fled from somewhere? Why does no one ever talk about that?

Is that hope the hope of an afterlife/sabbath rest that was spoken of previously? I think it is. The author continues to tell the reader that the hope is an anchor for the soul. "It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, where Jesus who went before us, has entered on our behalf." This is obviously a metaphor. The inner sanctuary represents the presence of god. The physical inner sanctuary was in the physical temple. Jesus never actually entered the temple sanctuary. Only the high priest entered the inner sanctuary of the physical temple. Since Jesus is called a high priest in the order of Melchizedek, he has entered the presence of god. Or since Jesus has entered the presence of God, he must be a high priest. Either way works for the author's purpose.

We are now in chapter seven. The author continues to talk of Melchizedek. He says that Melchizedek was priest of god most high. His name means "king of righteousness." Being the king of Salem, he was also the "king of peace", because Salem means peace. Then the author tells us Melchizedek had no mother, no father, no genealogy, no beginning of days or end of life, like the son of god he remains a priest forever.

Let us remember that there was no punctuation in the original greek manuscripts. Just suppose I put a period after "like the son of god." What happens then? The son of god has no, mother, no father, no genealogy, no beginning of days or end of life! Who is this son of god? Is he the same person we read about in Matthew and Luke? I don't think the author of Hebrews has read those "gospel" accounts. I don't think Paul did either. Not to mention Timothy, James, Peter, Jude, or Mark. Was he even an actual factual person?

In verse four, the author of Hebrews goes on to talk about how great Melchizedek was. Even Abraham gave him one tenth of some plunder. The law of Moses required the Jews to give 1/10 of everything to the levitical priests who were also descendants of Abraham. Melchizedek was not a descendant of Abraham, but he collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed him. Blessings are given by greater people to lesser. (More bible logic) The Levite priests are men who die, but Melchizedek is declared to be living. Really? Where? I think he means in Psalms when someone wrote Melchizedek is a priest forever. That seems to be interpreted as having eternal life.

Next is some of the weirdest bible logic I've ever read: "One might even say that Levi (in the form of the levitical priests), who collects the tenth (from the Jews), paid the tenth through Abraham, because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor." That is one convoluted messed up way to prove that the Jews retroactively paid a tenth to Melchizedek and were blessed by him.

More next time.

Hebrews part seven

We are at Hebrews 5:7. The author tells us that when Jesus was alive he prayed super fervently to "the one who could save him from death" and his prayers were heard. Really? But he wasn't saved from death at all!

The author goes on to say that even though Jesus was a son, "he learned obedience from what he suffered." So, before he suffered, he wasn't obedient? Also, the author tells us that once Jesus was made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him." So, there was a time when Jesus wasn't perfect? There was a time when he was not the source of eternal salvation?

After all the suffering, obedience, and becoming perfect, god designated Jesus "to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek." In case you don't know about Melchizedek, read about him here. There are several possible reasons why Melchizedek is invoked here. One is that Jesus is obviously not a Levite and could not have become an earthly 2nd temple high priest in his day. Another is that the priestly order of Melchizedek seems to be legitimized by Psalm 110. So if Jesus was not a levitical priest, he must have been a Melchizedek kind of priest. That's logic. A third explanation is that this was written after the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, and the levitical priesthood is pretty much defunct.

In verse 11, the author goes on to say that this stuff is hard to explain because the readers are dimwitted. By this time, they should be the ones teaching this stuff but they need to keep having it explained to them over and over again. They are like babies. They can't handle the meaty stuff, which is teaching about righteousness. The mature have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil. What do good and evil have to do with the doctrine of Jesus as high priest? Not only that, perhaps they can't retain understanding because it doesn't make sense when they go home and think about it.

We are now heading into chapter six. The author tells us we need to "leave the elementary teachings about christ and go on to maturity..." What were the elementary teachings? "Repentance from acts that lead to death, faith in god, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgement." Do any of those teachings need Jesus? Not as far as I can see. I think they all existed before Christianity came on the scene.

In verse four, the author goes on to say that if those who have once been enlightened by all the heavenly spiritual stuff fall away, they can't be brought back to repentance...(I can attest to the truth of that. I can't be brought back, because I no longer believe the nonsense.) .....because to their loss they are crucifying the son of god all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace." See what I mean about nonsense? You can't crucify a 2,000 year old dead man all over again. You can't subject him to public disgrace, he's not around to feel any shame. But his followers are. They are the ones who feel humiliated by those who "fall away" and reject the teachings about Jesus.

