The Book of Hebrews

[Gregory Matthews]

The following is an interesting article on the authorship of the Biblical book of Hebrews.

https://spectrummagazine.org/sabbath-school/2022/authorship-hebrews-case-paul

[Kevin H]

While debatable, there is evidence in the book of Hebrews that the temple may have fallen, and that there was an expectation for Jesus’ coming to be related to the fall of Jerusalem. That Hebrews was written to explain that great disappointment, that Jesus was doing a special ministry for us in heaven that he could not do if he had returned to the earth.

If this is one of the issues in Hebrews, while it could have been written by Paul when realizing sometime before he died that the second coming would not be connected to the fall of the temple, Paul died a few years before the attack and fall of the temple. The Pauline authorship would be like a Millerite who died in 1841 to have written a message on the event of October 23, 1844. Possible that he had the revelation, but not likely.

Until we can ask Jesus about the author, my suggestion is that there was a man named Hiram Ben Ed, a student of Paul, who was expecting Jesus to come around the fall of Jerusalem, but as this did not happen, and the church wondering what went wrong, was Jesus really who they believed he was, that while walking through a grain field received the message of the book of Hebrews.

[TrevorL]

Greetings Kevin H,

On 2/24/2022 at 11:54 AM, Kevin H said:

While debatable, there is evidence in the book of Hebrews that the temple may have fallen

I suggest that the Book of Hebrews was written before the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple. The main purpose of the Letter is to help the Jewish Christians to severe their partial ties with Judaism, and the Law, and the Temple and the worship there. A major theme is that the Law was only a foreshadowing of Jesus, and that now that the substance had been fully revealed, then the shadow was going to be removed.

Kind regards Trevor

[Kevin H]

21 hours ago, TrevorL said:

Greetings Kevin H,

I suggest that the Book of Hebrews was written before the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple. The main purpose of the Letter is to help the Jewish Christians to severe their partial ties with Judaism, and the Law, and the Temple and the worship there. A major theme is that the Law was only a foreshadowing of Jesus, and that now that the substance had been fully revealed, then the shadow was going to be removed.

Kind regards Trevor

Yes, this was offered in class as the most accepted theory, but the professor pointed out verses that did not fit this theory well, and how all of these fit even more so in the context of either having experienced, or realizing that the church was about to experience the great disappointment of Jesus' second coming not being connected to the fall of Jerusalem. The hope for the two events to be one, and the expected second coming not happening opens up these very questions becoming a major issue. Was Jesus really who the church believed he was? Shall we stay in Christianity or return to more traditional Judaism etc. 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Kevin H,

3 hours ago, Kevin H said:

Yes, this was offered in class as the most accepted theory, but the professor pointed out verses that did not fit this theory well, and how all of these fit even more so in the context of either having experienced, or realizing that the church was about to experience the great disappointment of Jesus' second coming not being connected to the fall of Jerusalem.

That is interesting, but I would have to consider both the verses that he suggested and his comments. I am happy with Paul being the author and the overall theme that they should fully leave the shadow for the substance, because the shadow was replaced and was going to pass away with the destruction of Jerusalem. I consider the following is a similar lesson to the warning of Jesus to flee Jerusalem, and the Luke record includes a long period of down-treading of Jerusalem, and hence the Kingdom was not to be established in AD 70.

 Hebrews 13:11–14 (KJV): 11 For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. 12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. 13 Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach. 14 For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.

Luke 21:20–24 (KJV): 20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
 

Kind regards Trevor

[Kevin H]

Are you familiar with the article in the SDABC vol 4 "The Role of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy"? It gives a macro view on how the events in the Bible could have happened in Bible days. At Atlantic Union College we had to start every Biblical studies class with a fresh reading of the chapter and a fresh paper on it. Then the class would include how the kingdom could have been set up around the time period that we were studying. The one weakness of that essay is it seems to close with "replacement theology". 

God works with a oneness of his foreknowledge and sovereign power on the one side, and working with our free will on the other. Every prophecy is given in a setting on how it could have been fulfilled with in a couple of generations at the most. But the principles were in a setting where the issue could cycle around and re-applied, just as the Hebrews came to the promised land, could have crossed in, yet they had to go into the wilderness for 40 years then return. (The principle of type/anti-type was developed by Catholic theologians who noticed this, but did not fully understand. And their type/anti-type is easy to use and gets the point across.)

