Hebrews

The Hellenist writer puts more words of Scripture into Jesus' mouth. And he stilll refuses to just take the Hebrew Bible for what it says. Who is speaking in Isaiah 8? Who is the "I" and "me" in Isaiah 8:18? Let me quote the christian KJV rendition of Isaiah 8:1-3 taking note that Isaiah is the writer of the prophecy.

(1) Moreover the LORD said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man's pen concerning Maher-shalal-hash-baz. (2) And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah. ( 3) And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz. (4) For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria. (5) The LORD spake also unto me again, saying ... [leading into the prophecy which includes verses 17 and 18] (Isaiah 8:1-5)

Now christians don't believe that Jesus had sex with a woman and had a child. But Isaiah did do all those things! These verses speak of Isaiah's experience. There is no one else in the context of Isaiah 8 who could be speaking when it says "Look, I and the children whom the Lord has given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel" (Isaiah 8:18). So it is Isaiah who said those words. Jesus has no place in this chapter or the verses quoted by the Hellenist. But the Hellenist author stole them from their context and gave them to another.

It's another case of taking scriptures out of context and distorting their meaning!

Chapter 3

verses 7-11

The Hellenist writer continues.

(7)Because of this, (as the Holy Spirit says, Today if you listen to his voice, (8) don't harden your hearts as in the provocation, in the day of testing in the wilderness; (9) when your fathers scrutinized me, tested me, and saw my deeds forty years. (10) Because of this, I was vexed with that generation and said, They always go astray in their heart and have not known my ways. (11) So I swore in my wrath that they shall not enter my rest.) (Hebrews 3:7-11 quoting Psalm 95:7-11)

The Hellenist writer quotes Psalm 95:7-11 as if to say that one must harden one's heart to belief in Jesus. But the passage is from a song acknowledging God, the Creator, as having everything in His hand and that it is Him, God the Creator, whom we must hear and trust according to the Psalm. It has no messianic message in it whatsoever. But we can take this point: since the Psalm admonishes a person to listen to Deity and know His ways, it is imperative for us to learn his ways as written in the Law of Moses, the Torah; and by doing this we can properly test the claims of Jesus and Paul and see them for the anti-Torah doctrine they are. We would see that Jesus couldn't be the promised Davidic king, much less a supernatural being.

To focus on the writer's use of Psalm 95, if one just reads the Psalm, it would be seen that it has nothing to do with any message promoting Jesus or the writer's claims. So it is another occasion of the writer taking a verse out of context.

Chapter 4

verses 3-11

(3) For we which have believed enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. ( 4) For he spoke in a certain place of the seventh day in this way, And God rested the seventh day from all his works. (5) And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest. ( 6) Seeing therefore it remains that some must enter into it, and they to whom it was first preached didn't get in because of unbelief; (7) Again, he limits a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if you listen to his voice, don't harden your hearts. (8) For if Joshua had given them rest, then he wouldn't afterward have spoken of another day. ( 9) There remains therefore a rest to the people of God. (10) For he that has entered into his rest, he also has ceased from his own works, as God did from his. (11) Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief. (Hebrews 4:3-11 quoting Genesis 2:2 and Psalm 95:11)

The writer of Hebrews interprets the "rest" mentioned in Psalm 95:11 as the "rest" mentioned in Genesis 2:2. He says that Deity had rested from the time of creation but David still speaks of a "rest" to come which Israel supposedly never entered; and thus this "rest" has yet to be entered. This "rest" is for those that believe in Jesus. He does this also by redefining the "rest" mentioned in Psalm 95:11 as a "rest from work".

Now this amazing re-interpretation of the Jewish Bible has fundamental problems. One such problem is the fact that the "rest" mentioned in Psalm 95 is the Hebrew word מְנוּחָה, m^enuchah and the "rest" spoken of in Genesis 2 is שָׁבַת, shavath or shabath. This difference at the very least should make a person pause: there is not textual link between Psalm 95 and Genesis 2. The only way the Hellenist author could make this mistake would be if he was relying on a Greek translation of the Jewish Bible which uses the same verbal form in both passages, and he didn't have the sense to check the original.

Not only is there no textual link between the two passages, there is no contextual link between the "rest" in Genesis and the one in Psalms: they are each talking about different subjects. For example, there is a strong contextual link between the sabbath command in Exodus 20:8-11 and Genesis 2:1-3. One is very much based on the other. But what is Psalm 95 talking about?

Psalm 95 is talking about the trek of Israel the nation once they escaped from Egypt, through the desert for 40 years, a trek in which all of the original Israelites died - apart from Joshua and Caleb - while their children went on to claim the land of promise. The reason why all the originals died is because of their disobedience. The mention of Meribah refers to the historical disobedience of Israel is the wilderness (Exodus 17). And the disobedience that sealed them out of the promised land happened in Numbers 13-14 where Israel chose to listen to the spies who gave an evil report of Canaan just as they were about to enter it, and they chose to ignore Joshua and Caleb and Moses and Aaron, which you can go and read for yourself.

But what is the rest mentioned in Psalm 95:11? Is there some bible passage that tells us? Yes there is! Numbers 14:20-24, 28-35 tells us how the Lord punished the eople who disobeyed, but it says that they would not enter Canaan, the promised land. So is the promised land of Canaan the "rest", the מְנוּחָה, m^enuchah, of Psalm 95:11? See Deuteronomy 12:8-10 which shows that the "rest" is meant to be the land of promise and that the "rest" is not a rest from work, but rather rest from all the enemies round about (and possible rest from the nomadic lifestyle of travelling from place to place as opposed to having no fixed home). What buttresses this points is that the word מְנוּחָה, m^enuchah is used in Deuteronomy 12:8-10. see also 1 Kings 8:56 which says very definitely that Israel entered into the rest promised by the Lord. The same Hebrew word, m^enuchah is used there as well. So this exclusion from the "rest" only applied to those Israelites who had sinned in that specific case in the book of Numbers. Since then, the rest had already been entered and was occupied by the people of Israel (see also 1 Chronicles 22:9; Exodus 33:14; Deuteronomy 25:17-19). Deuteronomy 3:18-20 is also telling in that it says that Reuben, Gad and Manasseh would help the other tribes enter into their "rest" before the three tribes can occupy a piece of land that they had wanted on the other side of the Jordon river. So the "rest" which David speaks of in Psalm 95 is the land of promise which the original Israelites who left Egypt (except for Joshua and Caleb) missed out on due to their disobedience.

So again we experience distortion by the writer of Hebrews. By re-interpreting David's words in a twisted fashion, he tries to transfer a literal promise given to national Israel to "believers" who had forsaken Israel's law (as we will see later in Hebrews).

Some may say again that the writer if Hebrews is revealing the true "spiritual" meaning of David's words and the "rest" promised. But remember that these "spiritual meanings" claimed by people who use this argument is actually people imposing their own ideas ont the text of scripture as opposed to an honest extraction of information from the text adn context. Thus this "spiritual meaning" is not the intent of the writings of scripture, but, more accurately, the intentions of a believer's mind based on a faith already accepted before and in spite of a knowledge of scripture.

verse 14 through to chapter 5 verse 10

The Hellenist author of Hebrews continues by repeatedly calling Jesus "high priest". For example,

Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that has passed into the heavens, Jesus the son of God, let us hold on our profession (Hebrews 4:14)

But it must be noted that in the Jewish Bible, there is only one sort of high or great priest, and that is a Levitical one, one descended from the tribe of Levi and from Aaron, particularly thorugh the father working amongst the tribes of Israel (see Exodus 28:1-3; 29:9,28; Leviticus 21:10; Numbers 35:25-28). That is the only high priesthood established in Israel!

But christianity has already accepted Jesus as a king who is descended from David and from the tribe of Judah; and this king must be descended from David and Judah biologically through the father. Thus they cannot have it both ways. Either he is a Judaean through the father, or a Levite through his father. It can't be both. In fact he is neither due to the christian claims of a virgin birth! But the writer of Hebrews and mainstream christianity try to get around this, as we shall explore further.

But the main thing is that Jesus cannot be both priest and king, because both roles are given to two separate tribes of Israel and Jesus cannot descend from both.

Now I have heard it said Jesus is still a high priest because, like David, he performed priestly duties. And the hebrew word meaning priest can refer to Jesus because David's sons, who were not Levites, we called priests. But we must be very clear on what we are talking about. Based on the Jewish Bible, there is only one high priest, and that man must be descended from Levi and Aaron biologically through the father. He and his biological relatives, the Levites are the only ones noted in law as being allow to perform certain offerings like the purification offering (also known as the sin-offering), or the guilt offering. Although David's son (and others) were called by the hebrew word "kohen", the word can and does mean "official" in those places. They by no means are able to fulfil the role of Levitical priests.

It should also be seen that the Hellenist author confuses the issue by referring to both Melchizedek and Aaron, but neither of these can point to Jesus because, as shown in other places, Psalm 110 contextually cannot refer to Jesus, and Jesus is not descended from Aaron. So he still has no place in any priesthood.

Chapter 5

verse 5

And in this manner, the christ didn't glorify himself to be high priest but rather the one who having said to him, You are my son, today I have birthed you. (Hebrews 5:5)

I've dealt with this passage earlier, when I dealt with Hebrews 1:5 and showed that it didn't have anything to do with Jesus. So I won't reinvent the wheel here.

verse 6

(5) In this manner also the Christ didn't glorify himself to be made an high priest, but rather he that said to him, "You are my Son, today have I give birth to you." (6) Even as he says also in another place, "You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek. (Hebrews 5:5-6, in verse 6 quoting Psalm 110:4)

Hebrews 5:6 quotes Psalm 110:4 in order to say that Jesus is a high priest of the order of Malki-tzedeq, a person mentioned in Genesis 14:18. But here again we meet with fundamental problems.