The author then compares those who believe to fertile land receiving the blessing of god in produce.  Those who don't believe  are compared to worthless land that produces thorn and thistles. "In the end it will be burned. " Burning land was/is a way of clearing it of unwanted growth. The Christ followers couldn't literally burn nonbelievers, so they had to be content with projecting the act into the future.

Till next time.

Hebrews part six

We are now at the beginning of Hebrews chapter four. Of course the original writings had no chapters and verses, so the text continues on about the subject of "god's rest." The author claims that the original promise of entering god's rest, to the Jews who didn't disobey, still stands. He conveniently passes over the general knowledge that the original promise was not speaking of some spiritual paradise. Could it be because, at the time the book was written, the majority of Jews were displaced from Canaan and needed to reinvent a definition of god's rest, so that it could still be true?

The message of god's rest (for the faithful Jews) is practically defined as the gospel message in verse 4:2! Those Old Testament Jews from Egypt didn't get anything out of the message because they didn't have faith! The people the author is writing to believe the message, so they will get to enter god's rest. All this has been prearranged since the creation. Didn't it say in Genesis that god rested on the seventh day? Some people get to enter god's rest, but not those disobedient people of old. That's why god spoke through David and told the people not to harden their hearts if they heard his voice. I don't know. Is it a good idea to listen to disembodied voices? How would you know if they were telling the truth?

The author of Hebrews goes on to say Joshua didn't give them rest , because god spoke about "the rest" again later, presumably in the Psalm previously referred to in chapter three. However, Joshua 21:40 says, The lord gave them (the Israelites) "rest" on every side, just as he had sworn to their forefathers. we go to Joshua 22:4, we see that three tribes got the "rest" god promised. Further on, in Joshua 23:1, we see the Israelites given "rest" from their enemies. What was the originally promised rest? Rest from enemies! See Deuteronomy 12:8-9, 25:19. However, in 4:10, the author of Hebrews equates it with rest from life's labor, just as god rested after working on creation.

The readers of Hebrews are told to make every effort to enter the rest through obedience. Obedience to who or what? Well, the next sentence says "the word of god is living and active. Sharper than any two edged sword... It judges thoughts and attitudes of the heart." Is this "word of god" the scriptures of the Old Testament? Or is it what the believers "hear" god saying to them?

In verse 14, we are back to reading about Jesus as a great high priest who has been through the heavens. It is spelled out here: Jesus is the son of god. Not only that, he can sympathize with our weaknesses because he was tempted in every way we are, but without sin. That means we can approach his throne and receive mercy. This is an allusion to literal lawbreakers having to stand before a king and receive his judgement, as was common in those days.

We now move into Hebrews chapter five. There we read about how high priests are selected and appointed to represent the people (Jews) in matters related to god. They offer sacrifices for sins and deal "gently" with the ignorant an those going astray. I bet. The priest isn't perfect, that's why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins as well as those of the people (Jews). High priests are called by god, just like Aaron was, they don't take the honor upon themselves. Hah! Isn't that just what they do, since there are no gods actually calling people?

Jesus also didn't take the high priesthood on himself. Didn't god say to him, "You are my son, today I have become your father." Well, technically, it was written by author of Psalm 2:7, who was writing about god installing him as king. There is no reason to believe a god ever said it, or that Jesus was the one said god was speaking to. Also, how does being told you are god's son make you the great high priest? The author of Hebrews has that covered. In another place (Psalm 110:4), god said, "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek." That Psalm is labelled as a Psalm of David and reads like a promise from a god to a warrior king. What does it have to do with Jesus? Nothing, as far as I can see, except whatever the author of Hebrews finds in his imagination. A pinch of one Psalm and a dash of another makes a high priest named Jesus.

Hebrews part five

We are at Hebrews 2:14. The author has been putting old testament words into Jesus's mouth, having him declare god has given him children , which one can only assume are supposed to be Jesus's followers. Next follows more of the author's peculiar logic: "Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death-that is the devil-and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death." So, it is the devil who holds the power of death and not god? Who gave him that power? How in the world does one man's death destroy the devil (who doesn't even exist) by dying? How is anyone freed from the fear of death? We all still die. The prospect of death is a horror which we spend our lives pretending will never happen to us. Even those who are religious would rather live than die, in spite of what they preach.

Verse 16 goes on to say that Jesus's death does not help the angels but Abraham's descendants, (the Jews). So, he had to be made like his brothers (the Jews) in every way. News flash: it does not sound like this letter was written by Paul who insisted that the Gospel was about the gentiles also having salvation, maybe even being favored as god's children above the Jews! Jesus is said to have been human so that he could become a high priest who could make atonement for the sins of the people (the Jews).

