Ignoring the Greek Text
in speaking of the new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Hebrews 8:13 ESV
New – There is probably no verse more loudly proclaimed by those that assert the pre-eminence of the dispensation of grace than this one. George Guthrie’s analysis is typical. According to him, this passage “implies that the first covenant was flawed . . . the new covenant will not be like the Sinai covenant made at the time of the exodus. God’s rejection of the old covenant is explained in terms of the lack of faithfulness to the covenant on the part of its recipients.”[1] Perhaps you have heard something similar. Israel failed to keep the old covenant so God brought about the Church and gave it the new covenant of grace rather than law.
The problem is that this Greek word, kainos, doesn’t mean something that wasn’t there before, something brand new, something only just now appearing. That would be the Greek word neos (like the derivative Neo in the movie The Matrix). But kainos means “what is new in nature, different from the usual, impressive, superior.” In other words, since we also know that the reference to Jeremiah points us toward the Hebrew hadash, the use of kainos in this text cannot mean something that has never before been seen or that is new in time or origin. It must mean (as does hadash) something that is different than the customary, something that is superior to what was before, something striking or unusual. As Behm remarks, kainos “is a leading theological term in apocalyptic promise: a new heaven and a new earth . . . the new name . . .the new song; ‘Behold, I make all things new.’”[2]
Without careful distinction between neos and kainos, it is easy to read this text and many others as if they express what has never been revealed before, what is now completely novel in creation. Reading the text this way, as if it used neos, would allow us to claim that that the work of Yeshua has no Old Testament parallels, that grace is an original New Testament concept and that any attempt to return to the “old” Torah denies the radically-new development of the Christian worldview. But if I realize that kainos means “impressive, superior or different than expected,” then I see the text not as an abrogation of Torah but rather as its re-statement in the life of the Messiah. This, of course, is anticipated in Jeremiah. The amazing difference between the “old” and the “new” is not a revision in God’s instructions but the unimaginable difference in the delivery of those instructions – God will write them on our hearts!
So what do we do with the word “obsolete” in this text? The Greek is pepalaioken, from palai, which means “aged, earlier, past, ancient, venerable, antiquated.” “Obsolete” is a possible interpretation of the word, but not in this context. First, if this author follows LXX usage, then palaioo and its derivatives carry no theological weight. They are simply expression of things that are older, not useless. And secondly, the occurrence here is found also in Hebrews 1:11 which quotes Psalm 102:25 where the Hebrew term is le-panim, meaning simply “before” or “of old [times].” Seesemann argues that its “only” significant theological usage is in this verse where he claims it means “that God, by setting up the new covenant, has declared the old to be outdated.”[3] But since there are no other theologically significant uses of palaioo, how can Seesemann confidently assert that this is the only one. He can do so only because he reads this usage in terms of a pre-existing paradigm that tells him the “new” covenant has replaced the “old.” Otherwise, on the basis of the meaning of the word itself in other occurrences, he would have to conclude that the author is simply telling us that what Yeshua did shows Yeshua’s work to be newer than the original which is ancient (but not outdated) and will eventually pass away (when heaven and earth pass away).
So, what’s “new” to you?
Topical Index: new, kainos, neos, palaioo, obsolete, Hebrews 8:13
Isn’t it debatable whether it actually talks about the covenant? Verse one says: YLT “And the sum concerning the things spoken of is: we have such a chief priest….”
The word covenant is not in the text. Maybe it is talking about the priesthood.
A great observation and one that I should have also noted. Many English translations add “covenant” to the text to support the theological bias of the translators. They would argue that the word must be added because of context, but as you point out, it could just as easily be a discussion of the priesthood. Once again we see that theology dictates translation, not the actual text itself.
Rein de Wit and Skip,
119 Ministries has a great pdf that shows this text is pointing to the priesthood.
One can find it here: http://q.b5z.net/i/u/10105283/f/FAQ_-_Hebrews_7-8.pdf
I agree. This is a subject that needs to be fleshed out a lot more. The “law” (concerning the Aaronic priesthood) was added “because of transgression” (the sin of the golden calf, among others). That priesthood, however, is made up of fallible men who themselves commit sin.
