The First Sentence in the Book of Hebrews

[Aaron]

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

You shouldn't be, since that's the logical conclusion of your notions that God was impeded by men.

 

[JD731]

You shouldn't be, since that's the logical conclusion of your notions that God was impeded by men.

You seem to have some strange ideas about God. It is not his will that any should perish but that all should come to the knowledge of the truth. Do any perish? Do any, such as you, fail to come to the knowledge of the truth? The answer is yes, many perish and many fail to come to the knowledge of the truth. Does that mean God fails in your thinking?

What was God's desire for mankind before the flood, when he destroyed the whole human race along with every creature that breathed air? Did he create them so he could destroy them? No, he said it repented him that he had created man. Repent means to turn. He went one direction and those men went another. Who failed? God or man?


Ge 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

I do not need a theologian to tell me who was at fault here and why God destroyed men from the face of the earth. I can read the text. God cannot be blamed for the failure of these men. His plan and purpose for this time period is to perfect a highway for the seed of the woman, who will bruise the serpent's head. But the Serpent is not going down without a fight. He is attempting to get the world destroyed, and 8 people left is how close he came. He is a worthy adversary.

Ge 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou [art] cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Now, in today's world, he trying for unisex, and guess what. He is trying to eliminate women. I wonder why.

Your thinking is terribly wrong. I suggest an adjustment. God is not to blame for the rebellion of men and he is free to pivot and make adjustments to forward his plan, and he does.

Just so you know where we are headed in this age, Jesus lets us know what is coming in the future for the earth when he must pivot on the Serpent once again.

Mt 24:20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened.

 

[canadyjd]

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.

This is the first time I’ve heard Hebrews is a sermon. I have no doubt that elements within Hebrews were taught by Paul in various sermons during his ministry, but Hebrews appears to be a letter.

Hebrews 13:18-19 asks for prayers and to “be restored to you”. And then specifically states “I have written a letter to you in few words”.

Hard to imagine it’s anything other than a letter.

peace to you

 

[Van]

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.

I asked for a yes or no and got neither. That is saying no without saying no.
Certainly the New Testament can be understood without the Old. Look at all the Gentile believers in Acts. Read Paul's sermons. He related to their "unknown god."

After God spoke long ago in fragmentary and diverse ways to our ancestors through the prophets,
in these last days he has spoken to us in a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom He created the ages.​

This opening sentence, amended for clarity, foreshadows comparing the superior New with the replaced Old Covenant.

 

[AustinC]

I asked for a yes or no and got neither. That is saying no without saying no.
Certainly the New Testament can be understood without the Old. Look at all the Gentile believers in Acts. Read Paul's sermons. He related to their "unknown god."

After God spoke long ago in fragmentary and diverse ways to our ancestors through the prophets,
in these last days he has spoken to us in a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom He created the ages.​

This opening sentence, amended for clarity, foreshadows comparing the superior New with the replaced Old Covenant.

You cannot fully understand the New Testament without the Old Testament. Unless you realized their was an Old Covenant (Testament) that outlines God's holiness and moral law, you cannot understand what the New Covenant (Testament) is referring to.
When we read the books of the New Covenant we see continual quoting of the Old Covenant which juxtaposes the two and gives clarification and understanding to the purpose of the promised Messiah.

Now, the abundant quoting of the Old Covenant books (Paul quotes the Old Covenant over 60 times in his letter to the Romans) in the New Covenant books makes it so that a person can read just the New Covenant books and still understand. But, if there never was any Old Covenant books, there would be no quotations from those books and ultimately the New Covenant would not make sense. Therefore we need all of God's word to fully grasp the meta narrative of our God.

 

[AustinC]

This is the first time I’ve heard Hebrews is a sermon. I have no doubt that elements within Hebrews were taught by Paul in various sermons during his ministry, but Hebrews appears to be a letter.

Hebrews 13:18-19 asks for prayers and to “be restored to you”. And then specifically states “I have written a letter to you in few words”.

Hard to imagine it’s anything other than a letter.

peace to you

I first heard the argument while listening to the White Horse Inn podcast when they discussed Hebrews. Here is a Gospel Coalition article that may help.
Preaching Advice from the ‘Sermon’ to the Hebrews - The Gospel Coalition.

Quotes from the article:
While there is some scholarly disagreement regarding the literary genre of Hebrews, most evangelical scholars agree that Hebrews is sermonic in nature. For example, William Lane writes: ‘Hebrews is a sermon rooted in actual life. It is addressed to a local gathering of men and women’.1 Similarly, R. T. France writes: ‘There is, however, one book of the New Testament which seems to offer a closer analogy to modern expository preaching than the rest; that is, the Letter to the Hebrews.’2 In addition to scholarly opinion, we also have the author’s own testimony regarding the nature of his correspondence. For instance, in Hebrews 13:22 the author refers to his letter as a ‘word of exhortation’ (λόγου της παρακλήσεως). Evidence that this phrase refers to a sermon is the fact that a similar phrase (λόγος παρακλήσεως) is used by Paul to describe his sermon at the Synagogue in Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:15). This epistle, therefore, is really an inspired sermon.