As mentioned before, there is no other high priest sanctioned by scripture apart from that of Aaron, i.e., having descended from Aaron through the father. Malki-tzedeq was not a high priest, only a regular priest (Genesis 14:18). Psalm 110:4 doesn't speak a high priest either, only a regular "priesthood" of some undefined sort, and that's only if we go with that interpretation of the word "priest" and of the verse on a whole (as there are other interpretations of Psalm 110:4 that are equally valid). So the writer of Hebrews is creating a high priest of Malki-tzedeq out of nothing, from thin air, a creation of his own active imagination.

Now the substance of Psalm 110 has been discussed in my article refuting the 300+ messianic prophecies. The fact is that Jesus has not fulfilled the words of this song; it applies better to other people that it does to Jesus, e.g., David or most other real kings who were righteous. It can even apply to Abraham better than it applies to Jesus. Also, a central point is that it is a song, not necessarily a prophecy, therefore even if it can be applied to a messiah, its main subject may not be a definite individual. And if it must be said that it applies to an individual, it has either been better fulfilled by someone else and/or it has been unfulfilled by Jesus. Thus this verse cannot apply to him unless, as is the modus operandi of the new testament as a whole, it is taken out of context and its subject distorted.

Just to be very clear, in case I haven't been, the natural voice of Psalm 110 says nothing about Jesus. Verse 2 speaks of the person ruling in the midst of his enemies. There is no evidence that Jesus ruled anything. Jesus was not a priest in a way that reflected either Malki-tzedeq or Aaron according to verse 4. No kings were crushed in his day according to verse 5. He didn't judge the nations or executed anyone according to verse 6. So the major portions of this chapter have nothing to do with Jesus. It is for these reasons that the chapter applies more to David or to a king that actually did battle rather than the meek and lowly Jesus. That's why it must be seen as taking verse 4 out of context and changing its meaning to apply it to Jesus when the whole chapter revolts against it.

If the following verses in Hebrews, chapter 5 verses 7 and 8, is in any way linked to the quote from Psalm 110, then the question must be asked if strong prayer and petition and obedience is all that is needed to be a priest of Malki-tzedeq's order. If so, then there must be a great many people who are part of that priesthood as many Jews would have fit that criteria. If the criterion is that the Lord himself must call such a person a priest, then Jesus' claim falls flat since that never happened.

Chapter 7

verses 1-3

(1) Because this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; (2) To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; (3) Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; remains a priest continually. (Hebrews 7:1-3)

Note the strangeness of this passage. Malki-tzedeq remains a priest forever?!? According to Hebrews, he has no father, mother, or genealogy, or beginning or end. Now anyone who reads scripture can see the problem with this. There is no way it can have a literal interpretation. The fact that scripture gives no mention about his family doesn't mean that he never had one anymore than the other king mentioned in Genesis 14:1. Those kings never had their fathers, mothers or genealogies mentioned. Are their kingships eternal? Are they still alive because scripture doesn't mention their deaths??? The reasoning of the Hellenist is both ludicrous and arbitrary. There are plenty of people in scripture whose genealogies aren't mentioned. And even if if this description in Hebrews is figurative, what real meaning could it have? Malki-tzedeq is similar to Jesus in what way? A figurative way? Jesus had a mother and a genealogy. In fact Jesus has two conflicting geneaologies. So that messes up any similarity that the Hellenist writer of Hebrews just mentioned. Should christians then be saying that Malki-tzedeq is superior to Jesus??? It just makes no sense whatsoever!

If the Hellenist is trying to make the point that Jesus is Malki-tzedeq or like him, having an eternal pre-existence, then it has already been shown that this is idolatry since only one beign has no beginning or end. To say Jesus has the same attributes, despite what trinitarians wish, would mean there are two separate gods.

Since Hebrews literally means that Malki-tzedeq has these attributes, then maybe there are more gods to the christian godhead than we ever suspected.

But to summarize, the writer of Hebrews makes no coherent point with these verses. No matter what level you take his words, they are always inconsistent with the biblical facts.

verses 4-10

(4) Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. (5) And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes from the people according to the law, that is, of their brothers, though they come out of the loins of Abraham: (6) But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises. (7) And without any despite, the lesser is blessed by the better. (8) And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives. (9) And as I may so say, Levi also, who receives tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. (10) For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him. (Hebrews 7:4-10)

See the logic of the Hellenist here! Malki-tzedeq must be a greater man that Abraham to both receive tithes from him and to be blessed by him. The Levitical priests cames from the loins of Abraham. So, in a way, they paid tithes to Malki-tzedeq, a man isn't descended from them, whose genealogy has nothing to do with theirs. Therefore, Malki-tzedeq must be both a greater man and have a greater priesthood!

Sounds convincing, right?

Sounds logical too, huh?

But that's before we understand the history and principles of the Hebrew Bible.

According to scripture, the righteous deeds of a righteous man are his and his alone (Ezekiel 18:20). They can't be done by one person and somehow conferred (carried across) to another who hasn't done those actions. Everyone is responsible for their own deeds. So Levi and his descendants didn't give tithes to Malki-tzedeq at all. He wasn't in the loins of Abraham. Abraham fathered Isaac, and then Isaac fathered Jacob, and then Jacob fathered Levi. Jacob is Levi's father, not Abraham. Abraham is Levi's great-grandfather.

The Levitical priesthood wasn't even around at the time of Malki-tzedeq, so it was a simple case of Abraham giving his tithes to someone who was around at the time. Levi wasn't born yet, so of course Malki-tzedeq's own genealogy has nothing to do with Levi's. Since Malki-tzedeq and the Levites lived in different time periods, then laws concerning the latter (Levites) can't really apply to the former (Malki-tzedeq). In other words, the law concerning the giving of tithes to the Levites did not exist before the Levitical priesthood. So if someone gave tithes beforehand, the Levitical law would not apply. So in that sense, the logic of Hebrews 7 verses 5 and 6 is severely lacking. If Abraham giving tithes to Malki-tzedeq had happened during the existence of the Levitical law, it would have meant something (although still less than what the writer of Hebrews was gunning for) but since it was before the law, the logic of this Hellenist writer means absolutely nothing.

Think about it! A descendant can be greater than his ancestor. Moses was greater than many of his ancestors. A person coming after someone else doesn't say anything about their greatness. So if Abraham gave gifts to a priest, does that really say anything about the greatness of the priesthood of his descendants? If you think about this logically and biblically, you will have to say there is no compelling evidence to make you draw the Hellenist's conclusion.

With this in mind, what proof is there that Malki-tzedeq's priesthood was any better than Aaron's? Since there was no option for Abraham to give tithes to a Levitical priest, then there is no real proof, just allegory based on figurative meanings, which is the weakest of the weak when it comes to evidence.

verses 11-18

(11) Therefore if perfection came by means of the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the Law), what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron? (12) For the priesthood being transferred/changed, there is, out of necessity, a transfer/change made in the law also. (13) For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man gave attendance at the altar. (14) For it is evident that our Lord arose out of Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. (15) And it is still far more evident, since there arises a different priest after the likeness of Melchisedec, (16) who is made, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. (17) For He testifies, "You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." (18) For truly there is a cancelling of the commandment which went before, because of the weakness and uselessnses of it. (Hebrews 7:11-18)

The writer of Hebrews goes on to say that with the existence of another priesthood, the Levitical priesthood is done away with because of its weakness and uselessness, it's giving no benefit or advantage.

Now I've gotta say something right off the bat. This is to anyone who is actually serious about the Torah, the Law of God through Moses. That is most likely to be the Jews, but there may be some honest gentiles around as well. It says in Deuteronomy 4:1-7 (especially verse 2) and 13:1 (or 12:32 in christian bibles) that is absolutely forbidden to add or subtract anything from God's law. Deuteronomy 27:26 says that those who don't confirm or affirm the words of the Torah in order to do them is accursed, which means (and I'll quote from my earlier refutation of Galatians 3:10:

... to see and accept the truth of [the law]. As one ancient rabbi says, it means "that every Jew must accept the Torah's validity in full, and dare not claim that even one of its commandments is not relevant". So everyone who acknowledges the God of Israel and his Law must "cause it to stand" or affirm its truth and importance, in order that they do it.

The test of any prophet in Hebrew Bibles was whether their teaching agreed with or contradicted the Law of Moses, given by God. For you Jews, or honest gentiles, once you see someone or some book teaching you that a law that is part of the Torah is change, transferred or cancelled, especially calling it useless and weak, you must understand what it is: a teaching that is forbidden by the law which God gave to his greatest prophet! The writer of Hebrews is trying to use allegory and logic to turn you away from the blunt truth of God's law which I'll get into a little later: he is saying that God's law is cancelled and God's priesthood is abolished! He is saying that God's law and priesthood are useless and weak, worse than irrelevant! So you don't have to read anything more to know what you should do with Hebrews, book and author! "What's that?" I hear some ask. "What should they do with Hebrews?" Here's my blunt response:

KICK IT TO THE KERB!

But let me continue with my response.

