Featured The First Sentence in the Book of Hebrews

Van, This may be somewhat off topic, but have you ever noticed that there is nothing new under the sun? The dealings with Israel, both with Moses and Jesus is the exact same. Both were attempting to get Israel to the promised land. Both came up short at the first attempt because of unbelief. Then God assigned 40 years in both cases during which time he waited for a new generation because he cursed the generation that initially refused entrance. You could call this an unpardonable sin for those two generations if you wanted to find a term that would describe them. The important thing is that after the 40 years of probationary wandering, they did enter into their rest under Moses.

I am not saying the following is true, and I am just musing, but consider that the real test of entering into rest as a people and as the nation of Israel was in Acts 7, where the rulers officially rejected the gift of the Holy Ghost, which was 7 years after God had sent him in Acts 2? The dispersion, and death of the nation, occurred in 70 AD, which was 33 years later, the length of time that Jesus was on the earth before his crucifixion. This would mean that 7 years are left on the Moses model if indeed Moses is the physical type for the spiritual fulfillment. This just happens to be the number of years that Daniel says are allotted for the tribulation of the nation when God will purge all unbelievers out with intense fire and leave this nation as silver refined 7 times, the number of judgements he has allocated to the anti-christ in the Revelation, which covers a period of 7 years , to do the job, the last 3 1/2 years being full of darkness and extreme pain.

Well, of course for any of this to even be a possibility, the nation of Israel would have to be in existence while it is happening and we know from history that there indeed was a dispersion in 70 AD and the citizens of this nation were driven from their land into all the nations of the world and have been persecuted in those nations since then and others have occupied their land. They would have to be brought back into their land and become a nation again for this to happen. If being separated from their land was a national death would not it require being brought back to the land and would that not be a national resurrection. If that were to happen then one would have to take Ez 36 and 37 more serious. Would, or could, a resurrection of Israel be within the pervue of the providence of God.

Wait, they are a nation now, after nearly two millennia of being buried in the graveyard of the nations. They are not a saved nation but they became a nation in 1948. It is a fact. I am reminded of a prophecy in Romans 11 about this. Look.

Speaking of Israel as a people, i.e. the people of God,in the context, as opposed to gentiles, Paul continues,

11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?
13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.
15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

Life from the dead? That is a resurrection in any ones book. This has to mean that God wants us to think of casting away as being a death. One cannot have a resurrection if he does not have a death. Of course death means separation and that it all it means.

Well, I am still musing but it looks as if Israel has become a nation again and is awaiting that last 7 years to begin in the time table of prophecy when God will finish what he started with Israel.

Casting away = separation = death.
Life from the dead = resurrection = reconciliation

The subject = Israel as a people, a nation.

Moses - Israel in the wilderness for 40 years, then rest.
Jesus - Israel in the wilderness for 33 years so far + 7 = 40, then rest.

The epistle to the Hebrews tells us that God would have finished these 7 years beginning in 70 AD if Israel would have continued into their rest and would not have fallen back.

What do you think so far about my musing?

 

Expound, please. Specifically what was it that Christ failed at the 'first' time?

 

You did not read me saying Christ failed. You made that up. I said he came up short, and I said the reason. It was because of unbelief of Israel.

If you continue to major on minors, take heed lest you come up short.

 

Yes, your musings seem far from the topic of "tell them what you are going to tell them" at the opening of the book.
Yes, the NT validates or invalidates the OT, not the other way around.

 

What's the difference between failing to achieve a goal and coming up short?

 

That one has my head spinning a little, Van.

Get some rest.

 

The "causee," not the causer. The Lord operates from the standpoint of providence. Most times his creation is in rebellion against him yet his purposes are not stymied, though he pivots at times and there is delay. He will do what he wants done and at the last it will not be said that it was he who failed but it will be said that the rebels failed while the wisdom of God is manifest by the acts.

 

You seem to indicate, since you avoided a direct statement, that you disagree that the NT validates and invalidates parts of the OT. Surely you jest...

 

Well, Van, read your comments. The way it was worded is what confused me. I have a saying. The new testament is in the OT concealed and the OT is by the NT revealed.

How's that for a verse?

 

Is that concurrence?
The NT is partially revealed in the OT. See Matthew for example. And parts of the OT are validated, and other parts invalidated by the NT. See Hebrews for example.

 

My understanding is the first few verses of Hebrews was written in near classical Greek…. much like a poem.

There are two other books that follow this pattern. They are the gospel of Luke and Acts… both written by Luke. Luke had a benefactor (Theopolus) who paid for the writing and distribution.

Many times such benefactors would commission three works at a time. Therefore, some scholars believe Hebrews was written as the third volume (for Theopolus) by Luke.

So, to directly answer the OP, the first few verses are an introduction, written in a different style (near classical Greek) which may explain an awkward transition to the main arguments.

peace to you

 

Interesting. Do you have a source for this legend?

 

Yes, Theopolus is mentioned by name in the first verses of Luke and Acts. It was common to mention the benefactor at the beginning of the writing.

Scholars that favor this theory believe he is not mentioned in Hebrews because he has a Greek name and the book is directed toward Jewish Christians.

peace to you

 

Do you have a source for this practice? Earliest reference.

 

My Greek professor in seminary taught it. I do not have the primary source material concerning this subject, but he did.

This is not a unique theory. It has been debated for decades.

peace to you

 

Theophilus (biblical) - Wikipedia

Who was Theophilus at the beginning of Luke and Acts? | GotQuestions.org

 

This still says that Christ's will was thwarted. That He missed the mark. Sinned, actually.

 

Here is another theory. Luke joined Paul on his journey to Jerusalem to bring a gift to the church there. Upon arriving at Jerusalem, Paul gave a sermon to the church in Jerusalem that Luke recorded for us. The other possibility, in my mind, is that Peter gave this sermon. Clearly, when you read Peter and Paul's letters, they have very similar themes and even Peter says that he has heard or read what Paul has been saying. These two men did not live in isolation from each other.
So, Hebrews is very likely a sermon to the church in Jerusalem shortly before Paul was imprisoned.
It's surmising, but I believe the structure of the writing gives credence to this view.

 

i can’t say that I am surprised that you would think like that.

 

It is what I believe to be true. It would be impossible to understand the New Testament scriptures without the OT scriptures. The OT is preparation for the NT. The NT truths will be typified somewhere in the OT. It is the way we can confirm our doctrines and know they are correct. We are actually told this in one of the most important transitional chapters in the entire Bible, IMO, Mt 13. Look what Jesus said.


Matthew 13:51
Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea, Lord.
52 Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.

The rapture of the church is typified in Ge 24 for instance.

The first sentence in Hebrews is the writer in the NT sending us back to the OT to establish what he will be saying about the New Testament.