The superior priesthood is that of Melchizedek – that which both preceded and supersedes the Aaronic priesthood.
So – what of God’s promise that His covenant with Levi is forever (as is His covenant with David)?
Is there a distinction between the “Levitical” priesthood and the “Aaronic (High) Priesthood”? I suggest that, in fact, that is a valid distinction to be made and that, in fact, the priesthood that is “getting ready to fade away” is in fact not the Levitical priesthood but the High Priesthood of the Aaronic line, this being transferred back to Melchizedek (Melech Tzaddik – the King of Righteousness) under whom the Levites will serve when the new Temple is established by Messiah.
This makes more sense when we understand the Temple service on Yom Kippur, the role of the High Priest in making atonement on that day and how all that fits into the context of the letter to the Hebrews. In fact, I propose that the Temple service on Yom Kippur is the primary subject (and context) of the letter.
Hmmm, that could have been better written…too many occurrences of “in fact”, in fact. 🙂
Rodney, “In fact” the fact is you made a good point-well done. Thanks also to Brian for the Psalm 119 link and to Rein for starting this discussion. Midrash away.
Rodney,
I agree that this subject needs to be fleshed out a lot more. Thank you for the passage of Scripture in Jeremiah.
It seems to me placing this letter to the Hebrews in the context of Yom Kippur and the Temple services that take place on that day is a valid and on target proposition.
Yeshua as High Priest is mentioned fifteen times in the book of Hebrews! This would indicate the highlighting of the High Priest and not the whole Levitical priesthood.
On a different note, the late Dr. Dwight Pryor (may his memory be a blessing) suggested that the book of Hebrews has evidence of being one of the first notated sermons of the first century. Have you come across anyone else who has suggested this or evidence yourself that would prove or disprove this?
The immediate context of v. 13 is v.10 (see from v. 7ff) – a clear reference to Jer. 31 and the “new covenant.” Here the word covenant does appear. So adding the word “covenant’ in v. 13 by the translators may not show a bias at all – just an attempt to make plain the original meaning.
Even if this passage is referring to the Priesthood in some form, we still appear to have a case where some aspect of the first covenant is being changed – changed because it was “faulty”. In other words, even without the word “covenant” in v. 13, there is still a challenge to the idea that the NT maintains the whole of OT without alteration.
It is understandable why there was some question about the legitimacy of the book of Hebrews as canon.
It is referring to the tabernacle and priesthood, the word covenant isn’t even in the Greek text but was assumed by translators, verse one (1) supplies the context and control verse
Brian: I found the article to be excellent. Thanks for the link. I wonder what the implications of this are for us today. On the one hand the author indicates that the “passing away” of the Levitical system occurred with the loss of the Temple in 70AD. Yet Ezekiel in the last few chapters of his book indicates that the temple which will stand, presumably in the Millennium, will be operated by the sons of Zadok (they are the original priestly line) So I am a bit confused. Is it just the High Priest position that has changed (to Yeshua) or the whole organization. If the latter, who then are the priests for the new Temple? I have also heard that the passing away occurs at the END of the Millennium when there is a New Jerusalem with no temple (as outlined in Revelation last few chapters). This is not strictly accademic. The Jews are training a cohen cohort for opweration in the renewed temple. Some say the temple must be built before Mashiach comes and some say no, that Mashiach will do that himself. I have wondered if Yeshua, after being reconciled with his brothers (the Jews) will in fact employ the trained cohens to do exactly what Exekiel prophesied that they would do.
I never checked this, but I read somewhere that in Ezekiel’s third temple, there is no high priest, but a Prince……. Who knows 🙂
Two different lines of priests. Yeshua is NOT of the same order and does not fill the same role. When the Temple is built again, why wouldn’t there be a need for the priestly line to be reinstalled?