Here's a question: The Malki-tzedeq priesthood was first and the Levitical priesthood came second; the Hebrew Bible said nothing about the cancellation of Malki-tzedeq priesthood because of the Levitical one; so why, if the Malki-tzedeq priesthood aways existed, would it abolish the Levitical? They either existed fine together, or one existed without abolishing the other, so there would be no reason why the first one must abolish the latter.

Again, let's look at the plain word of the Hebrew Bible. Please read Jeremiah 33:19-22. I'll quote it for you.

(19) And the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying (20) The LORD has spoken thus, If you shall break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, and there be not day or night in their [proper] times; (21) Also my covenant with David my servant shall be broken so that he won't have a son of his to be upon the throne, and the Levitical priests, my ministers. (22) As the hosts of heaven shall not be counted, and the sand of the sea shall not be measured, in like manner I shall increase the offspring of David my servant, and the Levites who minister to me. (Jeremiah 33:19-22)

Please read it again!

What does it say?

To summarize, it is a firm promise to David and the Levitical priests. There will always be Levitical priests!!! Note that the word "Levitical" means "descended from Levi." So that means that there cannot be an abolishing or cancelling of that priesthood, or a change in that commandment. As I quoted before, Aaron and his sons were given a perpetual command and priesthood. That, on its own, stands in the face of the book of Hebrews and directly contradict it. How can you end the endless? Look at Numbers 18:19,23.

(19) All the terumah-offerings of the holy things which the children of Israel shall raise to the LORD, I have given to you [the Levites, see context] and to your sons and your daughters with you for an everasting statute. It is an everlasting covenant of salt before the LORD for you and for your offspring with you.
(23) And the Levite, he shall do the service of the tent of meeting adn they shall bear their iniquity: an everlasting statute for your generations and in the midst of the children of Israel: they won't inherit an inheritance.

Also see Exodus 29:9:

And you shall gird them with a belt, Aaron and his sons, and you shall bind to them turbans and they shall have a priesthood for an everlasting statute, and you shall consecrate [literally, fill the hand of] Aaron and his sons.

The scriptures show no sign of their ending.

Now again, some may ask: if there is supposed to be an eternal Levitical priesthood, what happened to it with the destruction of the Temple in 70CE? Surely, this must mean that Jesus has now become a spiritual King and High Priest since the Jews have neither king or priest. [Special thanks to the Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge for the typical christian response to these points.]

Please put your thinking caps on. What I'm gonna say is not difficult or complex, but it may miss you.

• You do not fulfil a law by abolishing it!
  
  
• You do not promise something to one particular person only for it to be given to someone else!
  
  
• To promise something to someone and then give what was promised to someone else without warning or condition is a lie!
  
  

Read all the Jewish Bible, and the plain meaning of it will never give the implication that the Levitical priesthood will end!

Now let me address my point.

• The Torah, the Law of Moses, says that the Aaronic and Levitical priesthood has everlasting responsibilities and thus has an everlasting existence. This clearly means the priesthood passed down biologically from Aaron and Levi is everlasting. This law cannot be fulfilled by abolishing or cancelling it, i.e., there can't be Levitical priests if there is no more law.
  
  
• The Lord, whose promises are true and who never goes back on his word, gave a promise and his word to the priesthood of those descended from Levi. This promise is as sure and firm as the heaven and earth and is everlasting. This promise does not apply to anyone descended from another tribe like Judah, as Jesus was supposed to have been.
  
  
• The Lord, whose promises are true and who never goes back on his word, could not take what was promised to the descendants of Aaron and Levi and, without warning or condition, give it to someone descended from Judah. Why? Because doing so would be deceitful, i.e., a lie. And Deity does not lie or go back on his word.
  
  

So, to say that God has fulfilled his promises and laws by taking what was promised to a Levitical priest and giving it to someone who the new testament itself says is not from Levi is illogical, ridiculous and incredibly short-sighted. It just ain't right. Even Jesus never said such a thing!!! And even if he did say something to this effect (which he didn't), it still would not have mattered because there was no warning or condition of any change in the Torah!

For those who would want to refer to Zechariah 6, which still does not refer to the ending of the Levitical priesthood, please refer to my refutation of the claim of a messianic prophecy there. Again, the typical christian response is both nonsense by making God essentially lie, and blasphemous by insulting and attempting to abolish or cancel a command and promise of the Lord.

OK, with that out of the way, seeing the logically and biblically bankrupt "answer" of christianity, what is the answer?

The fact is that there are still descendants of David and Levi walking around today. Whether it be via genetics or through family records, a good amount of Levites can be found today. So even with no temple, there are still levitical priests around today. And then you will say "but they can't do their job without a temple." But just think back with me! There was another time when Israel was evicted from their land and the temple was destroyed. Yes, this event was even in the scriptures. It's when Babylon came and conquered and captured Jerusalem. The temple was destroyed and the people scattered. Yet, surprisingly, during the time of the exile, there was not a single authoritative notion that the commandments were done away with or the promise of David and Levi made void. The fact is that the promise is that there will always be a descendant of David and Levi alive and available with the ability to fulfil the task.

Remember the prophecy in Hoshea 3:4-5 which clearly states that, for a long time, Israel will be without king or sacrifice (i.e., the temple practice), but that the kingship of David's lineage will be re-established. Also reading Ezekiel 37 and 40-46, we see that the temple and its Levites will be re-established. This prophecy doesn't refer to the 2nd temple, the one that was destroyed in 70CE, since it doesn't match the description of these chapters. It refers to a future temple.

So all that is happening is a pause, not a cessation, just like the 70-year Babylonian exile, but longer. Thus the promises will be put into effect, especially with descendants of David and Levi still in existence. The Lord's promise is still what is preserving them.

I just ask you to understand what happened in the Babylonian exile, especially to the descendants of David and Levi still in existence at that time and the state of the Temple, and then to apply those principles to what is going on today, what has been going on since the destruction of the second Temple in 70CE. It makes no sense to follow the reasoning of the writer of Hebrews and the christian church which clings to the Hellenist author and his words. The word of the Lord in the Hebrew Scriptures makes much better sense and is a witness that God Almighty does what he has said from the beginning: he means what he says and keeps his word.

Now the writer of Hebrews calls for this abolition of divine law due to his view that it made no one perfect and thus is weak and useless! Noting the fact that such a view, i.e., to call divine law weak and useless (of no benefit) is insulting to the One who gave such a law, and thus is blasphemous, let me deal with this claim of the Hellenist author.

1. God never said that the priesthood would make things perfect! This is most important because the Hellenist author of Hebrews has basically created a straw man, stating something that has never had any reality, something that God never said, and then calls God's law weak and useless for something that God never said.
   
   
2. The fact that it was to have an ongoing and everlasting role in the Israeli community means that it can't be said that it was going to make everything perfect. Because, even in the messianic age, a time when the whole world knows Deity and the carnivorous way of life would come to an end (Isaiah 11:6-9), the Levites would still have a role and be in existence. So it would seem that even in the face of world renewal, the priesthood remains. So something seems to be missing from the Hellenist author's logic. The very fact that the priesthood's existence continues even into times of greater perfection shows that its purpose was not to make people perfect.
   
   
3. If the purpose of the Levitical priesthod was not to make people perfect, then it doesn't matter what Jesus did or didn't do. His actions become irrelevant to the existence of the Levitical priesthood since it continues even in the future divinely restored world.
   
   

I would argue that the Levitical priesthood fulfilled its purpose throughout history, i.e., obeying God's commands regarding the priesthood whenever possible, taking care of the sanctuary, receiving and presenting to God the various sorts of offerings of all sorts of people (note: offerings were not only for atonement of sin), teaching the law, judging difficult judicial matters, etc. In essence, the priest belongs to the Almighty to perform a special role. Now it doesn't matter how perfect the world is, aspects of these roles can have everlasting continuity as long as there is an earth and a heaven and the people of Israel and of the world. Thus the priesthood will always have an existence and a purpose.

Thus, the law is not weak and useless, but it gives a task that humans can do to elevate themselves in divine service. Such a task can never be weak and useless unless you ask of it something it was never meant to do! And that's the Hellenist author's mistake. His deplorable understanding of law causes him to make blasphemous statements which insult God's law.

This is the weakness of many christian encyclopedias because their descriptions of priesthood are based on the understanding of the author of Hebrews, and thus are skewed and distorted.

verses 26-27

(26) For such a high priest was suitable for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; (27) Who doesn't have to - as those high priests - daily offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. (Hebrews 7:26-27)

Jesus is supposed to have offered himself as a sacrifice, once and for all people at all times. Despite all the praises the Hellenist gives to Jesus, one still must stop and think! According to this author, Jesus gave his human body as a sacrifice. But according to whose law? It's definitely not according to the law of God given through Moses! There is nothing in the revealed law, the Torah, that gives instructions for a "perfect" human sacrifice. The Law of God outlaws, and thus makes illegal, human sacrifice by allowing only animal sacrifice or offerings of plants or flour. The Law of God tells the Jews what altar to use and how Deity wants his offerings. Remember, it is God that tells us what He requires, and without his revelation we have no clue. And what He has revealed leaves out humans dying on crosses as sacrifices. His servants have told us what he accepts: specific animal or flour sacrifices; repentance; prayer; and obedience to the Torah. But nowhere does it presribe a human death as atonement for sin. It doesn't even prescribe divine death, if such an abhorrent thing were possible.

So Jesus' death is not in accordance with Torah and is thus an illegal act that would alienate him from any notion of priesthood. His righteousness would not save or help anyone based on Ezekiel 18:20 and Deuteronomy 24:16.