Because Jesus suffered when he was tempted (Tell us again when that was?) he is able to help those who are being tempted. How? Seriously, what exactly does Jesus do to help someone who is being tempted? And what are these temptations? Do they have anything to do with breaking the hundreds of arbitrary rules and regulations of Judaism that their god gave them through Moses?

We move into chapter three. The brothers (probably Jews) who share in the heavenly calling (what's that?) are to fix their thoughts on Jesus, the apostle and high priest. Jesus is a guy who wears many hats. So far he is the son of god; he speaks through the Old Testament; he is the son of man- a human; he is a brother to the children of god; he is a devil/ death destroyer; he is an apostle (?); and a high priest. (The apostle one stumps me. Maybe we will hear more about it later. Perhaps it means he was an apostle to the Jews as Paul considered himself an apostle to the gentiles.)

Next, we are told Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses. I bet that was shocking to Jewish sensibilities. God is the builder of everything, Moses was his faithful servant. The christ is the faithful son over god's house. "We" (the Hebrews/Jews) are god's house....if  we hold on to courage and hope. Now I am even more thinking this must have been written to Jewish believers after the fall of Jerusalem, definitely not gentiles.

The next passage, verses 7-11 is another quote from the old testament, Psalm 95:7-11. The author of Hebrews tells us that this time it is the "holy spirit" talking. How can he tell the difference between the words of the holy spirit, god, and Jesus? If we read through the Psalm it appears to be speaking words that mention the lord/god in the third person. So, if the words are divine, who else could be saying them? The holy spirit! Duh.

The passage speaks of Jews hearing Jesus's voice and not hardening their hearts like they did in the rebellious Mosaic desert wanderings that lasted forty years. The brothers (jews) are not to have sinful unbelieving hearts. They must hold firmly onto confidence to the end. All those who Moses led out into the desert from Egypt were the ones who rebelled against what they heard. Moses was angry with them and they ended up dying in the desert because god swore they would never enter his rest as a result of their unbelief. "His rest" is a metaphor for the land of Canaan/ the promised land, which the author of Hebrews uses as a metaphor  for an afterlife in some kind of paradise. We will see that in chapter four.

Till next time.

Hebrews part four

We are at Hebrews 2:5. Now the author quotes Psalm 8:4-6,  "What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? You made him a little lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honor and put everything under his feet." He goes on to equate Jesus with the "son of man" who was made lower than the angels. (Is it possible for god's exact representation, Hebrews 1:3, to be lower than the angels?) Every thing is subject to Jesus, but the author did not see everything subject to him, yet. This is the first time the name of Jesus is mentioned. He doesn't seem to have quite the stature of the Son of god mentioned earlier. Are they the same person?

The author goes on to say Jesus is crowned with glory and honor, BECAUSE he suffered death. Did he not have glory and honor before he died? We are then told that by the grace of god Jesus tasted death for everyone. Ah grace, that undefinable something that is supposed to be good. This time it is responsible for a senseless death. Jesus tasted death for us, but we still must die. What good was that?
Well, according to verse ten, it brought many sons to glory. What happened to the daughters? Did they get any of the glory? What is glory exactly?

So,  according to Hebrews 2:10, god made the author of salvation (Jesus) perfect through suffering. Was he not perfect beforehand? Hmm. Next, we are told "Both the one who makes men holy (Jesus) and those who are made holy (other people?) are members of the same family. So, Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers." The proof of this is supposedly found in a quote from Psalm 22:22,  "I will declare your name to my brothers; in the presence of the congregation I will sing your praises."

Psalm 22 is supposed to be a Psalm of David. The whole Psalm is often claimed to be a prophecy about the christ. However, the Psalm author wrote it in the first person and appears to have been addressing god. The Hebrew author is suggesting that the Psalm is the words of the christ, written at least a few hundred years before Jesus was ever born. (Again, does he believe Jesus is the reincarnation of David?)Therefore, by some weird magic, the brothers mentioned in the Psalm can't be "the descendants of Jacob" mentioned later in the Psalm? They must be those people Jesus is making holy. And who are those people? I'm not sure that has been made clear yet.

In verse 13, the Hebrews author quotes a phrase that starts at the end  of Isaiah 8:17 and goes into the beginning of Isaiah 8:18. "I will put my trust in him. Here am I, and the children god has given me." The context is god speaking to and through Isaiah about the Israelites, from whom god is hiding his face. After the words that Isaiah says were from god, he gives his own statement of loyalty to god. That's what the first sentence of the Hebrew quote is. The children in the second sentence of the quote are Isaiahs own flesh and blood children, as can be seen in the beginning of Isaiah chapter 8. However, strangely enough, the Hebrews author attributes those word to Jesus! How can that be? Is Jesus also a reincarnation of Isaiah?

