• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

LET'S TALK ABOUT THE BOOK OF HEBREWS

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cap
  • Start date Start date
Heb 1:7- Of the angels he says, “Who makes his angels winds, and His servants flames of fire.” 8- But of the Son he says, “Thy throne, O God, is [or God is thy throne] for ever and ever, the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom.

Now, the clergy say ONE God is calling his son a God. In one sense that is TRUE- for he has been given the power that God ONLY had !
But, that would mean there was TWO Gods.

It was a quote of Ps 45:6.
It can be translated as "Your throne, O God" from the OT, or "God is your throne" (God is the foundation of your rule), which agrees with all scripture.
"Your Divine throne" - RSV
"Your throne is like God's throne" - NEB
"God is your throne" - Byington
"The kingdom that God has given you" - GNB
"God has enthroned you" - REB
"Your throne is from God" - NJB
"Your throne is a throne of God" - NRSV (Alt.)
"Thy throne is the throne of God" - ASV (Alt. )


Translations of Heb. 1:8 by some Pro-Trinity Translations_
"God is your throne" - AT (Dr. Goodspeed)
"God is thy throne" - Mo (Dr. James Moffatt)
"God is your throne" - Byington
"God is your throne" - Dr. Barclay
"God is thy throne" - Dr. Westcott
"God is thy throne" - A. T. Robertson (Alternate translation)
"God is thy throne" - Dr. Young (Alt.)
"God is thy throne" - RSV (Alt.)
"God is your throne" - NRSV (Alt.)
"God is thy throne" - NEB (Alt.)
"Thy throne is God" - ASV (Alt.)

Thus, you either choose translations meaning there are TWO Gods mentioned here- or that God has GIVEN divine authority to someone ELSE to rule in His place.
 
Heb 1:8 - but of the son He saith, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever [see above]; And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9- Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows ["companions, others].

Once again it is stated that Jesus HAD a God. He was REWARDED by Him!
And, once again, the angels are being refereed to as his FELLOWS, that he rose from!
 
Heb 1:10- And, “Thou, Lord, didst found the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of thy hands; [see vs 2] 11- they will perish, but thou remainest;
they will all grow old like a garment, 12- like a mantle thou wilt roll them up, and they will be changed. But thou art the same, and thy years will never end.”
13- But to what angel has He ever said, “Sit at my right hand till I make thy enemies a stool for thy feet”?

He had never given the honor until then!
 
Heb 1:14- Are not all the angels ministering spirits sent out to serve (accompany, protect) those who will inherit salvation? - Amp

Jesus was the very GREATEST of his messengers (angels)- and he did that to the point of DEATH!
 
Asforme&myhouse said:
Despite being drawn and quartered, Hebrews still doesn’t say what you’re trying to force it to say.
Click to expand...
Asforme... I agree with you here.
I feel for these guys, the Jehovah's Witnesses among them, cause I read these passages and then I acknowledge the likely impossible task of comprehending God's mystery... so I simplify/analogize and think, What if I heard these verses about any other person or being I am familiar with?
Then it's so obvious to me! So obvious that I'm a little annoyed, first at myself, but then at everyone else who doesn't share my 'revelation.'

Then I reel it back. I can't explain it so it makes complete sense, but I do have a sense that there could be a being that exists as one, in three persons. You may say I am just abstractly making something up that has no reference to anything known. You'd be right (and I just might be genuinely humble in saying that).
I can imagine the possibility of something that I don't fully understand and has properties that are unobserved in creation.
If someone can present a more readily understood God but that understanding requires His Word to be drawn and quartered, I'll accept the sometimes frustrating mystery and treat Scripture with awe and reverence.
 
@theQuestion , I think the challenge you are looking for is explaining these two verses:

Rev. 1:8 8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Rev. 22:12-14 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

In the first, clearly, 'the Lord God' is the Alpha and the Omega. In the second, it is Jesus, Yeshua, who is the Alpha and the Omega. Hmmm....

Maybe you should study what שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָֽד׃ means...

The secret is understanding אֶחָֽד

Shalom.
 