Chapter 8

verses 4-5

(4) For if he [Jesus] were on earth, he would not be a priest, being of those that offer the gifts according to the law, (5) who serve an illustration and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to discharge his duty of building the tabernacle: "Therefore see, He said, that you shall make all things according to the pattern showed to you in the mountain." (Hebrews 8:4,5 quoting Exodus 25:40)

Here, the Hellenist author of Hebrews quotes Exodus 25:40 to say that Jesus was not a priest on earth but rather a priest in heaven, namely in the heavenly tabernacle of which Moses could only do a shadowy earthly copy, according to the above quoted scripture.

Let's first deal with the verse quoted. You can read all the context of Exodus 25 that you want, but one thing is for sure: it doesn't say overtly what Moses or was shown at the top of the mountain. All we do know is that Moses saw the form or shape of everything that was meant to be made in the tabernacle, and he was told to make everything as he saw it. Since he alone saw it, made sure that those who made the parts of the structure made it according to plain, he set it up and arranged the tabernacle, who exactly is the writer of Hebrews to say that it was but a shadowy copy??? If Moses had to obey God, and make things according to what he was shown, then he had to get things just right as he was commanded. With this is mind, there is every chance that Moses simply saw exactly the form of the completed tabernacle! That's the only way it can make sense when it says Exodus 39:32,42,43, and Exodus 40:19,21,27,29,32 that it was all done as the Lord had commanded. The constant repetition of the phrase "just as the Lord commanded ..." in the final chapters of Exodus when it talks about both how people contructed each part of the tabernacle and how Moses set it up shows that Moses reproduced what he saw exactly, as opposed to him just doing some shadowy copy.

So the writer of Hebrews again goes above his station and makes a baseless points he is not qualified to make.

Can we derive from that verse, Exodus 25:40, that there is a tabernacle in heaven? No! Moses sees a pattern, a blueprint (to reflect the Hebrew) in the mountain. That all we get! But what if this means that the tabernacle is a metaphor for something else? Metaphor can be another word for "shadow" in christian circles. As I said before, allegories are the worst form of evidence since different people get different ideas about the same metaphor or allegory. So there is no strong basis to follow the writer's view yet. Let's see how he does as we carry on.

verses 6-13

(6) But now he has obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. (7) For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then a place would not have been sought for a second [one]. (8) For finding fault with them, he says, Behold, the days come, says the Lord, and I will bring about a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: (9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they didn't remain in my covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. (10) Because this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws into their mind, and write them upon their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people; (11) And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, "Know the Lord," because all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. (12) For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and I will not remember their sins and iniquities anymore. (13) In that he says, "new," he has made the first old. Now that which is old and aged is close to destruction [or disappearance, meaning removal from sight]. (Hebrews 8:6-13 quoting Jeremiah 31:31-34)

Essentially, the Hellenist author of Hebrews uses a passage from Jeremiah to say that Jesus mediated a new covenant making the old covenant, the covenant of the Law of Moses, obsolete, old, and ready to be put into obscurity (or destroyed).

Now this has been dealt with somewhat in my article refuting supposed messianic prophecies, but we can at least summarize some of it and pick up some points on how the writer of Hebrews, the Hellenist, "uses" this scriptural passage.

Point 1: verse 9 - καγω ημελησα αυτων

The above Greek means something like "and I was without concern or care for them" or "and I disregarded them" or "and I neglected them." This is according to the LXX. But it is a mistranslation of the Hebrew which says "and I was a husband to them, " or "and I married them." Since the Septuagint (LXX) has a mistranslation which the writer of Hebrews continues with, then it cannot be said that the book of Hebrews is infallible or the word of God on the same level as the Jewish Bible, or that that the writer had the such a level of God-given spirit which would have not made a mistake. This mistake says the complete opposite to what the words of Jeremiah were, so it cannot be true.

Point 2

God had already given his laws to Moses and Israel in the history recorded in the books of Exodus to Deuternomy, which included the law concerning the priesthood. When God, through Jeremiah, said He would put his law into the hearts of the people of the houses of Israel and Judah, this priestly law would have been included. Yet the Hellenist tells in this book of Hebrews that divine laws have been done away with and abolished. So the writer has written himself into a contradiction. There's no point in saying that the priestly laws are not "my laws" - God's laws - since they obviously are, according to the Law of Moses written in the Jewish Bible. And the passage in Jeremiah says nothing about God giving new laws. So the writer of Hebrews contradicts himself or he contradicts Scripture, neither of which would be a new thing considering what we've seen before of this writer.

Point 3

Israel and Judah, when the new covenant comes into effect, will no longer have to be taught, "Know the Lord," for all of them shall know Him. As is plainly obvious, this has not happened from Jeremiah's time up until this present time. The need for christian missionaries, like Jews for Jesus, in Israel today shows that this new covenant hasn't happened yet. A lot of Israel is atheist or agnostic today so they don't even know the Lord. Thus, the "better covenant" that Jesus is supposed to have brought in hasn't started in the past 2000 years. So this doesn't add to the Hellenist's claim.

Point 4: "making the first obsolete"

According to Jeremiah 31, the terms of the new covenant says nothing about the first one being obsolete. This is just the imagination of the Hellenist. Do you know how many covenants were made in the Jewish Bible? A good few. Did you know that no later covenant ever abolished a former one? Whether it's the covenant of Noah, or that of Abraham, or Moses and Israel, or Phinehas, or David, no latter divine covenant abolished a former one. The covenant of circumcision that Abraham got in Genesis 17 did not abolish the covenant of Noah in Genesis 9. The covenant of Moses and Israel did not make the first covenants - that of Noah and Abraham - obsolete.

So on what basis does the Hellenist author of Hebrew say that the "new" covenant of Jeremiah abolishes or does away with the Mosaic covenant? It's not from the words of Jeremiah 31, that's for sure! The basis of the Hellenist's argument is nowhere in the divinely given scriptures, the Jewish Bible. So basically he doesn't have a leg to stand on. The Jeremiah covenant actually shows the opposite of Paul's message: in the time of the new covenant, the Law (that of Moses, the only one mentioned in scripture) will be obeyed and known by every Israelite, which stands in total contradiction to the abolition or rendering idle of law which Paul and the writer of Hebrews goes on about.

Thus the "first" covenant is not made obsolete or annulled, but instead is re-affirmed with the people of Israel (as opposed to some gentile church) keeping their law and living safely in their land with the Temple rebuilt (Jeremiah 23 and 31; Ezekiel 37).

Chapter 9

verses 6-15

(6) Now these things having been thus prepared, the priests went always into the first tent, accomplishing the service of God. (7) But the high priest alone [went] into the second once every year, not without blood, which he offers for himself, and for the mistakes of the people: (8) The Holy Spirit making this plain: that the way into the holies was not yet revealed, while the first tabernacle was still standing: (9) Which was an analogy/symbol/simile for the present time, in which both gifts and sacrifices are being offered, that cannot make the one who did the service perfect with regards to the conscience; (10) only in foods and drinks, and various washings, even fleshy ordinances, imposed on them until the time that things get straightened out. (11) But Christ having come, a high priest of the coming good things through a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made by hands, that is, not of this creation/building; (12) And not by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption. (13) For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, makes holy to the purifying of the flesh: (14) How much more shall the blood of Christ, who offered himself without blemish to God through the eternal Spirit, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (15) And because of this he is the mediator of the new testament, so that by a death happening for the full payment for violations that were under the first testament, those who were called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. (Hebrews 9:6-15)

The writer of Hebrews has repeatedly made the point that the temple ceremonies couldn't make a person perfect. We see more clearly this in this passage what he means. Verse 9 speaks of the cleansing of the conscience, that the ceremonies couldn't do that. Verse 14 speaks of cleansing the conscience from "dead works." What are dead works? Hebrews 6:1 speaks of "repentance of dead works." Now although some would love to say that this refers to the dead words of the ceremonial part of Moses' Law which is abolished and done away with, but this conclusion makes little sense. Even Paul never equated the Law with a sin you need to repent of. What is clearly repented of in the Bible are sins. So this must be what the "dead works" refer to: "repentance of dead works" is the same as "repentance for sins [or sinful deeds]."

So what normal sacrifices couldn't do, Jesus' "sacrifice" is supposed to accomplish: to free a person from the power of sin. Again, I ask you to just think about this. Did you know that "born again" christians and everyone else in the world has something in common? We all sin! There is no righteous person in the world that only does good and never sins! That was true in the "old covenant" and it's the same now, whether you are a christian or not. Even christians admit this. So what exactly have the christians been freed from? How are they any more free than a Jewish rabbi intent on living according to the law of the one true God given through Moses? How is this christian more free than any Jew or Gentile who observes God's law for that particular individual?

The fact is that this cleansing or freedom, this picture of Jesus offering his blood in some higher temple, all of it is totally invisible and seemingly non-existent. I've been in enough churches of "saved" christians that is just as full of gossip and backbiting and political intrigue to know this. "But we are saved by faith" you may hear them cry. But with no backing from God's law, the foundation of all and any scripture, then they are just shouting in the wind with claims worth nothing.

verses 16-28

(16) For wherever [there's] a testament, it is necessary for the death of the one who makes the testament to be carried out. (17) For a testament is in force because of dead [men] seeing that it has no strength at all while the one who made the testament lives. (18) So neither was the first [testament] dedicated without blood. (19) For when Moses spoke every commandment to all the people according to the law, taking the blood of calves and of goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, he sprinkled both the book and all the people, (20) saying, This [is] the blood of the testament which God has commanded you. (21) And he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the service. (22) And almost all things are purified by blood according to the law, and forgiveness doesn't happen without blood-shed.