It's almost like the author of Hebrews flipped through the old testament, stuck his finger in, and declared verses to be the words of Jesus. Either that or he deliberately searched for passages to fit his narrative. Surely that can't be it.

More to come.

Hebrews part three.

I'm back. Somehow life goes on, even when your heart has been smashed into a million pieces by the inconceivable and unexplainable.

We continue on in Hebrews chapter one at verse ten. There the author makes a quote that he attributes to god speaking about the christ. "In the beginning, o lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands." First of all, this exact phrase does not seem to appear as is in the Old Testament. It appears to be a mash up of Psalm 8:6 and Zechariah 12:1. Second, the logic seems to be: if scripture is the word of god, and god is saying these things, and god appears to be talking to someone else. Who else could that someone be? Must be the christ!

Verse 11 contains a small piece of Isaiah 51:6, "they (the heavens) will wear out like a garment." Verse 12 is a reconstruction of Psalm 102:25-27, You will roll them (the heavens)up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed, but you remain the same, and your years will never end." Again, this is supposed to be the words of god speaking about the christ. I guess the writer couldn't admit to himself that the OT scriptures were not the words of god, but someone else talking about god.

Hebrews 1:10-12 is supposed to be a single quote from god, but what we find is words picked from multiple Psalms, Isaiah, and Zechariah. They are all sewed together to prove the author's point by seeming to be a cohesive unit. And who is going to know any better if they don't have access to scriptures?

In verse 13, the author tells us that god never told any angels to sit at his right hand until he makes their enemies into a foot stool, now did he? No, but he said that to someone in Psalm 110:1, which was supposed to have been written by David about someone called "the lord." Must be Jesus!! Hallelujah.

In verse 14, the author veers off course and says, "aren't angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?" This must be so because, according to my study bible,  Psalm 91 implies it and the story of Daniel in the lion's den proves it. That's logic.

That concludes chapter one. Chapter two continues on with the angel theme. The readers are told to pay careful attention to what they've heard (from whom?) and not drift away. The message spoken by angels is binding and disobedience results in punishment that we can't escape if we ignore the message of salvation. Nice. What choice do we have?

So....about this message of salvation. We are not yet told exactly what is was, or who it came through. Maybe the author will enlighten us later, or maybe he thinks we already know. It was apparently first announced by "the lord" and confirmed by those who had heard him, whoever they were. Apparently the author was not one who personally heard him. I'm assuming that "the lord" here refers to the christ, because the next sentence says that god also testified to it by distributing miraculous signs and gifts. Not any more.

We will pause here. Till next time.

Hebrews part two

We are in Hebrews 1:5. The author is giving us old testament scriptures that show god telling some man he is gods son. We haven't actually been given Jesus's name yet, but it is assumed the reader knows who the author is referring to. The implication is that Jesus is god's son and that it was foretold in the Hebrew scriptures. We've read the first quoted scripture from Psalms and have seen that it is problematic as a foretelling of Jesus. It is most likely referring to David.

 Let's look at the next scripture given. It comes from 2 Samuel 7:14. "I will be his father, he will be my son." These words of god are coming from the prophet Samuel and being told to David, about David. In fact the rest of the verse reads "when he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men." Is god really also speaking of Jesus here?

The next Old Testament verse quoted is supposed to be about when god's first born came into the world (aka the birth of Jesus). Deuteronomy 32:43: "Let all god's angel's worship him." There is a problem with this sentence. It is not found in all the manuscripts of Deuteronomy, just one dead sea scroll and the Septuagint. It is obviously an addition. Not only that, when the phrase is put in context, the subject is god, not Jesus. The angels are worshipping god, not his son at all. There is no mention of god's son in Deuteronomy 32.

The author of Hebrews then goes off on a tangent. "Speaking of angels" he decides to include an Old Testament reference to angels, Psalm 104:4. "He makes his angels winds and his servants flames of fire." Even though this phrase has nothing to do with Jesus, it is interesting, in that the author has quoted this scripture differently than how it appears in the context of the Psalm. In  Psalm 104, natural elements are being created and used by god for his purposes. "He makes the wind his messengers and flames of fire his servants." He does not start with spiritual beings and turn them into forces of nature.   The author of Hebrews is clearly playing word games.

Back to the son. The author of Hebrews next quotes Psalm 45:6-7. "Your throne, o god, will last forever and ever, and righteousness ("justice" in my OT) will be the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore god, your god, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy." What in the world is the oil of joy? First of all, in context, this Psalm specifically states in verse one that it was written for the king who lived at that time. What king? We don't know, but nevertheless, an earthly king born in the lineage of David, long before Jesus. He is called a man in verse two. He is also called god in verse six.

