Translation and Sermon by Nate Wilson for Christ the Redeemer Church of Manhattan, KS, 5 Aug 2018
Around the year 300, there was a man by the name of Antony who started a monastery in the dessert outside of Alexandria, Egypt. He became well-respected for his godly lifestyle and teaching, and, in time, even the emperor Constantine heard of his fame and wrote a letter asking for Antonys advice on spiritual matters. (Imagine how you would feel if the President of the United States wrote you a letter asking for your advice!) That would be pretty exciting, wouldnt it? One of Antonys disciples, Athanasius of Alexandria wrote about this incident because he was so impressed with how Antony matched his faith with how he lived his life. Athanasius wrote: [W]hen they brought him the letters, he called the monks and said, Do not be astonished if an emperor writes to us, for he is a man; but rather wonder that God wrote the Law for men and has spoken to us through His own Son.[1] It is my hope to rekindle your awe of the Son of God and His word as we begin our study of the book of Hebrews.
The book of Hebrews doesnt explicitly say who it was written to, and therefore it is categorized as a general epistle for everyone.
The earliest-known commentary is that of Chrysostom in the 4th century, who said it was addressed to Jews in Jerusalem and Palestine[2], which seems likely to me.
We can tell from the content of the epistle that it was written to a group of Christians who were being tempted to accommodate themselves to Judaism and forsake their faith in Jesus. Thats why the first ten chapters focus on Jesus being better than angels, better than Moses and the Law, and better than the Levitical priesthood and its sacrificial system, and thats why the exhortation is made repeatedly to hold fast to faith in Jesus and not let go.
The book appears to have been written in the first century before the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70AD, since it speaks of the priesthood and the animal sacrifices being ongoing at the time.
It also seems to be addressed to a church that is not composed of very recent converts, for the author says in 10:32 to recall the former days of persecution, and stated his expectation that by this time you ought to be teachers (5:11-12), so it must not be early in the first century.
A.T. Robertson suggested that the mention of Timothy being set free in 13:23 would narrow it down to the late 60s[3], so the recipients of this message would have a couple of years to respond to it before Gods dramatic judgment upon Judaism under General Titus invasion of Jerusalem.
If you remember from the book of Acts, the first persecution of the Christian church arose in Jerusalem by Jews like Saul of Tarsus who would not accept Jesus as the Messiah, so there was a need early on to encourage Christians not to cave in to the pressure to convert back to Judaism.
The same held true throughout the Roman empire. Since Alexander the Greats vision, the Greeks had given deference to the Jewish religion, and enough Jews had proved themselves loyal to Rome that they were exempt from the requirement of emperor worship, but until Constantines Edict of Toleration in the 4th century, Christianity was an unknown new religion that Romans felt free to persecute because Christians because they worshiped the Lord Jesus and refused to worship Lord Caesar. So the temptation to a Jew who converted to Christianity and then was persecuted for his newfound faith by fellow Jews or by Romans might very well consider stepping back into Christless Judaism in order to avoid conflict.
Furthermore, although two of the main Judaistic movements in those early centuries were hostile to Christians (namely the Pharisees and the Sadducees), the other main group of Jews, the Zealots (or Essenes) was initially friendly to Christianity (One of them, Simon the Zealot, even was a disciple of Jesus - Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13), so it may have been tempting to some Christians to make less of Jesus in order to stay on friendly terms with friendly Essene Jews who werent convinced that Jesus was the Messiah.
o The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the last century has opened a fascinating window into the lives and belief system of some of these Essene communities, and I am indebted to Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, one of my Dads seminary professors, and the commentary he wrote on Hebrews for the following background: [T]he members of the Dead Sea Sect were awaiting the advent of two messianic figures, of whom the kingly would be subordinate to the priestly, but both of whom would be subordinate to the supreme figure of the archangel Michael, thus subjecting the world to come to angelic authority (cf. 2:5). They expected also the appearance of a second Moses in fulfilment of the promise of Deuteronomy 18:18, and the resumption, under an authentic (Zadokite) high priesthood, of the whole sacrificial system prescribed in the Mosaic law. With this consummation in view, they patterned their manner of life closely on the idealized model of the children of Israel under Moses in the wilderness [thus] their withdrawal from the corrupt ministry of the temple to the wilderness near the Dead Sea. Furthermore, papyrus fragments found more recently in Cave 11 at Qumran provide evidence that Melchizedek was assigned a prominent role in the eschatological perspective of the Dead Sea Sect. Dr. Hughes concluded, It is. possible that the Hebrew Christians to whom the letter is addressed had in one way or another encountered and felt the attraction of the teachings of this sect.