However, what makes Hebrews uniquely helpful in instructing modern pastors about preaching is not only the fact that it is a sermon, but that it is the only sermon in the New Testament which is preached to an established congregation. Hebrews was preached to second generation believers (see Hebrews 2:1–4) who were at risk of relinquishing their faith in Christ. It is not an evangelistic sermon, like the sermons in Acts, but rather a sermon to saints. Because Hebrews is the only inspired example of preaching to an established church it is particularly useful in instructing modern preachers regarding how to preach in the context of today’s established congregations.

 

[canadyjd]

I first heard the argument while listening to the White Horse Inn podcast when they discussed Hebrews. Here is a Gospel Coalition article that may help.
Preaching Advice from the ‘Sermon’ to the Hebrews - The Gospel Coalition.

Quotes from the article:
While there is some scholarly disagreement regarding the literary genre of Hebrews, most evangelical scholars agree that Hebrews is sermonic in nature. For example, William Lane writes: ‘Hebrews is a sermon rooted in actual life. It is addressed to a local gathering of men and women’.1 Similarly, R. T. France writes: ‘There is, however, one book of the New Testament which seems to offer a closer analogy to modern expository preaching than the rest; that is, the Letter to the Hebrews.’2 In addition to scholarly opinion, we also have the author’s own testimony regarding the nature of his correspondence. For instance, in Hebrews 13:22 the author refers to his letter as a ‘word of exhortation’ (λόγου της παρακλήσεως). Evidence that this phrase refers to a sermon is the fact that a similar phrase (λόγος παρακλήσεως) is used by Paul to describe his sermon at the Synagogue in Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:15). This epistle, therefore, is really an inspired sermon.

However, what makes Hebrews uniquely helpful in instructing modern pastors about preaching is not only the fact that it is a sermon, but that it is the only sermon in the New Testament which is preached to an established congregation. Hebrews was preached to second generation believers (see Hebrews 2:1–4) who were at risk of relinquishing their faith in Christ. It is not an evangelistic sermon, like the sermons in Acts, but rather a sermon to saints. Because Hebrews is the only inspired example of preaching to an established church it is particularly useful in instructing modern preachers regarding how to preach in the context of today’s established congregations.

Well, since he acknowledges it is a “letter” and then says it’s a sermon is somewhat contradictory. I guess he’s saying it’s a letter that contains a sermon that had been preached.

I don’t really find the argument to be convincing, but I’ll think about it.

peace to you

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Well, since he acknowledges it is a “letter” and then says it’s a sermon is somewhat contradictory. I guess he’s saying it’s a letter that contains a sermon that had been preached.

I don’t really find the argument to be convincing, but I’ll think about it.

peace to you

It does read like an epistolic sermon, and could function thus.

 

[AustinC]

Well, since he acknowledges it is a “letter” and then says it’s a sermon is somewhat contradictory. I guess he’s saying it’s a letter that contains a sermon that had been preached.

I don’t really find the argument to be convincing, but I’ll think about it.

peace to you

Being a letter that's circulated does not negate the fact it's a recorded sermon. It was recorded on papyrus and then sent, which does make it a letter.
Read Hebrews as a sermon and note the sermon would be about 45 minutes in length and received by both the redeemed in the church as well as those who are faking it in the church. Reading it as a sermon will help you understand those sections that seem contradictory at first glance.

 

[JD731]

I asked for a yes or no and got neither. That is saying no without saying no.
Certainly the New Testament can be understood without the Old. Look at all the Gentile believers in Acts. Read Paul's sermons. He related to their "unknown god."

No it cannot, Van. End of story. The gospel can be understood by a little child, but the OT cannot, and the NT taken together with the old allows us to understand God.

After God spoke long ago in fragmentary and diverse ways to our ancestors through the prophets,
in these last days he has spoken to us in a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom He created the ages.​

This opening sentence, amended for clarity, foreshadows comparing the superior New with the replaced Old Covenant.

Like I said before, that is not even acceptable commentary.

 

[Van]

You cannot fully understand the New Testament without the Old Testament. Unless you realized their was an Old Covenant (Testament) that outlines God's holiness and moral law, you cannot understand what the New Covenant (Testament) is referring to.
When we read the books of the New Covenant we see continual quoting of the Old Covenant which juxtaposes the two and gives clarification and understanding to the purpose of the promised Messiah.