HSB,
I also enjoyed the simplicity of 119 Ministries article and how he allows the flow of the letter speak to for itself. I do believe though you and others have put out some gasps that need to be addressed.
For an in-depth look at Hebrews 8:13, take a look at Skip’s great article. It can be found here: https://skipmoen.com/2010/12/26/an-exegetical-review-of-hebrews-813/
Brian: my question about priests in the Millennial Kingdom still stands. I did enjoy Skip’s exegetical review of Hebrews 8:13, although I am already in agreement with everything he outlined; yet it does not bear on my question. I am not sure what you meant by “some gasps that need to be addressed”. I just consulted my dictionary. The sixth meaning of the word “gasp” involves ” breathless eagerness/desire”, the others all dealt with attempts to breathe. Sign me up for the eagerness/desire if that is what you intended. Here is my question restated: Yeshua is now our High Priest. The book of Hebrews indicates that on earth He would not qualify for that role since he came from the tribe of Judah. Ezekiel clearly is outlining a renewed priestly line (Zadok) who will serve in the Millennial Temple. Does that include a human High priest or does Yeshua Himself serve in that position? I am assuming that Ezekiel is correct about the rest of the priestly cohort as being Levitical in origin.
HSB,
Alas, my fingers failed me and not my breath, I meant “gaps”. At this moment, breathing out a thank you to Yah! 🙂 Should have written: “I do believe though you and others have mentioned some gaps that need to be addressed.” Not a very good morning for writing.
I have not studied this area so I will not venture an answer at this time, but I will leave with some thoughts on apocalyptic themes.
R. Chanina said: “Everything is in the hands of heaven except for fear of heaven as it says ‘And now Israel what does the Lord your God ask of you but to fear..’ (Devarim 10:12).”
Apocalyptic imagery and themes are throughout the Scriptures and must be approached and studied with humility and awe to the One who inspired it. There are a few things I am convinced about apocalyptic events. And they are:
1) Yeshua is coming again
2) All Israel will be saved
3) He will judge the quick and the dead
How all this will flesh out . . . I do not know. I live my life in view of these apocalyptic realities. These future events have much to demand of my present response and obedience.
I believe many in the body of Messiah who have taught about apocalyptic themes have focused on prediction and forecasting of how and when these events will occur, instead of, present returning to the ways of YHWH. I believe this has resulted in great harm and damage to the body of Messiah, and our credibility has been lost to a watching world. I also experienced the fear mongering (not the fear of heaven) of those who ministered on this theme growing up. I am not suggesting you have revealed any of this in your question and comments or that is the road you are on. I am simply sharing a little of my observation and experience.
I will leave you with words from the 1994, Yavo Digest – Volume 8 Number 2 – The article is “The Temple and the Anti-Christ” p. 12, written by Brad H. Young:
“While the vast majority of Jews today share the intense longing of the old Hebrew prophets for justice and compassion, few believe that a third Temple must be reconstructed. In his highly acclaimed book, To Pray as a Jew, Rabbi Hayim Donin explains, “Others believe that redemption will occur as does a burst of lightning. Amidst awesome miracles, the third Beit Hamikdash [Temple] will appear and come down from the heavens, completely built and finished, confirmed to the literal meaning of the verse in Exodus 15:17: ‘The sanctuary, O Lord, which Thy hands have established’ (Rashi, Sukkah 41a; and Tosaphot, based on Midrash Tanhuma).” Donnin Stresses the diversity of thought among Jewish thinkers and religious teachers. Many believe that the process of redemption will come slowly like the rising of the sun rather than as a burst of lightning. Others stress a suddenness in the divine plan which will be like a strike of lightning. Prohecy is not clear on such matters. A multiplicity of interpretation should be expected because the prophets stand in awe before the sovereignty of God. Only the Sovereign of the Universe will determine end time events.”
Brian: LOL! It never occurred to me that the “gasps” might have simply been a typo, and that “gaps” had been intended. And here I was scratching my head trying to figure it all out…talk about paradigms!