There were these ideas, such as Matthew 24 etc. that has a basic approach that does not separate the two events, but then verses (such as what you quoted) that does leave the possibility open. The condition for the second coming is "When the gospel has been preached in all the world, then shall the end come." The early church made a pretty good start. Now, in Adventist tradition we see the church going after the gentiles right after the stoning of Stephen. As you look up the events, such as the death of Herod, it was not until about 44 AD before Peter had his vision. As the church was starting to look into this, they discovered that Hellenistic Jews, fleeing Saul's persecution (the good Hebrew speaking and cultural Jews, such as the Apostles were under the protection of Rabbi Gamliel until he either became too old or died, around 44AD) But these Hellenistic Jews began sharing the gospel with the gentiles about 10 years before the General Conference even thought about it. And the leaders were shocked when they learned this. 

Then, even with taking the gospel to the gentiles, they still showed a narrow view of "the world" and acted as if it was only the Jewish world (and the gentiles who lived in the Jewish world). In Romans Paul said that the gospel had been given in all the world, and if he could find time it would be nice to also take the gospel to Spain. 

The Lord could have come err this. Had the apostles become quicker to accept the larger view of the world, Jesus could have come around the fall of Jerusalem. 

We find Revelation trying to get this happening again, that the church lost it's first love and to preach again, but with the larger view of the world. (and again, events happening in Revelation could have lead to the second coming if the church regained it's first love and preached again.)

We see key points in the Old Testament, and looking at the later Old Testament we get the prophecies given in a setting where the Messiah could have set up the kingdom at his resurrection. Then we find the need for the second coming, and first the connection with the fall of Jerusalem, and with the historical context of Revelation. There also appears to have been a time that the church was at a cross roads between a return to the scriptures and reform or to go deeper into apostasy right around the 12th century, and from this grew Wycliff and the Reformation.  This again could have lead to the possibility of the second coming on October 22, 1844. But Jesus saw that there were still people not ready who could still change. This leads us to today. At AUC the late James Valentine called these periods "Crisis periods". 

Now the ideas of Hebrews were very much in the school of thought by Paul. I even am open to the possibility that towards the end of his life, that he realized the narrow view of the world that he had, and could have written Hebrews as a warning for the disappointment.  But you can dig even deeper into the message of Hebrews if you read it in the context of the [pending?] great disappointment of 70 AD. 

As we study the Bible in the context of what could have happened, and what did happen, we can dig even deeper and get a better understanding of what God wanted to do through them and wants to do through us. And while these times that Jesus could have come but didn't, and why the role in the trinity of Jesus as God as personal friend working with us moment by moment, so he said that "not even the son knows" are the one side of the Bible message, there is another aspect, that the Father in God's greatness and trendsendency,  sees when the best time will be and when the Second coming will be and the fulfillment of Hebrews 11: 39-40 

Quote

And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

We miss so much of what the Bible is teaching by our "I know how the story ends" attitude. An often neglected part of exegesis is how the Lord could have come then. 

[Kevin H]

Just a note to the above message, but did not fit with the flow or the point. There is much about Paul's life that we do not know. What happened after his conversion and early contact with church leaders and time in Arabia, and with the gospel going to the gentiles after 44 AD. And we don't know the end of his life. 

We have two traditions as to what happened at the end. The one tradition has Paul waiting long for his appeal to the Jewish leaders before Caesar, and that he did not come until that monster Nero had come to power, and that Nero was not interested in the issues Paul wanted to present to the Jewish leaders, but just wanted to kill him and had him sent to death. 

The second tradition is that Paul did not wait all that long, Had his appeal and that with Caesar's oversight the Jewish leaders had to listen to him, He made his point and improved the relationship between the Christians and other Jews, was released and got to go to Spain. Then was back in Rome when Nero was doing what he was doing and arrested Paul and put him to death. 

The Bible does not tell us which tradition is correct. But some evidence for the second tradition is that we find the relationship between the Christian and Non-Christian Jews improved and the next time there was problems was 90 AD, and the church and synagogue did not split until 135 AD. 

Now if the second tradition is what happened to Paul, then if he made it to Spain, he could have gotten a deeper understanding of the gentiles outside of the Jewish world that could have lead to the realization that Jerusalem may fall without the second coming, and thus possible for Paul to have written Hebrews. But again he did not know that the temple was going to fall in 70 AD. 

Whoever wrote Hebrews was well aware of Paul's theology.  