(23) [It was] therefore necessary for the copies of things in the heavens to be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. (24) For the Christ didn't enter into handmade holy places, symbols of the true; but rather into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us, (25) but not so that he should offer himself frequently, as the high priest enters into the holy place every year with blood of others, (26) since he would have had to suffer frequently from the foundation of the world. But now - at one time - in the end of the ages, he has appeared for [the] nullification of sin by his sacrifice. (27) And as it is reserved for mankind to die once, but after this, judgment, (28) in such manner the Christ, being offered once to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time without sin for salvation to those who have persisted waiting for him. (Hebrews 9:16-28)

Ok. This is kinda lengthy so I'll break it down and we'll test the logic of the Hellenist author of Hebrews.

(16) For wherever [there's] a testament, it is necessary for the death of the one who makes the testament to be carried out. (17) For a testament is in force because of dead [men] seeing that it has no strength at all while the one who made the testament lives. (18) So neither was the first [testament] dedicated without blood. (verses 16-18)

Now I've got to re-iterate something I've said many times before. Sola-scriptura christians, which makes up the vast majority of Protestant christianity, only accept the written text of their Bible as having divine authority. They are not even 100% sure on who actually wrote Hebrews so that adds to the fact that whoever the author was did not start or help maintain any traditional interpretation of what he actually meant when he wrote these words. Reading the christian commentaries of the past centuries, such as Calvin, Wesley, John Gill, Matthew Henry, and consulting the Latin Vulgate, I do see some consensus and some disagreement about what actually is being spoken of in these verses. I'm not going to get into the debate of the true meaning, whatever it is. I'll just deal with the face value of what is said.

The Hellenist starts off a false comparison. He starts off using the example of a "testament." The context points to this "testament" being what we understand as "the last will and testament" of a person. That means that before a person dies, they arrange their affairs and estate and write out or declare what they want to happen to their possessions after they die. This declaration or document is called a "last will and testament." And when that person dies, what they have declared or what they have written takes effect and their possessions are divided amongst those they have chosen. And as the writer says, the person make in the will or testament, the "testator," has to die for it to take effect.

Now the Hellenist then tries to equate a covenant with a testament. I've already said what a testament is. But what is a covenant? It is an agreement between two people involving shared promises. For example, the Creator makes a covenant with Noah in Genesis 9. Note that neither party in the covenant, neither Noah nor God, had to die for it to take effect. The same point is true with regards to the divine covenants of Abraham, Moses and Israel, and Phinehas. This is a fundamental and important difference between a testament and a covenant. In a testament, a will, the person making the testament must die for it to take effect. In a covenant, no one dies. They are essentially two different things.

[ASIDE: There are some christians that have said that the author of Hebrews isn't talking about a testament, but rather a covenant. Thus, for them verses 16-17 would state "For wherever [there's] a covenant, it is necessary for the death of the 'covenant-victim' to be carried out. For a covenant is in force because of the dead seeing that it has no strength at all while the 'covenant-victim' lives." There are reasons why this rendering is strange and still is invalid. Firstly, as far as I know, there is no other place in any Greek text where the Greek word translated 'covenant-victim' is understood like that. Normally it just means the person who makes the will, as opposed to some sacrificial offering. This seems to be an attempt to make the author of Hebrews make sense when he obviously doesn't. Secondly, the text and the surrounding context points more to a will. The previous verse refers to an inheritance, and the natural flow of what comes next (in verses 16-18) seems to be the way a person gets an inheritance in the Greek sense of things, i.e., by means of a will or a testament. Thirdly, even if the text could be twisted into this "covenant-victim" picture, the Hebrew Bible doesn't agree that an animal offering or animal sacrifice is needed. There are two divine covenants that were not confirmed with a sacrifice: the covenant of Noah which classically starts from Genesis 9 and not the previous chapter; and the covenant of Phinehas in Numbers 25 (no divine covenant in the Hebrew Bible is ever confirmed with human blood.) So that would make the logic false in Hebrews 9:17 if we are talking about a covenant-victim. A covenant-victim is not needed for a covenant to take effect.]

So the fact that blood is shed to institute the Mosaic covenant means nothing with regards to the Hellenist's logic since it is neither the testator (the one who makes a testament) or one of the parties of a covenant.

A christianmay say tell me to wait, and put forward the idea that the similarity between a covenant and a testament is that something has to die. But did you know that a chicken had to die for me to eat and enjoy my roast chicken meal? Animals die daily for so many humans to enjoy meals, to enjoy hunting, even to do some other stuff with the body parts of an animal. Something has to die, right? So can my roast chicken mean be equated to a divine covenant? No! Why? Because the similarity is too superficial and there are not enough fundamental similarities to make the comparison valid or to equate one with the other. The same is true when trying to equate a testament with a covenant.

Let me just add the opposite problem. The Mosaic covenant may have been instituted with blood - literal blood - but you don't need blood to put a will into effect, only a death. In fact, it wasn't just any blood that was used to institute the Mosaic covenant: it was the blood of an ritually clean animal that was slaughtered in a special ritual to both obtain its blood and to give a satisfactory offering to God. None of these elements are part of what is needed for a will to come into effect. So there really isn't enough similarity to equate a covenant, especially a covenant with God, with a testament.

(19) For when Moses spoke every commandment to all the people according to the law, taking the blood of calves and of goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, he sprinkled both the book and all the people, (20) saying, This [is] the blood of the testament which God has commanded you. (21) And he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the service. (Hebrews 9:19-21 quoting Exodus 24:8)

The writer of Hebrews quotes Exodus 24:8 but it doesn't really help because the supposedly infallible holy spirit inspired writer of Hebrews makes an error: he adds to the words of the Hebrew Scripture! I ask you to read Exodus 24:1-8. Once you've read it, take a look at Hebrews 9:20. Pay careful attention to what was sprinkled and who it was sprinkled on.

Moses didn't even use half the stuff that the Hellenist author of Hebrews claims he did, and he only sprinkled the people not the book. To quote the relevant verse that applies to the Hellenist's misdeed:

Every word of God is refined. It is a shield for all who take refuge in it. Don't add to his word lest he rebuke you and you are found to be a liar. (Proverbs 30:5-6)

I guess that makes the writer of Hebrews a liar!

... and forgiveness doesn't happen without blood-shed. (Hebrews 9:22b)

This verse is also translated more popularly as "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission/forgiveness."

This is one of the most fundamental errors of the Hellenist writer of Hebrews which christianity readily absorbed as a foundational position in their doctrine of sin, atonement and forgiveness. Let me show you how the Hebrew Scriptures contradict this notion at its core. But I ask you to be clear as to what the claim of the Hellenist is: if you have no blood, if someone or some animal doesn't die with blood loss, that means you have no forgiveness from God, i.e., God will not forgive you! Does the Hebrew Bible really state this or show this? Now, a lot of this has been dealt with in other articles of mine such as "Salvation and forgiveness" and "But you need sacrifices." A great many Jewish articles and books refute this sort of thinking. But I'll emphasize a few scriptures here.

Leviticus 5:11-13 has an sin offering commanded by God Himself that has no blood being given for atonement and forgiveness. Take note that the plain reading of these verses state nothing about blood being needed. Thus it is not true that there is no forgiveness without bloodshed.

[ASIDE: There are those who, because they accept the new testament first before the Hebrew Scriptures, will read their bloody notions and pre-conclusions into texts like Leviticus 5:11-13, ideas that are not there. My approach is to read the bible in the right direction, from the beginning to the end, and not backwards. So the plain text of Leviticus 5:11-13 comes first. If someone afterwards says that blood is needed for atonement, then that person is obviously wrong. Also, there are some christians who attempt to quote the writings of the Jews, such as the Talmud, to make it seem as if ancient Jews accepted their bloody notions and pre-conclusions. Again, remember that it is their beliefs in the new testament that come first and everything else must bow to that. This is evident in the commentaries of John Gill, Albert Barnes, John Lightfoot and Michael Brown. I recommend that you find sources like articles by Rabbis Blumenthal and Moshe Schulman. At the writing of this work, these can be found at yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com, www.jewsforjudaism.org, and www.judaismanswers.com. I'm sure there are other sources, but I'm just referring to these.]

Numbers 14:1-25 has the Almighty pardoning (or forgiving) the people's sin without blood. Some will say, "but the people were still punished." And I would agree. But guess what! They were still forgiven, according to the word of Deity Himself (Numbers 14:20), and not only that but forgiven without blood!

In 2 Chronicles 7:13-14 (compare with King Solomon's prayer in 1 Kings 8), it is clear that prayer without blood brings forgiveness.

In Psalms 32:5, confession to God, without blood, brought David forgiveness.

Ezekiel 18 is clear that a total forgiveness, a forgiveness where past sins are forgotten, comes when a person starts living a righteous lifestyle and forsaking wicked ways.

Proverbs 16:6 says that deeds of kindness and truth bring atonement.

Isaiah 43:22-25 has God wiping out Israel's sins without sacrifice!

Even if one of these passages proves the point that forgiveness is possible without blood, then the writer of Hebrews is wrong. If two or three of these passages or the ones I mention in the articles I mentioned before then it is even more clear that the Hellenist author of Hebrews has got it wrong, dead wrong! In fact, reading through the Hebrew Bible, it becomes plain that the Hellenist betrays his pagan thinking, focusing on blood as opposed to what the Hebrew Bible focuses on, repentance and acknowledgement of sins.