PeteR said:
@theQuestion , I think the challenge you are looking for is explaining these two verses:

Rev. 1:8 8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Rev. 22:12-14 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

In the first, clearly, 'the Lord God' is the Alpha and the Omega. In the second, it is Jesus, Yeshua, who is the Alpha and the Omega. Hmmm....

Maybe you should study what שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָֽד׃ means...

The secret is understanding אֶחָֽד

Shalom.
Click to expand...
google translate is my friend.
Question: did any Jew prior to Jesus have the same understanding of that as you? And from your post, I am of course only guessing at what your understanding might be.
 
Cap said:
What was Paul (or whoever wrote it) trying to say? Who was the book written to? Was he trying to say that those who follow the old way were holding onto an idea that God had changed, or modified to a new way? Who was to bring forth the heir, Hagar or Sarah? Why was Paul trying to stop the early church from returning to its Jewish roots? Was Paul saying that the Son of God (Jesus) was greater than Moses? What priesthood had a higher order according to the book of Hebrews? Is the temple a physical thing or made up of the body of Christ?
Click to expand...
Stumbled on this thread.

It's obvious that the questions are loaded in some way that I am not privy to and care not to be either.

I see the letter to the Hebrews from a much simpler and straightforward perspective and understanding.

There is no need to take up a Torah / Non-Torah position.

Reading from the perspective of

"why did the writer pen this letter to the Hebrews specifically in the first place?"

One reason

The Lord's Supper

The writer wrote the letter to help the Hebrews understand the meaning and importance of the Lord's Supper within the context of their historical priesthood and sacrificial system and how it all culminates with and in YaHushuWaH haMashiach / Jesus Christ.

The new covenant in his blood is far more serious than what was experienced at the mount and the Lord's supper is an act of faith.

Chapter 10 is the crux of the whole letter.

Verses 1-18 shows that the law of sacrifice of animals was only a shadow of the MessiYah body and blood sacrifice being a one and done sacrifice

Verse 10 brings the understanding of the sacrifices into focus

Hebrews 10:10 KJV — By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Verses 19-24 brings all the preceding information and teaching into context for the Hebrew believers changing focus from remembering to doing exhorting the Hebrews to draw near, hold fast and to incite one another to continue in a specific action / activity

Hebrews 10:25 KJV — Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

We know that the disciples assembled together with the focused purpose of partaking in The Lord's Supper which was a direct command of YaHushuWaH aka Jesus, hence the next verse attributing forsaking The Lord's Supper / assembling of ourselves together as sin

Hebrews 10:26-27 KJV — For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

Then the writer drives home the point about the vital importance of the sacrifice of MessiYah and the Hebrews duty / commission / command to remember his death until he returns.

Hebrews 10:28-29 KJV — He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

(We know the gentile disciples / believers were keeping the Lord's supper and disciples aka Christians were being persecuted / hunted which takes us to the end of chapter 10)

Now when we read chapters 11 & 12 the context is brought into perspective with examples of the faith of the Hebrew father's and a warning to the hebrews.

Chapter 13 offers general exhortation where marriage seems to pop up from nowhere (it plays an important part) and then the writer reiterates what he had written before using the context of the tabernacle and priestly offerings

Hebrews 13:10 KJV — We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.

That's an extremely short breakdown but there is no schism when the purpose of the whole letter is understood in context, so as I said no Torah v Non Torah but a breakdown of the importance of The Lord's Supper that ALL disciples are meant to partake in together both YAHudi and non YAHudi BY FAITH

Shalom Love and Blessings
 
JudahYAHites said:
Stumbled on this thread.

It's obvious that the questions are loaded in some way that I am not privy to and care not to be either.

I see the letter to the Hebrews from a much simpler and straightforward perspective and understanding.

There is no need to take up a Torah / Non-Torah position.

Reading from the perspective of

"why did the writer pen this letter to the Hebrews specifically in the first place?"

One reason

The Lord's Supper

The writer wrote the letter to help the Hebrews understand the meaning and importance of the Lord's Supper within the context of their historical priesthood and sacrificial system and how it all culminates with and in YaHushuWaH haMashiach / Jesus Christ.