[Kevin H]

TrevorL

I am open to either possibility. What worries me is that some may be so focused to prove that Paul himself is the author of Hebrews, that they are not able to be flexible for other ways the book may be useful to us. And I believe that Paul's thought did not die with him but lived on.  

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Kevin H,

4 hours ago, Kevin H said:

What worries me is that some may be so focused to prove that Paul himself is the author of Hebrews, that they are not able to be flexible for other ways the book may be useful to us.

I have heard at least another author suggested, but I have not really examined the discussion on either side. I am content with Paul as the writer and that the Letter to the Hebrews is a warning to the Hebrew Christians to forsake Judaism before AD 70.

4 hours ago, Kevin H said:

And I believe that Paul's thought did not die with him but lived on.  

The message of the Book of Hebrews did not die once the immediate purpose was fulfilled, as this Letter is a very valuable resource for us to learn how many aspects of the Law are fulfilled in Jesus. Also there are many other unique teachings that can encourage us as we face another "end times".

Kind regards Trevor

[GHansen]

Somewhat of a puzzle why people care who wrote Hebrews. The book  includes  references to perfection, sanctification, conscience, and spirits, e.g., "For by one offering, he hath perfected forever those who are sanctified."  "....the spirits of just men made perfect." "For both he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all of one." "How much more shall the blood of Christ purge your conscience from dead works...?" "Let us go on to perfection." Perhaps these things are already well understood by others. Please enlighten me.

[Kevin H]

19 hours ago, GHansen said:

Somewhat of a puzzle why people care who wrote Hebrews. The book  includes  references to perfection, sanctification, conscience, and spirits, e.g., "For by one offering, he hath perfected forever those who are sanctified."  "....the spirits of just men made perfect." "For both he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all of one." "How much more shall the blood of Christ purge your conscience from dead works...?" "Let us go on to perfection." Perhaps these things are already well understood by others. Please enlighten me.

One reason why people are concerned over who wrote Hebrews is that with the development of Fundamentalism in the 1800s we have developed a myth of what a prophet should be. We want to be as conservative as we can, and since it is the types of things that fits with Paul's thoughts, so they want it to be by his pen. In addition, as Seventh-day Adventists, since Mrs. White mentioned Paul before quoting Hebrews (as one of the gospels said that Jeremiah said, and quoted another prophet) Fundamentalists want this to be completely correct. From what I understand from reading what Mrs. White said that visions do and don't do for her, I would not see her as having a big deal over it, and paraphrasing what she said on similar topics that people were making the same big deal over during her time "My writings are not to be used in searching for the author of Hebrews". She made Biblical applications, but she saw exegesis as our job. 

 We have the Greek view of perfection, and the Eastern (including Hebrew) view of perfection. 

Much of the debate in the church is by turning to Athens to define these texts of scripture, instead of turning to Jerusalem. Greek perfection is something total and unchangeable. The Hebrew view sees things as perfect if it is progressing as expected. The ultimate for the Greek view would be a perfect cube all sides the same, no flaw, and anything that is done to change it in the slightest makes it no longer perfect. The Hebrew view is like a plant growing. Is it poking itself out of the soil, is it having blossoms at the right time? Is the fruit or grain or plant moving along where it should be at that stage of development. 

In our church, we have formed a list of do's and don'ts that we are to reach in a Greek style of perfection. They are teaching that the last generation will reach this goal, and that will be a greater experience then any previous generation, with maybe the exception of Jesus. 

Mrs. White's view of perfection and last generation is in an Eastern/Hebrew mode of progressing as they should. She if more interested in our relationship with Jesus, and showing kindness to the world around us. She sees perfection as a complete love for Jesus and this love affects how we see others. 

She is concerned with unconfessed sin. The typical Greek view makes us searching our hearts for every time we committed certain acts, and if we miss one, we are out. But her Eastern/Hebrew view is how we are willing to grow and give up selfishness as we see it in ourselves. We can see in the life of Pilate what unconfessed sin is. While Pilate was your routine corrupt politician, he had an unusual love for the gods. When he first got to the land he set up images all around. A group of Jews came up to Caesarea and respectfully tried to share their faith with him and asked them to remove the images. Pilate was watching chariot races in the hippodrome when they came. He refused and told the group to leave or else he would start the race and have them run over. They replied that if that was his choice the horses can come, and they laid down on the track. 

Pilate backed down, but instead of trying to understand these people, he just developed a deep hatred for them, and loved killing them. 