There is no place in the Hebrew Bible that says that only blood can be used to gain forgiveness for sins from God. The one verse the christians can use is Leviticus 17:11 which says nothing about blood being the only means of forgiveness. It only says, in context, that blood should not be eaten because it is used on the altar to gain atonement and for that reason blood should not be eaten. It doesn't say that blood alone gives forgiveness.

One important note before I end this section on the need for bloodshed for forgiveness. The author of Hebrews and those christians who follow him have greatly oversimplified what the Law of Moses says about the use of blood and how it is used in the sacrificial system. The law of Moses isn't saying "any blood will do." You can't just cut your finger, shed some blood, and thus get forgiveness. And it is not that any death will do either. You can't slaughter a pig and expect forgiveness. According to this Law, you can only give what the Law tells you to in order to get forgiveness. In no place of God's Law does it say that human death or human blood is an acceptable sacrifice. In fact, since God only says that certain animals could be sacrificed and only in a certain place, the Temple, and only using certain rituals, no other sort of sacrifice is allowed. That means that human sacrifice is not allowed. It is a special stipulation of God's Law that no one is allowed to add to it (Deuteronomy 4:2; 13:1 [or 12:32 in christian versions]). So by looking closely at whether the Hellenist's logic is correct, we see that Jesus' death was an illegal sacrifice.

I think it becomes clear that the Hellenist has done more harm than good with this sort of reasoning. It's blatantly false to say that only blood gives forgiveness from sins.

(23) [It was] therefore necessary for the copies of things in the heavens to be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. (24) For the Christ didn't enter into handmade holy places, symbols of the true; but rather into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us, (25) but not so that he should offer himself frequently, as the high priest enters into the holy place every year with blood of others, (26) since he would have had to suffer frequently from the foundation of the world. But now - at one time - in the end of the ages, he has appeared for [the] nullification of sin by his sacrifice. (27) And as it is reserved for mankind to die once, but after this, judgment, (28) in such manner the Christ, being offered once to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time without sin for salvation to those who have persisted waiting for him. (verses 23-28)

With the foundation of logic used by the Hellenist author of Hebrews seen to be "weak and unprofitable," this further point of the Hellenist can be seen to be baseless, empty of any fact and filled with pure imagination. As shown before, according to the law of the Lord, Jesus' death is not an acceptable means of getting forgiveness or atonement. In fact, it is illegal according to God's law. It has also been shown that Jesus has no claim to a proper priesthood. It could be added here that as well as Jesus having no rights to any priesthood - Melkhizedek or Levite - the supposed Melkhizedek priesthood is not linked with any temple or tabernacle. A Melkhizedek priest had no rights to enter the tabernacle or temple, which was only open to a high priest who was descended biologically from Levi and Aaron through the father. There is no explicit statement in the Hebrew Bible that there is some heavenly temple and the verses the Hellenist brings forward can never be used as a clear proof.

Seeing all this, Jesus couldn't save anybody by dying, no matter how righteous he was supposed to be. His death was no sacrifice! He had no heavenly temple to go to! He was part of no priesthood! He had nothing and therefore he did nothing to save anyone from the sins.

Chapter 10

verses 3-4

(1) For the law - having a shadow of good things to come, and not [being] the very image of the things - can never make those who approach it perfect with those sacrifices which they offered year by year repeatedly. (2) For then wouldn't they have ceased to be offered? because the worshippers once they were made pure should have had no more conscience of sins. (3) But in those [sacrifices there is] a reminder of sins every year. (4) For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take away sins. (Hebrews 10:1-4)

The claim is that it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins, or to atone for sins. In the eyes the Hellenist author of Hebrews, the only purpose of sacrifices was for people to have a constant reminder of their sins every single year.

For people who care about what God Himself has to say on the subject, as opposed to some unknown commentator such as the author of Hebrews (it makes no difference if Paul himself wrote this, he would still only be a commentator), I would implore you to please read the relevant parts of the Law of Moses and the passages amongst the books of the prophets, in particular Leviticus 1-9 and Ezekiel 45. One concerns the past and the other is about the future. A sample (but by no means exhaustive one) of the relevant passages follows.

Past: Leviticus 1:4; 4:20,26,31,35; 5:6,10,13,16,18; 6:7.

Future: Ezekiel 45:13-20 (please take note of the KJV's handling of a certain Hebrew word. In Leviticus, it always translates the word as "to atone" or "to make atonement for", but in Ezekiel 45 it is changed to "reconciliation")

All of these verses and passages have a certain thing in common: their plain contextual meaning is that the blood of bulls and goats make atonement for and thus removes sin. That's what God said!

So if the Almighty Authority says that blood sacrifices do atone for sin, i.e., takes away sins, cleanses from sin, then that fact alone kicks away the foundation from the Hellenist's logic and argumentation! If more than that is needed, then it would be because someone ha sput the words of the writer of Hebrews - words which are known to come from a man's mind (whether supposedly spirit-driven or not) - above the plain words that were taken straight from God's mouth and written down. We have direct revelation in God's law and from his prophets against someone trying to prove his point! For someone to still choose to force the plain words of God in the Law of Moses to bow to the logic of the writer of Hebrews proves one important thing: the seeds of idolatry is in the mind of such a person, and the new testament helps those seeds to blossom and grow. A central aspect of idolatry is to put something else above the authority of God. To make God's plain word in the Law of Moses bow to the author of Hebrews is to make the Hellenist superior to God and his Laws. Nothing good can come of it.

verses 5-7

(4) For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. (5) Because of this, when he cometh into the world, he says, Sacrifice and offering thou didn't want, but a body you have prepared me: (6) In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin you have had no pleasure. (7) Then I said, Look, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do your will, O God. (8) Previously he said, "Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin you didn't want, neither had pleasure in them;" which are offered according to the law. (9) Then he said, "Look, I come to do thy will, O God." He takes away the first, that he may establish the second. (Hebrews 10:4-9 quoting Psalms 40:6-8)

The Hellenist author of Hebrews seems to quote Psalms 40:6-8 to say that the covenant containing sacrifices is abolished and Jesus' covenant begins.

But again we start with problems. [How many times have I said that?] two things contradict the validity of the author's interpretation.

1. The real Hebrew text and context, and
2. The author's over-reliance of the LXX, an ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible.

Point 1 - The real Hebrew text and context

The real meaning of Psalm 40:6-8 can be seen by reading the whole of the Psalm which says nothing about messiah or a new covenant. That point has been dealt with in another article about the supposed messianic content of Psalm 40:6-8. The writer of Hebrews tries to put the Psalm in the mouth of Jesus but we hit upon a snag in that the writer of the Psalm says that he has committed iniquities (Psalm 40:12). Did christianity's perfect high priest commit sin like a common man? And if they say that the latter part of Psalm 40 doesn't apply - even though Psalm 40 carries no break and the person who the Psalm is talking about remains the same - then that proves a continual self-refuting aspect of the whole new testament, especially the writings of Paul: the abundance of quotes taken out of context.

But rather than re-create the wheel, I'll summarize here. All Psalm 40:6-8 means is that obedience is better than sacrifice. The Lord prefers the hearkening to his word/law than the slaughtering of animals (Jeremiah 7:22,23; Exodus 19:5,6; Deuteronomy 10:12,13). The writer of the Psalm is saying that as opposed to giving sacrifices "I have the scroll of the law with me and within me, to do your will," i.e., obedience (vs 8-9, verse 9 conveniently omitted by the author of Hebrews). This continued keeping of the LaW of Moses in Psalm 40 contradicts any notion of its being done away with.

Point 2 - The author's over-reliance on the LXX

If you read a normal translation of Psalm 40:6 or if you can read a copy of the Hebrew, you'll see these words:

זֶבַח וּמִנְחָה לֺא־חָפַצְתָּ אָזְנַיִם כָּרִיתָ לִּי
TRANSLATION: Slaughtering and offerings you didn't desire,
My ears you bore through for me [or, you opened/exposed my ears for me].

The Hebrew word translated "bore through" or "exposed," the Hebrew verb כרה, k-r-h, which more "literally" means to dig a hole, gives the meaning of ears that were closed being opened up to hear and thus listen to and obey Deity; or it can be something similar to a servant who wants to serve his master forever having his ear bored through on a doorpost (Exodus 21:5-6), and thus it means an eternal servitude to Deity. Either way it's clear that the verse talks about ears being opened up in some manner.

Now compare this to the version of the Septuagint/LXX that the writer of Hebrews chooses to use. [It should be noted that that there are different versions of the LXX, some of which give a much better rendering of the Hebrew.]

Sacrifice and offering you didn't want, but a body you have prepared for me.

Now this is totally different to what we saw before in the Hebrew. There's a big difference between having listening ears or having ears pierced, and having a whole body framed and formed for a purpose.

I'm not gonna say a lot about this for now. I'll try to strip this down to the basic when it comes to using the LXX as proof of anything. This argument also includes the use of translations in other languages.

