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.
Showing posts with label high priest. Show all posts
Showing posts with label high priest. Show all posts
Thursday, May 16, 2019
Friday, May 3, 2019
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 30, 2019
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.
"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.
Sunday, April 28, 2019
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.
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.
Thursday, April 25, 2019
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 24, 2019
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.
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.
Sunday, April 21, 2019
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.
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.
Friday, April 19, 2019
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 17, 2019
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)