The Holy Spirit had been working on his heart, that despite all his other bad choices, he realized that there was someone or something out there that he was trying to reach through the gods he was aware of. 

One day a Jew was brought to him. It was routine. He would pretend to be wishy-washy to try to give the condemned man some hope before shattering the hope. While the Sanhedrin could have taken him out to stone him to death, because of how the people understood Deuteronomy 21:22–23 to hang a popular teacher on a tree would ruin the reputation as much as if they caught him cheating on his wife or skimming off the offering or anything else that could ruin one's reputation. If the Sanhedrin stoned him to death his followers could see him as a martyr,  and continue to discuss his teaching. But to hang on a tree meant that he was NOT of God, and that the followers were deceived by God's enemy. They would drop his teachings like a hot potato. 

As Pilate was going through his ritual, the Holy Spirit awakened to his heart that this person in front of him was not merely a person, but was the God who he had been searching for through the images he was aware of. After years of longing and searching, here HE was, his deepest desire, the one who his heart had been searching for. The one who he should have bowed down to and turned his life over to. But his favorite sin was hating the Jews. Here was the God he was searching for, but he was a Jew. Pilate either needed to give up his pet sin, or turn against the one who would fill the empty space in his heart that he wanted to be filled. Was he going to give up his deepest love or his deepest hate?

Prior to coming to Israel Pilate was between a perfection in growth in realizing that someone or something was out there that he was reaching out the best way he was able. If he decided not to be your typical corrupt politician, that would have been another step in perfection. Then when the Jews asked for the images to be removed, if he took the time to learn why this was a major concern for them, and even just worshiping his images at home, to respect where they were coming from would have been a step in perfection. Then as this Jewish man was brought to him, he would have taken steps to bow down and give himself to Jesus. 

But the pet sins of enjoying the benefits of corruption, and deciding to dismiss the concern of the Jews for the images and choosing to hate them, was a second step; and then when the greatest moment of his entire life came he would not have chosen to hold on to his pet sin. 

Instead of shooting for our list of do's and don'ts, we are to look in our lives. How is our relationship with God? How is our relationship with others? What is holding us back from totally trusting in God and in our relationship with others. 

Some useful tools: The poet/philosopher Eli Siegel talked a lot about how to see the world and the power of contempt (a disposition to think we are for ourselves by making less of the outside world) in our lives. William Glasser talks about our basic needs and how we think and the danger of external control psychology. Lois Eggers comes from an Adventist background but then changes the principles she saw into secular language. These 3 give us a good foundation. 

Besides these 3, there are at least four other topics which describes different styles in our interactions that we are all a unique combination of these: The first is our Temperaments. The idea has been around for thousands of years, and I had dismissed them, but this past year read the book "I said this, you heard that" and the DVD by Kathline Edelman that made me see them in a much deeper way and answered all my reasons for having poo-pooed them. So we all have our temperament. Then we all have our love language, and we also have our apology language. We tend to show love and appreciation in our language, and that is fine if it's the other person's. but of the other has a different love or apology language, they just don't feel that you love or appreciate them or that your apology was not sincere. We respond by coming on even stronger and stronger in our language. Knowing the different styles can help us to seek the other person's love language and their apology language. Finally attachment theory looks at different attachment styles. I've been MOSTLY reading the applications by Milan and Kay Yerkovich in their "How we Love" ministry. They identify five traditional ways of interacting with others (and a 6th ideal attachment style). [I personally think that there are two or three others that they have not yet identified, but maybe it's because I don't have the grasp I should have of the 5 they identified].

You, me and everyone we will meet first live in the world that Siegel described and have the struggle between respect and contempt for the world. Glasser sees us as having 5 basic needs, but while these needs are universal, the intensity of the needs and how we like them met varies in each individual, and we have the tendency to force our will through external control psychology, especially the 7 habits of highly miserable people: Complaining, Criticizing, Blaming, Nagging, Threatening, Punishing, Rewarding to control.   Lois Eggers fills in some of the gaps. 

Then everyone has their basic temperament, love language, apology language and attachment style. 

Now other things such as mental illness and personality disorders is on top of this, but we don't find them in every person as we do the 7 ideas I've mentioned. Looking at these can be very eye-opening in how we are in relationships and how others relate to us. 

If you could hold a general idea of these views (such as from Wikipedia and the "How We Love" website) then it would also be a good idea to read C. S. Lewis' book "The Great Divorce" while not knowing all these details, he describes them in the lives of the lost. If you want to know why your are lost, read that book, especially if you can see which methods are similar to what you do. 