1. The LXX is a translation, an ancient one too. It is well known that the quality of translation varies throughout the LXX versions that we have. Some bits are reflect the Hebrew quite well, and other parts either seems like a loose translation, like a paraphrase, or is generally quite an atrocious attempt at translation.
2. There's no such thing as a perfect translation. No language can wholly and completely capture the meaning of the Hebrew language. Even today, normal translation between modern languages like Chinese, English, and German aren't perfect. You can convey a general sense when translating between the languages but not exactly. Plus, although the original Hebrew Scriptures are acknowledged to be from God through through his prophets, which were copied with great care and sanctity, a translation is the attempt of a man to first understand the scriptures in his own mind and then convey his understanding in the other language. That's why translations are always like commentaries as opposed to exact representations of the original language as if it were a perfect clone in another language. So to rely on a translation is to put oneself in a weakened position, especially when compared to someone who holds a copy of the original.
3. No one really knows the source of the LXX translation of the prophets and the writings, the latter sections of Hebrew Bible after the Torah, the Law. By that, I mean that it is known that the pre-christian-period Jews translated the five books of Moses into Greek. But after that, the whole translation process and history of the texts and versions gets obscure. People guess and assume that other Jews (the religious mindset of such Jews is unknown) must have done such translations, although which sect or exactly who, nobody really admitted it. And then its history is again obscured and what is known is dirty and sullied, eroding a person's trust in such a piece of work. The text of the Jewish Bible, as said before, was revered as coming straight from God, and thus strictly preserved and copied. Everything was done to make sure that not even a letter was moved out of place, which is why there is such great uniformity between Hebrew texts throughout history. No such reverence was given to the Septuagint translation which was soon rejected by the Jews and preserved by christians who didn't even treat their early writings with such reverence. Even the translation of the books of Moses was either changed or new versions were made by others with doubts about what changes were made. Different version of the other books of the Hebrew Bible were made and then mixed together with varying quality in translation, and so on and so on. So it is difficult to put as much trust in the LXX or those who rely on its strange translations.

But let's get back to the main point with all this in mind. Knowing the context of Psalm 40, it is obvious that the one who wrote that Psalm did not give across the meaning that the Hellenist author of Hebrew did. The Hellenist even uses a shady translation of the Hebrew Bible to put across his point, a version that doesn't even accurately reflect the Hebrew of Psalms. The writer of the Psalm gives no explicit mention of a first covenant ending so that a new one could begin, but speaks of obedience being more important that simply giving sacrifices.

The Hellenist author of Hebrews not only takes a text out of context but distorts its meaning into something entirely strange and new, and therefore loses all credibility, making an essentially invalid point.

verses 15-18

The author of Hebrew quotes Jeremiah 31:33-34 again to make a certain point.

(11)And every priest stands daily ministering and offering often the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. (12) But this man [Jesus], after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God. (13) From that time expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. (14) For by one offering he has perfected for ever those that are sanctified. (15) The Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, (16) "This [is] the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; (17) And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more." (18) Now where remission of these [is, there is] no more offering for sin. (Hebrews 10:11-18)

So this seems to be the author's point: with the law in a person's heart, and sins forgiven, then after that there is no longer any sacrifices for sin. There is no more need for any more sin sacrifices. Verses 15-18 confirms this point. Earlier on in the passage it is said that Jesus' death perfects those who are sanctified.

But with this point, the Hellenist seals his own error. In the new covenant, according to his understanding, people keep the law and don't sin, and thus they need no more sacrifices. And yet even today christians are still saying they are wretched sinners, not only still struggling with their "sin nature," but also committing sins. What is also laughable is that hardly any of them actually know the law of the Lord, much less keep it! Thus, since all this was supposed to happen when Jeremiah's new covenant is put into force, and it hasn't happened yet even now, 2000 years later, then I guess that tells us if "the death of the testator" put into effect anything at all!!!

My challenge to you, reader, is to find a good Jewish resource (and I don't mean the christian "messianic Jews") and ask if there will be a time when no one will make any mistakes whatsoever, especially in the messianic age. They should say, in agreement with Ezekiel, that the Third Temple age won't start off with world perfection and thus, to begin with, sin sacrifices will be still in use. But if sin sacrifices are ever gone, and humanity is perfected, there will still be thanksgiving sacrifices, but sin offerings will simply not be used. There is a big difference between a law still existing but not being used, and the claim that it was useless, a practice that never did what it was supposed to do, and thus done away with and abolished.

At least the Jews have that much respect for their divinely given law, whereas christians pay it lip service and then call it defective and weak.

verses 35-39

(35) So don't throw away your confidence, which has great reward. (36) For you have need of endurance so that, after you have done the will of God, you might receive the promise. (37) For yet a little while, and the coming one will come, and will not delay. (38) Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. (39) But we are not of them who draw back to destruction; but of them that believe to the preservation of soul. (Hebrews 10:35-39 quoting from Habakkuk 2:3-4)

The writer of Hebrews quotes Habakkuk 2:3-4 to say that his followers should keep their faith and not turn back or backslide. Again, if his words are compared with the Hebrew of Habakkuk or a traditional translation, yuo woud see that the Hellenist depends on a mistranslation. The text of Habakkuk 2:3-4 has been altered both in structure and in wording with even the "blessed" LXX not agreeing with him.

First, let's deal with the mistranslation of the Hebrew.

כִּי עוֺד חָזוֺן לַמּוֺעֵד, וְיָפֵחַ לַקֵּץ וְלֺא יְכַזֵּב; אִם־יִתְמַהְמָהּ, חַכֵּה־לוֺ־־ כִּי־בֹא יָבֹא לֹא יְאַחֵר; הִנֵּה עֻפְּלָה לֹא־יָשְׁרָה נַפְשׁוֺ בּוֺ וּצַדִּיק בְּאֱמוּנָתוֺ יִחְיֶה
TRANSLATION: Because [the] vision [is] yet for an appointed time, and He shall speak about the end, and it shall not fail. If it tarries, wait for it, because when it comes, it shall come. It shall not delay. Look, an obstinate one, his soul is not upright in him and a righteous one in his 'emunah shall live.(Habakkuk 2:3-4)

[I've stated before that 'emunah refers to faithfulness and steadiness as opposed to "faith"]

It is easy to see what the writer of Hebrews has done. Habakkuk is referring to the fulfilment of the vision mentioned in verse 3. That fulfilment will come and not tarry. All the normal translations agree with that interpretation and say "it (not "he", as many christians translations of Hebrews has it) will not tarry." The Hellenist chooses to go with his own agenda. He then proceeds by chopping verse 4 in half and re-arranging the verse as he wants. He mistranslates the first half of the verse, which he moves to the end; it should speak of an obstinant, insolant, arrogant or stubborn person who is not upright, whereas the Hellenist author of Hebrews thinks it is talking about someone who draws back or who shrinks/slips back - two totally different subjects! Habakkuk is speaking of the judgment that shall fall on the Chaldeans (Babylonians) and their arrogant king (read the whole of Habakkuk, but a indicator can be seen in 1:6) and the protection that the Lord will give to the righteous. The Hellenist is talking of someone backsliding from their faith!?!

But, as I said before, even the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, the LXX doesn't help the Hellenist. All the previous mentions I've given out Paul's quoting of Habakkuk come into play here.

LXX: διοτι ετι ορασις εις καιρον και ανατελει εις περας και ουκ εις κενον εαν υστερηση υπομεινον αυτον οτι ερχομενος ηξει και ου μη χρονιση; εαν υποστειληται ουκ ευδοκει η ψυχη μου εν αυτω ο δε δικαιος εκ πιστεως μου ζησεται
TRANSLATION: for [the] vision [is] yet for a season and it shall rise/shoot forth to the end and not for failure. If it/he come later, wait patiently for it/him, because what [or, he who] comes shall come and won't linger. If he should draw back, my soul has no pleasure in him, but the righteous shall live by my faith. (Habakkuk 2:3-4; translation from LXX)

At the very least, we see that the writer of Hebrews, the Hellenist, moves phrases as he wills. But something else can be seen: The last part is not what Paul or this Hellenist writer makes of it! Paul and the writer of Hebrews make it seem like a righteous person lives by his own faith. Even the Septuagint (LXX) contradicts this notion. The person speaking in the LXX appears to be the Almighty. So it is the Almighty saying that the righteous lives by his (the Almighty's) faith (see Habakkuk 2:2 according to the LXX), meaning his faithfulness to his promises and to his nation (which is a possible interpretation of the Hebrew version). What Paul does is that he misquotes the LXX!!! He omits the word "my" and he does this repeatedly! So he goes with neither the Hebrew version nor the Greek but by his own agenda! Now of course, someone may say that there is another possible way of understanding the Greek version of Habakkuk 2:4, "the righteous shall live by my faith," but the fact that cannot be dislodged is that Paul repeatedly misses out a word when he quotes this verse, a word that changes the meaning of the phrase.

And the christian commentators who are the followers and disciples of Paul and the writer of Hebrews are no better! When it suits them, they follow the Hebrew version, and that is generally when that accepted Hebrew version agrees with Paul and their doctrine or when it is irrelevant. But if the Septuagint agrees with Paul and his doctrine, then, for them, it is the Septuagint that has the true meaning. But then when the Septuagint doesn't translate things as they want, as in the case of Habakkuk 2:4b, it is see as corrupted and wrong. It is important to understand that, for many christians, their standard of truth is not the Hebrew Scriptures, and it is not the ancient Greek translation, the LXX. It is the new testament, Paul, the Hellenist who wrote Hebrews, and their doctrine/tradition. Yes, I do mean most forms of christianity, be it Catholic or Protestant or any of the others. To them, only Paul had the real insight into scripture and what it means. So when arguing with them, bear that in mind. The aim must be to help them see what the Jewish Bible says for itself, because presently all that is see when they look at scripture is Paul's interpretation of Jesus. If it's not the literal meaning, it is the "spiritual" meaning (i.e., not what is based on the text but rather doctrine).