So, Jewish-background Christians in the first century felt:
o the tug of friends away from making so much of Jesus to keep friendship,
o they felt the threat of their Roman government which considered it illegal and scandalous to worship Jesus instead of Caesar and the pagan gods,
o and they felt the threat of their family and community disowning them over following Jesus.
The Jews claimed Christianity to be a false religion, and they promised the Jewish Christians that, if they would come back into the fold of Judaism, God would begin to bless them. The Jews claimed the Christians were under a curse. They would go on to say, How could you depart from the faith? Think of all that you had in Judaism which you have now left! Think of the Old Testament fathers Moses, Abraham, and Joshua. Think of the Ten Commandments given by Moses from God. Think of the angels who were so much a part of the whole economy in which God delivered His teachings to His people. Think the high priests, the sacrifices, the Temple, and all of the ceremonies. You have left all of this. If you dont think such statements had an appeal to a Jew, then think of how a Roman Catholic feels today when he leaves the Roman Catholic church ~Frank Barker, Jr., Hebrews: A Series of Sermons, 1974
John Browns commentary on Hebrews remarks, What was there, they might well ask, what was there in the whole world beside, which could compensate to them for the loss of recollections so august, of institutions so sacred? It was to meet this need that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written.
Now, if you read commentaries on the book of Hebrews, youll find that one of the topics that they spill the most ink on is the question of Who wrote the book of Hebrews? The epistle doesnt say; all it gives are a few tantalizing hints.
Until the fourth century, there were those who questioned whether the book of Hebrews should even be included in the New Testament canon, probably because of the uncertainty of its authorship, but is was still quoted as sacred literature by church fathers from as early as Clement of Rome in the first century.
My temptation is to give you a long lecture on all the theories of authorship, because that is intellectually interesting, but, to have integrity as an exegetical preacher, I must restrain myself. If the Bible doesnt emphasize who the author was, then I shouldnt emphasize who the author might be by spending a lot of sermon time on it.
So, briefly, in the last seventeen centuries, no one seems to have been able to improve upon Eusebius comment in his Historia Ecclesiasticus, The thoughts are the Apostle [Paul]s, but the language and composition those of someone who noted down the Apostles views and commented as a scholar upon what had been said by his master It was not without reason that the ancients left it as Pauls, but as to who wrote it, the truth is known only to God[4].
Whoever he is, our author is a male (since he refers to himself using a masculine participle in 11:32)[5], he has a well-polished rhetorical style, he is intimately acquainted with the Old Testament Scriptures, and, in at least 18 instances that I have observed personally in my semantic studies in the book of Hebrews, he used Greek words in ways that are different from any other New Testament author (See appendix[6]).
Lots of guesses have been made as to who this author is, including folks mentioned in the Book of Acts like Apollos[7], Luke[8], or Barnabas[9], and there are many who, notwithstanding, have maintained that Hebrews was written by the Apostle Paul[10]. But no one has ever been able to make an ironclad case[11]. Apparently, God did not think it important for us to know who wrote the book of Hebrews, so we can leave it at that.
When contrasted with the epistles of Paul, further focus can be obtained on the message of Hebrews: Whereas Paul argued that we must abandon the attempt to become right with God by good works according to the law and just trust Jesus to make us right with God, Hebrews comes at it from a different angle, arguing that the Old Testament system was not even capable of making anybody right with God in the first place, but required the work of Jesus as a new kind of priest to complete it[12], therefore, as Marvin Vincent in his Word Studies on the New Testament put it, If you [as a Jewish Christian] abandon Christ, and return to Judaism, you have no more sacrifice for sins. Your whole system of Levitical sacrifices is abolished. It is Christ or nothing To go back to the old economy of types and shadows, the economy of partial access to God, would be literally to depart from the living God. So, with that background and introduction, I want to step into the first 2 verses of Hebrews in the time we have left:
The main subject and verb of v.1 is God spoke θεὸς λαλήσας[13] The NASB translates this verb for speaking the best of all the standard translations I saw. It is an aorist participle which points forward to another main verb yet to come in v.2 and says that this is an action of speaking which occurred prior to the speaking described in the main verb in v.2. After speaking in those ways He spoke in a new way.