While Mrs. White does not give any names, she sees people all through history of having reached "perfection" in their total love for Jesus that nothing can shake them. Her idea of the last generation is a greater number of believers reach this relationship with Jesus and others. More than one theologian has noticed that her description of these people are the same that you can read as descriptions of John Wesley. Mrs. White could have well have seen Wesley as having become perfect. Our popular last generation people would freak out that we look to him since it is ONLY the last generation who reaches their goal and Wesley did not hold our understanding of the Sabbath and maybe not the state of the dead, and how was his diet?

 

[GHansen]

15 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

We have the Greek view of perfection, and the Eastern (including Hebrew) view of perfection

What I'm interested in is the Biblical view of perfection. I'm working off the premise that the Bible explains itself, often in the immediate context of the passage in question. Sometimes other passages explain the text in question. For example "In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." That passage explains that redemption is the forgiveness of sins. That may not be all that redemption is but one can certainly rest assured that "forgiveness of sins" explains redemption in that text. Another example would be "This is the will of God, even your sanctification, that you abstain from fornication." There may be more to sanctification than abstaining from fornication but that text is definitive. 

We often find the expression "fear God" or some form of it in various parts of Scripture. Proverbs tells us exactly what it is:

Pr 8:13  "The fear of the LORD is hatred of evil. Pride and arrogance and the way of evil and perverted speech I hate."

Psalm 34 also explains it: 

11 ¶  Come, ye children, hearken unto me: I will teach you the fear of the LORD.
12  What man [is he that] desireth life, [and] loveth [many] days, that he may see good?
13  Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile.
14  Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it.

There is no vagary or appeal to outside sources necessary here. The Bible clearly explains itself.

In Hebrews 10, we find this passage "For by  one offering he has perfected forever those who are sanctified." What does  "perfected forever" mean  and who are the sanctified, according to the context?

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Kevin H and others,

On 3/7/2022 at 11:43 AM, Kevin H said:

And I believe that Paul's thought did not die with him but lived on.

I mentioned that the Book of Hebrews is a very valuable resource for us to learn how many aspects of the Law are fulfilled in Jesus. There are other important teachings in the Book of Hebrews. Consider how Psalm 110:1 and 4 are expounded in the Book of Hebrews, but also note that Psalm 110:1 is also expounded in Matthew 22:44, Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 15. In the following list nearly every individual word in Psalm 110:1 and 4 is expounded:

Psalm 110:1  Words emphasised and expounded

my Lord   Matthew 22:44

said   Hebrews 1:13

sit      Hebrews 10:12

right hand    Hebrews 1:3, 8:1, 12:2

until   Hebrews 10:13

until ... enemies   1 Corinthians 15:25

Psalm 110:4 Words emphasised and expounded

The LORD   Hebrews 5:6,10

sworn   Hebrews 7:21

priest   Hebrews 5:6

for ever   Hebrews 7:25, 10:14

the order of  Hebrews 7:11

Melchizedek   Hebrews 6:20

Kind regards Trevor

[GHansen]

On 2/10/2022 at 10:52 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

The following is an interesting article on the authorship of the Biblical book of Hebrews.

This article says "The authorship of Hebrews is a sensitive issue for Adventist believers." Not sure who is sensitive about it. I've been in and around the SDA church for more than 50 years. I never gave much thought to the authorship nor actually cared about it. I did directed study of Hebrews under Fred Veltman. Who wrote Hebrews never came up, nor was it mentioned. I  didn't fail the course. 

The article takes an oblique shot at Luther as well, saying "Luther relegated Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation to the bottom of his translation of the New Testament and did not number them as he did the rest of the New Testament writings." Here's what Luther had to say about Hebrews, after explaining the issues he had with the epistle "

"However that may be, it is still a marvelously fine epistle. It discusses Christ’s priesthood masterfully and profoundly on the basis of the Scriptures and extensively interprets the Old Testament in a fine way, Thus it is plain that this is the work of an able and learned man; as a disciple of the apostles he had learned much from them and was greatly experienced in faith and practiced in the Scriptures."

Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 35: Word and Sacrament I. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, & H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 35, p. 395). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

[Kevin H]

14 minutes ago, GHansen said:

What I'm interested in is the Biblical view of perfection.