Now, the abundant quoting of the Old Covenant books (Paul quotes the Old Covenant over 60 times in his letter to the Romans) in the New Covenant books makes it so that a person can read just the New Covenant books and still understand. But, if there never was any Old Covenant books, there would be no quotations from those books and ultimately the New Covenant would not make sense. Therefore we need all of God's word to fully grasp the meta narrative of our God.

Amazing, all those Gentiles being ushered into the kingdom without understanding to what the New Covenant refers.

 

[tyndale1946]

Amazing, all those Gentiles being ushered into the kingdom without understanding to what the New Covenant refers.

Here is a little ditty I heard along time ago... The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed and The New Testament is The Old Testament revealed... Brother Glen

 

[Van]

No it cannot, Van. End of story. The gospel can be understood by a little child, but the OT cannot, and the NT taken together with the old allows us to understand God.
Like I said before, that is not even acceptable commentary.

Statement: 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...

Answer: ???

Statement:
After God spoke long ago in fragmentary and diverse ways to our ancestors through the prophets,
in these last days he has spoken to us in a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom He created the ages. This opening sentence, amended for clarity, foreshadows comparing the superior New with the replaced Old Covenant.

Response: This is not even acceptable commentary.

Conclusions
1) No one said or suggested the Old Covenant can be understood fully by a little child.

2) Some believers understood God well enough for God to save them, even though they lacked knowledge of the Old Covenant.

3) Translations are imperfect, and sometimes a verse in one will better convey truth than another.

 

[Van]

Here is a little ditty I heard along time ago... The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed and The New Testament is The Old Testament revealed... Brother Glen

That song rings like a cracked bell.

 

[AustinC]

Amazing, all those Gentiles being ushered into the kingdom without understanding to what the New Covenant refers.

Did you miss all the OT quotes oozing through the New Testament. What do you have if those quotes are not there?
It's amazing how God retained His word throughout the exile and then used it with the Apostles.

 

[canadyjd]

Being a letter that's circulated does not negate the fact it's a recorded sermon. It was recorded on papyrus and then sent, which does make it a letter.
Read Hebrews as a sermon and note the sermon would be about 45 minutes in length and received by both the redeemed in the church as well as those who are faking it in the church. Reading it as a sermon will help you understand those sections that seem contradictory at first glance.

Who says first century sermons were 45 minutes? You might be applying modern church practice to the first century.

It is far from “fact” that Hebrews is a recorded sermon.

We can disagree

peace to you

 

[AustinC]

Who says first century sermons were 45 minutes? You might be applying modern church practice to the first century.

It is far from “fact” that Hebrews is a recorded sermon.

We can disagree

peace to you

I'm just saying, if you read all of Hebrews out loud, it will take you about 45 minutes.

This isn't something to argue over, for sure, but the argument for a sermon makes sense.

 

[Van]

Did you miss all the OT quotes oozing through the New Testament. What do you have if those quotes are not there?
It's amazing how God retained His word throughout the exile and then used it with the Apostles.

I wonder why the quotes were included, perhaps because the Gentiles did not read Hebrew or have a Greek version? For example Matthew 12:17-21

 

[canadyjd]

I'm just saying, if you read all of Hebrews out loud, it will take you about 45 minutes.

This isn't something to argue over, for sure, but the argument for a sermon makes sense.

You aren’t allowing enough time for the “aaahhhh” and “oooohhhh” and “amen’s”.

I’m just asking why do you think first century sermons were 45 mins?

My understanding of first century worship services in synagogues (which Christian’s modeled their services from) was readings from Law, Prophets, psalms and proverbs with each reading being expounded upon by an “expert” whether in house or guest speaker.

I have no issue with portions of Hebrews repeating the teachings of an Apostle (probably Paul).

I just don’t see this as an intact sermon that was recorded, copied and then disseminated as a sermon.

Thanks for the conversation

peace to you

 

[AustinC]

You aren’t allowing enough time for the “aaahhhh” and “oooohhhh” and “amen’s”.

I’m just asking why do you think first century sermons were 45 mins?

My understanding of first century worship services in synagogues (which Christian’s modeled their services from) was readings from Law, Prophets, psalms and proverbs with each reading being expounded upon by an “expert” whether in house or guest speaker.

I have no issue with portions of Hebrews repeating the teachings of an Apostle (probably Paul).

I just don’t see this as an intact sermon that was recorded, copied and then disseminated as a sermon.

Thanks for the conversation

peace to you

I never said that all the 1st Century sermons were 45 minutes. I am saying that if you read Hebrews as a sermon, it takes approximately 45 minutes.
The structure of the text and the call to people to not drift, to hear God speak, to remember your legacy of faith, etc., all point to this being a sermon that was being distributed (ancient version of a podcast sermon today). The letter is that days method of distribution.

canady, try reading it as a sermon and see how it flows.