The fact that the God of our universe is a God who is communicative cannot be overemphasized. He spoke! This is of staggering, momentous importance. It means that there is a personal God whom we as persons can relate to, and it means that this personal God takes initiative to communicate with humans.
The emphasis in the Greek grammar of v.1 is on the three adverbs describing how God spoke. He spoke:
1) Πολυμερῶς in different amounts/times/portions,
2) πολυτρόπως in different forms/ways/manners, and
3) πάλαι of old/long ago/in time past.
* Gods word was delivered in different amounts and in different forms in times past, through visions, prophetic words, scriptures, ceremonial actions, etc.
* God apportioned to many the spirit of prophecy, and through such apportionment caused Christ to be preached in many different ways. ~Martin Luther
* Hosea 12:10 God said, I have also spoken by the prophets, And have multiplied visions; I have given symbols through the witness of the prophets." (NKJV)
* On the one hand, we might look at this truth and say pessimistically, Its so frustrating that no one human got the whole package from God. It has always been fragmentary, incomplete, and unpredictable.
o But could any one human possibly contain all the knowledge of God? God said Moses would die if he as much as saw Gods face.[14]
o And, doesnt this point all the more to the real personality of God to share bits and pieces of Himself over time just as we do with each other?
o And doesnt it also show all-the-more His intelligence and creativity when He reveals His thoughts using so many different symbols and poetic forms instead of just saying it all in straight-up speech? God is a deep person, worth getting to know!
o Nineteenth century commentator John Brown compared it to our experience with sunlight: The media through which the rays of the sun pass and the degree of warmth and illumination experienced in consequence at the earths surface are different at different times whilst it is, in every case the same luminary to which we are indebted: so in the spiritual world it hath pleased the Sovereign of the universe, that the radiance of divine truth, flowing, as it ever must, from the fountain of His own eternal mind, should descend in different degrees and with diversified hues, upon those to whom it was originally sent.
The end of v.1 sets us up for the punchline, though. In the past, when God spoke, it was generally by means of prophets, but, by contrast, now He has spoken by means of a Son!
ἐν υἱῷ[15]
o The prophets
were many; the son stands alone.
And son is in a different class of communicators than the prophets were.
(The presence of the definite article the before prophets and the absence
of the definite article before son further highlights the contrast the author
is making between them.)
He now had spoken by One who, as equal partaker of His own infinite nature and
all its excellences, was most intimately related to Him and inconceivably dear
to Him[16].
~Brown
Prophets spoke for
God; the Son spoke as God!
o This son reveals the manifold wisdom of God Ephesians 3:8-10 grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ; to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known (NKJV)
o Note, however, that the Sons message is not a recension or contradiction of all of Gods previous revelation. There is still continuity between the Old Testament and the New Testament; the same verb is used in Greek to indicate God speaking through the prophets as is used to indicate God speaking in the Son. The contrast here is not in whether God communicated - or even so much in what God communicated[17] - but in how much more intimately God communicated.
o This son proves Gods unending love for us: Romans 8:31-39 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written: For your sake we are killed all day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (NKJV, cf. Heb. 9:9-26, 1 Pet. 1:20, Dan. 10:14) This Son permanently attaches us to Gods love!
Now, when did this Son speak? Επ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων at the End of these days
o It is a mystery to me why all the modern English versions matched the singular Greek word last with the plural word days, as though this were a mistaken prediction that the end of the world was going to happen 2,000 years ago. The word last in Greek is singular, so I think it is better translated the last of these days instead of these last days. This is not a false prediction of the end of the world, but rather a true prediction of the end of an era of these days.
o Philip Hughes commented that this same Greek phrase at the last of the days without the word these occurs a dozen times in the LXX and designates the time of the Messiah[18]. The addition of τουτων [these] by our author indicates that the messianic age has arrived.
o That strategic half-century between the prophecies of John the Baptizer and the destruction of Israel as a nation is referred to in other Scripture as well, such as:
Acts 2:16-17 "this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: `And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh (NKJV) Pentecost was in the last days.