 

 

The Bible view is the Eastern/Hebrew view. A useful resource would be Bowman's "Hebrew Thought compared to Greek" https://www.amazon.com/Hebrew-Thought-Compared-Greek-Thorleif/dp/0393005348

[GHansen]

Just now, Kevin H said:

The Bible view is the Eastern/Hebrew view.

How about providing some Scriptural examples of the Bible defining "Perfection" in the manner you suggest? In other words, give some Bible passages to make your point.

[tigerwillow]

Hello,

I have been listening to Dr. Walter Veith's study on the book of Hebrews.  I really appreciate how he is making Jesus Christ the central focus of the book.  He briefly mentions the discussion of the authorship of the book.  I agree with him that Paul wrote the book.  It makes sense because the book has a similar style and theological depth to the other books he wrote and because at the end he mentions Timothy as a brother.  While these things do not prove Paul is the author but they do suggest it as a strong possibility.  I also agree with Dr. Veith's opinion of why Paul (or whoever) did not take credit for writing the book.  Since the book is so completely about Jesus Christ and starts out so powerfully in verse 1 with a description of who God is and how He reveals Himself to us, it would have been a detraction from the strength and focal point of the book to include the author's name.  The author did not want to distract the reader's attention from Jesus and His greatness.  If the writer included his name or title then there is a danger that any presuppositions or knowledge about the author would place blinders into the reader's mind that could bar them from seeing the full glory of Jesus in the book.

In chapter 7 of the study, Dr. Veith presented how all the verses in the book of Hebrews which use the term perfect directly refer back to Jesus Christ.  He did not go into great detail on all of the verses, so in an effort to help my own understanding, I took what he said about each verse, combined it with what I read in the Strong's Concordance and in Thayer's Greek Lexicon and fleshed out the definitions a little more fully.  I have learned a lot from this exercise, so I am  attaching the PDF to share with whoever is interested.  I hope this information will helpful in your walk with God as well.

Blessings!

Here is the link to Dr. Veith's full Book of Hebrews: Substance and Shadow series on Youtube.

Perfection in the Book of Hebrews.pdf

[Gregory Matthews]

Walter Veith is an interesting person in Adventism.  For one view of him, see:

https://spectrummagazine.org/post-archives/dark-fantasy-world-walter-veith/

 

 

[Gustave]

The Temple was still in operation when the Book of Hebrews was written / promulgated. 

[Kevin H]

On 8/12/2024 at 9:32 PM, Gustave said:

The Temple was still in operation when the Book of Hebrews was written / promulgated. 

This was one of the issues in the discussion over the author of Hebrews: Some verses sounds like the temple has fallen and other verses may be understood as the temple as still in operation. 

[Gustave]

9 hours ago, Kevin H said:

This was one of the issues in the discussion over the author of Hebrews: Some verses sounds like the temple has fallen and other verses may be understood as the temple as still in operation. 

I believe both positions are true with the temple having fallen in a certain sense. 

Matthew 23 has Jesus addressing a multitude of Jews as well as His own Disciples. Jesus is explicit with them that they are to observe everything the Scribes and Pharisees command them to do BECAUSE the Scribes and Pharisees have binding religious authority that comes all the way down from Moses - better said God.

Jesus dies, is buried & resurrects on the 3rd day - Jesus is explicit (Matthew 28, 18 -) that NOW the Apostles are to do whatsoever He (Jesus) commanded them to do. The Temple in Jerusalem at that, point, formally lost it's religious authority. In term of authority - the Temple had fallen having been replaced by far better things.

It's in this context Roman Catholics & Orthodox Christians understand texts like Hebrews 13, 10-12. Those who served the Tabernacle at the point of Hebrews were still processing the bodies of those beasts who's blood the high priest was still bringing into the sanctuary. The point of Hebews was that these ceremonial laws had been fulfilled by Christ and those who continued to observe those rites thinking they would be saved by them had no right to eat the Body and Blood of the Lord which was offered at Christian Mass. 

Difficult to observe animal sacrifice and transferring blood into the sanctuary if the Temple didn't exist. 

A Jew listening to What Jesus said in Matthew 23 would have nodded their head and said Jesus has spoken the truth. What Jesus said in Matthew 28 would have had a Jews lower jaw hit the floor hard - it would be most shocking and alien to Jewish ears. For the Apostles to accept this radical teaching that now they were essentially taking over the jobs of the Priests with Christ as the literal High Priest they would have had to have really seen and witnessed everything Scripture attributes to Christ. Think of how radical this would have been to Jews. 

 

Anyway, my .02 cents on this question