The new covenant in his blood is far more serious than what was experienced at the mount and the Lord's supper is an act of faith.

Chapter 10 is the crux of the whole letter.

Verses 1-18 shows that the law of sacrifice of animals was only a shadow of the MessiYah body and blood sacrifice being a one and done sacrifice

Verse 10 brings the understanding of the sacrifices into focus

Hebrews 10:10 KJV — By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Verses 19-24 brings all the preceding information and teaching into context for the Hebrew believers changing focus from remembering to doing exhorting the Hebrews to draw near, hold fast and to incite one another to continue in a specific action / activity

Hebrews 10:25 KJV — Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

We know that the disciples assembled together with the focused purpose of partaking in The Lord's Supper which was a direct command of YaHushuWaH aka Jesus, hence the next verse attributing forsaking The Lord's Supper / assembling of ourselves together as sin

Hebrews 10:26-27 KJV — For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

Then the writer drives home the point about the vital importance of the sacrifice of MessiYah and the Hebrews duty / commission / command to remember his death until he returns.

Hebrews 10:28-29 KJV — He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

(We know the gentile disciples / believers were keeping the Lord's supper and disciples aka Christians were being persecuted / hunted which takes us to the end of chapter 10)

Now when we read chapters 11 & 12 the context is brought into perspective with examples of the faith of the Hebrew father's and a warning to the hebrews.

Chapter 13 offers general exhortation where marriage seems to pop up from nowhere (it plays an important part) and then the writer reiterates what he had written before using the context of the tabernacle and priestly offerings

Hebrews 13:10 KJV — We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.

That's an extremely short breakdown but there is no schism when the purpose of the whole letter is understood in context, so as I said no Torah v Non Torah but a breakdown of the importance of The Lord's Supper that ALL disciples are meant to partake in together both YAHudi and non YAHudi BY FAITH

Shalom Love and Blessings
Click to expand...
Hebrews is primarily aimed at explaining the cessation of the priesthood and sacrifices.
 
The Revolting Man said:
The sacrifices ceased when there was no longer a legitimate high priest to perform them.
Click to expand...
The Revolting Man said:
Yes it does. Doing God’s things Satan’s ways does not equate.
Click to expand...
Just thinking that one through (I haven't thought this through before and I'm trying to work out which view makes sense) - if that logic holds, doesn't that mean that when Joseph & Mary offered two turtledoves at Jesus' circumcision, they would have been doing a satanic sacrifice because it was not performed by a legitimate priesthood?
Was that a valid sacrifice or an invalid one?
 
Mark C said:
That makes no sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...
The Revolting Man said:
Yes it does. Doing God’s things Satan’s ways does not equate.
Click to expand...
I meant: Just precisely what are you talking about? I had made two points, both factually correct:
Mark C said:
...the kohenim had ALREADY been usurped, before Yahushua, and the 'sacrifices' hadn't ceased. (See Acts and Paul's Nazerite vow, AFTER Yahushua.)
Click to expand...

The Zadok line of cohenim had by then LIKELY been 'usurped' by the likes of Caiphas ( likely an Idumean, according to some scholars, but appointed by Rome)

and Paul took a Nazerite vow, and not only made the required offerings (in the temple) after the resurrection, but paid for others as well, to prove that he was not teaching that 'torah was done away with.'

SO - what are you trying to say? (And Samuel's point is relevant as well.)

BTW; Peripheral, but related, certainly to misunderstanding of the Book of Hebrews. There is a difference between "sacrifices" (tzebach) and "offerings" (korbon), among other things.
 
FollowingHim said:
Just thinking that one through (I haven't thought this through before and I'm trying to work out which view makes sense) - if that logic holds, doesn't that mean that when Joseph & Mary offered two turtledoves at Jesus' circumcision, they would have been doing a satanic sacrifice because it was not performed by a legitimate priesthood?
Was that a valid sacrifice or an invalid one?
Click to expand...
Excellent point. Obviously I would never imply that anything connected to Christ was flawed. I clearly haven’t thought through it either.

It does seem like a false high priest invalidates a lot of what went on at the Temple though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top