And in 1 Corinthians 2:8, the phrase this age is clearly limited to the lifetime of those who crucified Jesus: [W]e speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. (NAW)
Peters sermon after Pentecost in Acts 3:24 also used the phrase these days to refer to the same era: all the prophets, from Samuel and those who follow, as many as have spoken, have also foretold these days.
o I think our passage is talking about the end of the days of opportunity for the Jews in first-century Jerusalem to embrace Jesus as their Messiah.[19] The singular end of the days of a physical nation of Israel and the end of the practice of Old Testament temple worship and animal sacrifices was only a couple of years after the publication of the book of Hebrews (if my sources are correct on the date).
o At this time at the end of these days, before Gods judgment came in 70AD and put the last gasps of the Old Testament economy to a screeching halt, things were bad. Demon-possession was rampant, there were plagues of sickness, and the nation was full of religious hypocrisy, oppressive man-made legalism, lewd, rebellious licentiousness, and egregious injustices. Who would ever have expected God to speak at a time like that, when humans were competing with each other to scrape the bottom of the barrel of depravity? Take hope, you who despair at the hopelessness of our own culture in our own last days! The ancient church father Chrysostom, in his commentary on Hebrews 1, quoted Romans 5:20, noting that God still speaks and redeems, even when things are bad: Truly, where sin abounded, grace did much more abound For since as it was likely that afflicted, worn out by evils, and judging of things thereby, they would think them-selves worse off than all other men, He shows that herein they had rather been made partakers of greater, even very exceeding, grace Do you realize that greater, even very exceeding grace could be what you witness in your own lifetime? Dont give up hope!
o Now our author begins a list of seven outstanding things about this Son Who is Gods mouthpiece. Ill only cover the first two of them for now:
ὃν ἔθηκεν κληρονόμον πάντων, who was appointed heir of all things
o The sense of the Greek word etheken is to assign someone to a particular task, function, or role (L&N)
o As for the word heir, It is not at all uncommon to use the word as equivalent to possessor or proprietor, without reference to the manner in which the property is acquired. This is plainly its meaning here. The Father dieth not; nor does He divest Himself of His natural, necessary, and inalienable property in all things; but He hath given all things into the hand of His Son He has constituted Him the proprietor of all things. ~J. Brown
o The Aorist tense of this Greek verb appointed designates a particular time when every created thing was given over to His possession as an inheritance.
While some Bible scholars point to that time being Jesus incarnation, resurrection, or ascension[20],
it seems to me that those are only incremental points in the fulfilment of that role, so I prefer to think that this refers to the eternal counsels of God when Jesus purposed to become our human savior[21].
o Matthew 11:27 All things were delivered over to me by my Father (NAW)
o No longer is Jacob the portion of the Lord nor Israel His inheritance (Deut. 39:9), but all men Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance. (Ps. 2:8). ~Chrysostom
o There is no other human who has ever been on the face of this earth of whom it could truthfully be said that he is in charge of everything in the universe. This Jesus whom you sing ditties about and whose name you caress in your prayers, do you realize how great He is? Do you realize how ridiculous it is for you to run to any other power on this earth when you want something?
o The second remarkable trait of this son who is Gods mouthpiece is that He is the one
δι᾽ οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας through whom he made/created the world/universe
o As John wrote in the prologue to his gospel, Jesus, the Word, was in the beginning with God. All things were created by means of Him. It is only fitting that one who created everything be entitled to the ownership of everything that He took part in creating.
o Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. (NKJV)
o Here is Jesus, the Word of God, possessor not only of perfect personality as Gods Son who speaks, but also of unimaginable resources and authority as heir of the universe, and furthermore possessor of power extraordinaire to create anything by merely saying a word.
o Colossians 1:16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. (NKJV)
o By Him He made the old creation, by Him He makes the new creature, and by Him He rules and governs both. ~Matthew Henry
o It is none other than this most powerful owner of the universe that has spoken to us! To the forefathers came servants of the Master, but to us came the Master Himself! ~Chrysostom
Dear brothers and sisters, like Antony, the old Egyptian monk who was impressed more by the Bible than by the Emperors letter, let us bring our actions practically into conformity with what we believe about the greatness of Jesus.