Guess what, it was not  uncommon for kings in ancient days to be thought of as gods themselves. However, the same terminology was often used for gods and kings, even when the kings were not considered divine, such as "lord" and "master." This is terminology that was also used for Jesus in the New Testament. My study bible notes say that the king was probably called god as an honorific, because he was god's representative on earth. However, it is a false equivalence to assume that every king or revered person called god actually was a supernatural god. Not to mention, the same individual called god in the Old Testament Psalms was not in any way the same person as Jesus.

Did the Jews believe in reincarnation? Did they believe he was David reborn? Do Christians believe that? That's almost what they would have to believe in order to believe this Psalm is talking about Jesus. Otherwise, the author is just cherry picking phrases that he likes and applying them to his perception of who Jesus was. In fact, I am beginning to be convinced that is exactly what Jesus's followers originally believed. When he was called the son of god or the christ (anointed one), I think they knew very well that those phrases referred to King David, the king of the Jews.

Remember in Mark, when Jesus asked Peter who people thought he was. Peter replied "Some say
John the Baptist, some say Elijah." Jesus would have been a reincarnation to be John or Elijah. Peter
then told Jesus that he believed Jesus was the christ. Who would have been reincarnated then? David! No wonder Jesus told his disciples not to tell people about him. No wonder he was killed for claiming to be king of the Jews! That makes sense to me, what do you think?

Introduction to Hebrews and part one.

I think our next book to study will be Hebrews. I tried to do an in depth study of Hebrews a couple of times as a christian and gave up. I was using a Bible study guide before. It only confused me because there seemed to be a lot of speculation and subjective opinion. Let's see how it goes this time.

First, let's read what Wikipedia has to say about the book of Hebrews here.

Hebrews is called an epistle or letter because there is a postscript which sounds personal, mentions Timothy, and sends greetings to unspecified leaders from unspecified persons in Italy. However, there is no greeting or address from or to a specific person or church at the beginning of Hebrews. There is also no claim of authorship in the entire book. The mention of Italy seems to suggest authorship by Paul or his cohorts, which may be exactly what the author intended us to think. The main body of the text, before the postscript, ends with an amen, leading me to think that was the original ending. Multiple other authors have been hypothesized throughout the centuries. The author still remains unknown.

The date of the writing is also unknown, with speculations ranging from 63 CE on into the second century. The oldest existing manuscripts of Hebrews are fragments from the late second century-early third century.  The book appears to be directed specifically at Jewish christians.

The book begins by talking about how god spoke to the Hebrews of old through the prophets but in those "last days" he spoke through his son. (If those were the last days, what are these days?) Right off the bat, Jesus is identified as the son of god. He is the heir of all things. Why does god need an heir? Is he going to die? That's what heirs are for, right? They inherit the father's property upon his death. If the father is eternal, what happens to the heir?

Next we are told that the universe was made through the son. This is news. The son didn't appear in the first chapter of Genesis. Oh wait, next we are told the son is the "radiance of god's glory." Is he shiny? Maybe he is the light in "let there be light." Next we are told the son is the exact representation of god's being. What does that mean? Is he the spitting image of god? In what way? Is he a clone? Does god have a body? If not, did Jesus have a body? That is not clear yet. We are also told the son sustains all things by his powerful word. Again, what in the heck does that mean? How does he do that?

The text then assumes that we know how the son provided purification for sins, after which he sat at the right hand of god in heaven. Presumably, god and Jesus have bottoms to sit with and heavenly chairs to sit on, unless they sit on clouds. In this way the son became superior to the angels, because God never called any angel his son. How do we know god called anyone his son? Must we take them at their word? What if Jesus was actually a liar, or a lunatic? If someone today told you god spoke to him and told him he was god's son, what would you think? You and I both know you would think he is bonkers.

The text gives two old testament references for god calling someone his son. Let's take a look at them. The first is Psalm 2:7. Who wrote this? Nobody knows, but it is presumed to be David speaking. Who is it talking about? "God's anointed one" which is a phrase for the king god has sanctified to lead the Jews, presumably David. This is all about the king/David being called god's son and being given the nations as an inheritance. (Not only that, The psalm goes on to say he will dash them to pieces like pottery!) Is the writer of the book of Hebrews referring to David? Nope. He's referring to Jesus. Is Jesus going to dash the nations to pieces like pottery? Hmm. That psalm also goes on to say that kings better kiss the son or he might get angry and destroy them. Nice guy this son of god.