What is still plain is that the writer of Hebrews is only concerned with his agenda and not the expounding of scripture using methods to extract meaning already within it; he chooses to make scripture sing his tune rather than sign his tune in accordance with scripture!

Chapter 11 - Faith

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen ... (Hebrews 11:1)

Faith?!? Now don't get me wrong: the right sort of faith is important, i.e., not blind immature faith without facts, but a trust in the Deity of history revealed through revelation and human experience. But for all that, the writer of Hebrews crafts a one-dimensionall view of the prominent characters of the Hebrew Bible. He say that "by faith, so and so does this and that" and "by faith so and so did something and something else". But it was never just faith that caused the accomplishments of this important figures, but rather action, obedience, and an active lifestyle of trust in the Creator, a life of doing!

"Faith" in Pauline writings is more like a mental or emotional conviction, a state of being persuaded to accept something. The proper understanding of the characters of the Jewish Bible is that of reliability, faithfulness, and obedience, things that are only known through action, not just what goes on in one's mind or heart. Abel didn't just believe. He acted and obeyed. [In fact, there is no mention of faith in his story] Enoch didn't simply believe, but rather he walked with God, meaning that he conducted his life and lifestyle in obedience to God. In every case, it is obedience that is overtly mentioned in scripture as the definition of righteous as opposed to a mental conviction! It is obedience that makes a righteous person, not just faith!

No man in scritpure was rewarded for simply believing. They were rewarded and accounted righteous because they lived by active obedience! Faith does play its part, but even as the apostle James said "faith withough works is dead," and "by works/deed is a man justified" or a better way of putting that "a person is shown to be righteous by what they do, not just what they believe" (James 2:24,26).

So the Hellenist writer of Hebrews says "For by [faith] the elders obtained a good report" (KJV) or "faith is what the ancients were commended for." Well, James, me, and the Hebrew Scriptures disagree. The ancients were mainly commended for what they did, the righteous things they did not what they believed!

Chapter 12

verses 18-24

(18) For you didn't come to the mountain that might be touched, and that burned with fire, and to blackness, and darkness, and tempest, (19) And the blast of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which they that heard begged that the word should not be spoken to them any more: (20) For they could not bear what was commanded, "And if [even] a beast touched the mountain, it would be stoned, or shot through with an arrow." (21) And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I am greatly afraid and trembling. (22) But rather you have come to mount Sion, and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, (23) To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, (24) And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaks better things than that of Abel. (Hebrews 12:18-24)

The writer of Hebrews then continues his "hatchet-and-twist" job on the Jewish Bible. He makes a comparison between his "covenant" and that of Moses, making the Sinai covenant look like an emblem of nightmarish fear and dread whereas his "Jesus" covenant is full of encouragement and love.

Now concerning his "lovely" image of his "heavenly court," that is nothing but a figment of his imagination. At least Sinai was real, a real event experienced by the real eyes of people, rather than merely a nice thought as is the image presented by the Hellenist.

But let me just deal with his depiction of the Israelite people and MOses. The guy says that the place was so scary that the people begged to hear no more "because they could not bear what was commanded." And an example of what was commanded? "Don't touch the mountain" (Exodus 19:12,13). And if you read Exodus 19, you won't see anything about the people being afraid of that command or anything else in the chapter. In fact, Moses had to stop them from getting close to the mountain, to gaze at what was going on (Exodus 19:21). The time when the people show fear is after the Lord has given the Decalogue. And the relevant verses are quoted below:

(15) And they said unto Moses: 'Speak thou with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us, lest we die.' (16) And Moses said unto the people: 'Fear not; for God is come to prove you, and that His fear may be before you, that ye sin not.' (17) And the people stood afar off; but Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was. (Exodus 20:15-17 (19-21 in christian versions)

Note that what frightened the people was not what the Lord said, i.e., the commandments, since all they want is for Moses to give it as opposed to the Lord Himself doing it. If they couldn't stand the commandments, then they would have asked Moses to stop everything completely, not to let them hear anything anymore. But they ask for Moses to continue commanding them, giving them the commands of Deity. So it is not as the Hellenist author claims: the Israelites could bear the commands - it was the awesome surroundings of God's manifestation that caused them to draw back!

Now the writer of Hebrews puts this all in a negative light in order to make his imaginative image to look much better. But as Tovia Singer would say: what is God's opinion? Moses tells us what God thought of Israel's reaction in Deuteronomy 5:19-26:

(19) And it came to pass, when you heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness, while the mountain burned with fire, that you came near to me, even all the heads of your tribes, and your elders; (20) and you said: 'Behold, the LORD our God has shown us His glory and His greatness, and we have heard His voice out of the midst of the fire; we have seen this day that God does speak with man, and he can live. (21) Now therefore why should we die? for this great fire will consume us; if we hear the voice of the LORD our God any more, then we shall die. (22) For who is there of all flesh, that has heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived? (23) Go thou near, and hear all that the LORD our God shall say; and you'll then speak to us all that the LORD our God may speak to you; and we will hear it and do it.' (24) And the LORD heard the voice of your words, when ye spoke to me; and the LORD said unto me: 'I have heard the voice of the words of this people, which they have spoken to you; they have well said all that they have spoken. (25) Oh that they had such a heart as this alway, to fear Me, and keep all My commandments, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!

So what is God's opinion? He commends them and wishes they always had such reverence. But this isn't what the Hellenist put forward, is it? Again he twists things.

And the author of Hebrews makes it seem as though Moses too was afraid of the sight of the mountain (Hebrews 12:21) quoting Deuteronomy 9:19. But again, when read in context, it will be seen that Moses means not such thing! According to Deuteronomy 9:19, Moses' fear has nothing to do with what he was on the mountain but of the Lord's anger due to Israel's idolatry.

(16) And I looked, and, behold, you had sinned against the LORD your God; you had made for yourselves a molten calf; you had turned aside quickly out of the way which the LORD had commanded you. (17) And I took hold of the two tables, and cast them out of my two hands, and broke them before your eyes. (18) And I fell down before the LORD, as at the first [time], forty days and forty nights; I did neither eat bread nor drink water; because of all your sin which ye sinned, in doing that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke Him. (19) For I was in dread of the anger and hot displeasure, wherewith the LORD was wroth against you to destroy you. But the LORD hearkened unto me that time also. (Deuteronomy 9:16-19)

So the meaning is distorted by the writer of Hebrews yet another time!

In fact, this guy not only sees it fit to twist the Hebrew Scriptures but he's also not afraid to add to the LXX, the Septuagint (that ancient translation of the Torah). Look at the following quote from the LXX compared to Paul.

LXX: και εκφοβος ειμι δια την οργην και τον θυμον
TRANSLATION: ... and I am terrified because of the anger and the wrath ...

PAUL: εκφοβος ειμι και εντρομος
TRANSLATION: I am terrified and trembling ...

Do you see the added words, "and trembling?" That is called "adding for emphasis," emphasis that the writer of Hebrews chooses to add which isn't even part of the Septuagint! Imagine that! The plain word of scripture isn't good enough. Context doesn't help his point. So he just adds some words to get the desired effect on his readers.

If my respect for this guy could get any lower ...

verses 26

"(25) See that you don't refuse him that speaks! For if those who refused him that spake on earth didn't escape, much more we won't escape, if we turn away from him that speaks from heaven: (26) Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he has promised, saying, Yet one more time I shake only not the earth, but also heaven. (27) And this "Yet once more" signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, so that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. (28) Because of this we receive a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear ..." (Hebrews 12:25-28 quoting Haggai 2:6)

The Hellenist quotes Haggai 2:6 to say that the Lord will shake things up, in judgement, for those that turn away from him. What is shaken? The created things! What remains will be the stuff that can't be shaken.

And what is Haggai's real subject of discussion? The Lord's shaking the heaven and earth, namely the nations, in order for their riches to fill "this house/Temple." Which house? Let me just show you a sample of verses from the context including the verse in question.

(1) In the second year of king Darius, in the sixth month, on the first day of the month, the word of the Lord came through means of Haggai the prophet to Zerubbabel the son of Shealthiel, the governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest, saying, (2) Thus has said the Lord of hosts, saying, This people have said, The time is not yet come, the time for the Lord’s house to be built.

(14) And the Lord stirred up the spirit of Zerubbabel the son of Shealthiel, the governor of Judah, and the spirit of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest, and the spirit of all the remnant of the people, and they came and did work on the house of the Lord of hosts, their God. (Haggai 1:1-2,14)

(3) Who is there yet left among you that has seen this house in its first glory? and how do you see it now? isn't it like nothing in your eyes?

(6) For thus has said the Lord of hosts, Still one thing - it is little - and I will cause to quake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; (7) And I will cause to quake all the nations, and the precious things of all the nations shall come hither: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of hosts. (8) Mine is the silver, and mine is the gold - a declaration of the Lord of hosts. (9) The gory of this latter house shall be greater than the former, said the Lord of hosts: and in this place will I give peace - a declaration of Lord of hosts.(Haggai 2:3,6-7)

So the topic of the context is the rebuilding of the temple in the days of Haggai, Zerubbabel and Joshua. So what does this have to do with the subject in Hebrews? Nothing! There is no point in christians saying that this refers to the influx of gentiles into the church or whatever christological interpretation they wish to put on it because that is not what Haggai is talking about.

Basically this is just another case of taking a verse out of context.

BACK TO BIBLE STUDY ARTICLES

Home

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.