Rather than dazzling ourselves with all the latest movies and YouTube feeds and magazines and what-have you, let us prize the words of God above all for the treasure that they are!
Rather than running after this, that, and the other acquaintance, let us rush first to speak in prayer to the creator and owner of the entire universe! (Christ is the door that opens the whole universe to us! ~P. Hughes)
And let us pay attention to what He has said: (If the word of the prophets is accepted, how much more ought we to seize the gospel of Christ, since it is not a prophet speaking to us but the Lord of the prophets, not a servant but a son, not an angel but God. And further, it is not our forefathers he is addressing, but us ~Martin Luther)
If you are not a Christian, think of the
position you occupy. Think of the One against whom it is you rebel! Kiss the
Son lest He be angry and ye perish in the way. ... Rest on His sacrifice as
complete and adequate for you. Submit to His authority as your Lord and Master.
[If you are a Christian] How much safer could you be when the One who controls
all things by the Word of His power, the One who has purged your sin, is the
One who is running the universe? He is your Savior. How much safer could you
be? What do you need to fear? If God be for us, who can be against us? How
bold we should be! Think of the position you occupy. At the same time, think of
the responsibility of that position, because today God speaks His last Word to
men through Christians. Christ will not appear again visibly until His Second
Coming when it will all be over. In the meantime we are sent to plead with men
in Christs stead. Be reconciled to God. [News this important is news that
should be shared!] ~Frank Barker, Jr., A Series of Sermons on Hebrews, 1974
|
Greek NT |
NAW |
KJV |
NKJV |
NASB |
NIV |
ESV |
NLT |
|
1 Πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως[22] πάλαι ὁ Θεὸς λαλήσαςPtc τοῖς πατράσιν[23] ἐν τοῖς προφήταις, |
1 God, after speaking to our forefathers in various amounts and in various forms long ago by means of the prophets, |
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, |
1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, |
1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, |
1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, |
1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, |
1 Long ago God spoke many times and in many ways to our ancestors through the prophets. |
|
2 ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτου[24] τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ, ὃν ἔθηκε κληρονόμον πάντων, δι᾿ οὗ καὶ[25] τοὺς αἰῶνας ἐποίησεν· |
2 has spoken to us at the last of these days by means of a Son, whom He appointed to be the one to inherit all things, through whom also He made the universe. |
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the world[s]; |
2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world[s]; |
2 in these last days has spoken to us in [His] Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. |
2 [but] in these last days he has spoken to us by [his] Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. |
2 [but] in these last days he has spoken to us by [his] Son, whom he appointed [the] heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. |
2 [And now] in these final days, he has spoken to us through [his] Son. [God]
|
|
NT Book |
# of new entries in the above supplement |
# new entries/ #chapters (rounded) |
Notes |
|
Matthew |
85 |
3 |
This being the first book surveyed by a new team, quite a few of these instances represent word usage common to the entire NT, not unique to Mt., so this number is a bit skewed. |
|
Mark |
23 |
1 |
Such a high number of new word usages seems consistent with surveying the writings of a new author. |
|
Luke |
41 |
2 |
|
|
John |
40 |
2 |
|
|
Acts |
42 |
2 |
Finding again as many new instances in a work of a similar genre by the same author of Luke is surprising. |
|
Romans |
15 |
1 |
With the introduction of yet another new author, I would have expected a higher rating in the 3rd column. |
|
1 Cor |
18 |
1 |
Pauls epistles seem to spread out the introduction of new semantic usage over the first half before the discover of new instances drops down. |
|
2 Cor |
17 |
1 |
|
|
Galatians |
5 |
1 |
|
|
Ephesians |
4 |
1 |
|
|
Philippians |
4 |
1 |
|
|
Colossians |
1 |
- |
|
|
1 Timothy |
1 |
- |
|
|
2 Timothy |
2 |
- |
|
|
Titus |
1 |
- |
|
|
Philemon |
2 |
2 |
This is surprising; is this due to difference in purpose of writing combined with the brevity of the letter? |
|
Hebrews |
18 |
1 |
This seems consistent with a new author |
|
James |
0 |
0 |
This is surprising. Could it be due to a greater familiarity of James on L&Ns part? Or to James being a less-creative and less-cosmopolitan author? |
|
1 Peter |
4 |
1 |
I would have expected more semantic uniquenesses with Peter too. |
|
2 Peter |
4 |
1 |
|
|
1 John |
1 |
- |
Crossover with the gospel of John would explain the low numbers in his later epistles. |
|
2 John |
2 |
2 |
|
|
3John |
1 |
1 |
|
|
Jude |
1 |
1 |
New author |
|
Revelation |
12 |
- |
|
A factor which probably skews this study is that Louw & Nidas original work already took into account a certain percentage of unique semantic usages of Greek words in each book already.
|
Reference |
Greek text |
L&N# |
Gloss |
|
Heb 1.2 |
poi™w |
42.35a |
create |
|
Heb 1.4 |
diaforteron |
58.40a |
surpassing |
|
Heb 2.6 |
|
89.139b |
used as 'in other words' |
|
Heb 2.11 |
di n atan |
89.47a |
therefore (marker of result) |
|
Heb 2.17 |
kat p€nta |
58.28b |
in all things, in every way |
|
Heb 3.5 |
l t ok |
10.8a |
household of Israel |
|
Heb 3.13 |
kaletai |
67.131a |
be referred to |
|
Heb 7.2 |
žpeita |
89.98a |
next member in enumeration |
|
Heb 8.4 |
HIjsov |
93.169a |
Joshua |
|
Heb 9.17 |
scw |
76.18a |
to be valid |
|
Heb 10.17 |
o m |
69.3a |
by no means (intense negative) |
|
Heb 10.31 |
mpesen ev cerav |
56.30a |
come into judgment |
|
Heb 11.34 |
parembol |
55.7a |
army |
|
Heb 11.36 |
peran lamb€nw |
68.58a |
experience |
|
Heb 12.10 |
prv lgav m™rav |
67.106a |
a short while |
|
Heb 12.12 |
tv pareim™nav cerav ka t paralelum™na gnata ‡norqsate |
25.152a |
be encouraged |
|
Heb 12.23 |
prwttokov |
11.27b |
inheritors of God's blessing, people of God |
|
Heb 12.28 |
paralamb€nw |
57.125a |
receive an object |
[1] https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/vita-antony.asp
[2] Although there are others who have suggested it was sent to Rome based on 13:24 Those who are from Italy send you greetings and based on the fact that Clement of Rome was familiar with it so early on, and the description of persecution could match the expulsion of the Jews from Rome in 49AD.
[3] [T]he mention of Timothy in 13:23 as being set free (apolelumenon) raises an inquiry concerning Pauls last plea to Timothy to come to him in Rome (II Tim. 4:11-13). Apparently Timothy came and was put in prison. If so, since Paul was put to death before Neros own death (June 8, A.D. 68), there is left only the years 67 to 69 A.D. as probable or even possible.
[4] Eusebius comment is based on Origens writings a century prior, although Origen did not consider Hebrews canonical.
[5] In 11:32, the writer asks: And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell Here the pronoun me (which could be either masculine or feminine) is qualified by the participle dihgoumenon (which accordingly defines the pronoun as masculine). ~Hughes
[6] Vincents introduction to his Word Studies on Hebrews lists objections to Pauline authorship including: The conception of faith. In Paul, faith is belief in Jesus Christ as a means of justification, involving a sharp opposition to the works of the law as meriting salvation. In Hebrews, faith is trust in the divine promises as distinguished from seeing their realization Paul, accordingly, shows that the law cannot put man into right relation with God because man cannot fulfil it; while Hebrews shows that the institution of the old covenant cannot, by reason of their imperfection establish a real fellowship with God There is no mention of the Gentiles in relation to the new covenant, a topic which constantly recurs in Paul [The vocabulary of terms for sin is smaller than in the Pauline writings CristoV IhsouV, which is characteristically Pauline, does not appear at all [and] The personal authority of the writer is wholly in the background. This is in marked contrast with the epistles of Paul. He appears to place himself in the second generation of believers while Paul refuses to be regarded as a pupil of the apostles
[7] Suggested by Luther, Alford, A.T. Robertson, and others.
[8] Suggested by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Calvin, and others.
[9] Suggested by Tertullian, Keil, Hughes, Gardiner, and others.
[10] Including Chrysostom, Counsel of Ephesus, Augustine, & Hofmann.
[11] Gardiner (editor of Chrysostoms homilies), in his introduction, ably shoots down the authorship of Paul (Vincent also does at length), the authorship of Clement and of Apollos, as well as the hypothesis that it is a letter written in Hebrew by Paul and translated into Greek by Luke, and the hypothesis that it was a re-working of Pauls teaching by another student. He has the most detailed word usage analysis between Hebrews and other N.T. books of any commentator I read.
[12] Hence this Epistle deserves to be called the Epistle of the Priesthood of Christ. ~A.T. Robertson
[13] (ἐλάλει) contemplates the fact rather than the substance of speech, the point being, not what God said, but the fact that he spake to men. On the contrary, λέγειν, refers to the matter of speech. ~Vincent
[14] Exodus 33:18&20 Then Moses said, "I pray You, show me Your glory!" But He said, "You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!"
[15] And also in Heb. 3:6; 5:8; and 7:28.
[16] The word [son] is to be understood as bearing its proper meaning as far as, and no farther than, we know from other sources, that it is not inapplicable to the object to which it is in a figurative sense applied I consider it as not signifying derivation of being, posteriority, or inferiority, for this reason, that though the word son naturally enough suggests these ideas, yet I know from other plain passages of Scripture what is, indeed, implied in the leading idea of identity of nature, that Jesus is the eternal God God over all, and, of course, neither posterior nor inferior to His Father. (Brown)
[17] [T]he new covenant in Christ is the realization of the promises, prophecies, and figures which form the heart of the old order. ~P. Hughes It is the same God that speaks to us, who spake to the fathers; and as that God is one, the two revelations must be harmonious. The Law cannot be against the Promise. ~John Brown, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 1862
[18] We prefer the reading in the end of these times, then the meaning is, toward the conclusion of the Jewish dispensation. It seems equivalent to the expressions used by the Apostle [in] 1 Cor. 10:11 Gal. 4:4 Eph. 1:10 ~John Brown
[19] Cf. John Owen These last days have special reference to the last days of the Judaical church and state, which were then drawing to their period and abolition. This was the time when God specially spoke by His Son.
[20] Vincent Equality with God was his birthright, but out of his human life, death, and resurrection came a type of sovereignty which could pertain to him only through his triumph over human sin in the flesh. Brown: In this character, in which He had voluntarily divested Himself, not of His divine perfections of His supreme proprietorship and rule, for that was impossible, but of the visible display of them, in this character, as the Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, He was, as the reward of His generous exertion, made proprietor of the universe.
[21] Owen appointed according to the eternal purpose of God the covenant of old between the Father and the Son A.T. Robertson called this verb a timeless aorist.
[22] a sonorous
hendiadys for variously (Moffatt)
Why use two words if only one idea were meant? (NAW)
God spake not only at sundry times [outlined at length], but in divers
manners. (Owen)
God apportioned to many the spirit of prophecy, and through such apportionment
caused Christ to be preached in many different ways. (Luther)
different portions which implies its being given at sundry times-but also
in divers manners speaking of the variety of the modes of revelation as
made by them to the fathers. (Brown)
It is unlikely that the two adverbs are intended as a hendiadys, as, e.g.,
Chrysostom and Moffat suppose. (Hughes)
[23] The Chester-Beatty papyrus dating to 200AD (as well as the 3rd century P12) add the word our here. It doesnt change the meaning, however.
[24] The Textus Receptus reads plural last ones εσχατων, in an obvious attempt to match with the plural days, following the late 8th Century Ψ and 19th century 629 manuscripts and a few old Latin translation manuscripts. But the original sense appears to be the singular end of the days of a physical Israel and of the practice of Old Testament temple worship and animal sacrifices. What is strange to me is the universal acceptance of the Textus Receptus reading over the UBS GNT reading among the English translations.
[25] The Chester-Beatty papyrus stands alone in omitting the word and here.