Thank you for your helpful insights. I believe your comments are wise and cautious. I too remember the Christian “scare movies” of the 60s and 70s.
My interest in the priesthood is linked to a study I did on the Temple. Most Christians seem to connect the Temple with an obsolete system that died out in 70AD. In fact they would argue that God Himself destroyed the temple and replaced it with a “new” temple, namely the church. Yet Paul, who speaks about both individual believer as well as corporate assembly as being a “temple” in his writings to the Corinthians, himself went regularly to the physical Temple in Jerusalem. Paul never taught that the spiritual metaphor had replaced the physical…I suspect that is later Greek “revelation”. Note that Paul also said we are a field where one plants and another waters…yet we still farm actual ground today! Yeshua Himself spoke highly of “His Father’s House” and in a rare display of physical passion drove the money changers out. He accurately predicted the destruction of the Temple (not one stone left on another) yet there is no indication that He believed this was a good thing…I think He would have thought it was tragic!! Interesting again how one’s paradigm informs the meaning of the actual event….as good or bad. No doubt the Crusaders actually believed they were doing God’s work in wiping out all the Jews in the Holy Land during the Crusades.
As you outlined above, Jews who ponder these things deeply are divided as to whether the temple will descend as a finished product from heaven or be built more incrementally. I have sometimes wondered if the Mashiach Himself will arrange its being constructed within three days…just as he was accused of saying while on earth so many years ago (…but that is my own speculation) What is still unclear to me is whether Yeshua Himself will serve as High Priest, or if another will do so.
I have been reflecting recently on the broad sweep of history over the last two millennia (the “Days of Mashiach”). I have come to the conclusion that Father YHWH, in his wisdom has used the paradigm clash between Hebrew and Greek to actually safeguard and protect the Jews, even in their unbelief. He is certainly not finished with them. Personally I expect an amazing fulfillment of their destiny as they respond to a loving and compassionate brother whom the leadership of the country scorned and rejected so many years ago (the Yosef story played out) before this present age wraps up.
HSB,
This does not flow in sequence of our comments, but here it is anyway.
Thank you for your kind words. I can read much wisdom in your approach to this subject.
YHWH is King!
HSB,
Well my last comment did settle in the right place. Take good care.
One of my previous comments. “This does not flow in sequence of our comments, but here it is anyway.”
Lack of sleep makes one not think through before posting comments.
Computer literacy? I came late to the techno age and I am still working on my proficiency.
~In that He says New, He has made the first old; but that which grows old and aged is near disappearing ~ (Hebrews 8.13)
~ None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the LORD of glory ~ (1 Corinthians 2.8)
~ This is the New(er), (new and improved?) Covenant in My blood ~
Prophet, Priest, King.. and atoning, propitiating Sacrifice.
~ Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world ~
A sinless, spotless, substitutionary,slain and Sovereign Lamb was sacrificed at Calvary.
How is this new (er) and how is this a “better covenant?”
~ For by a single offering He (our LORD Jesus) has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified ~ (Hebrews 10.14)
When and where did this “one offering for sin” occur? BY HIS OWN BLOOD He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” — (Hebrews 9:12)
~ And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, He gave up His spirit. (His final breath.) At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom ~ (Matthew 27:50-51a).
~ the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom~
Why? and… Who? Who tore the this veil “from top to bottom?” (helpful household hint…) It wasn’t any man that did this. ~ This (also) is the LORD’s doings and it is marvelous in our eyes! ~
Yes, friends.. God and God alone did this. But why? Why the torn veil? Find out the answer to this and it is guaranteed to “rock your world!”
We now may pray “to the Father,” but “through the Son.” “in Jesus Name,” – amen! One more (amazing) thing. “Whosoever will” may come. Any man. Any time. Any place. For any reason. We (all) now have His permission and His invitation to pray.
~ His blood be upon us and upon our children ~ Yes, please. Amen. Redeeming blood has been my theme and shall be till I die.
Jesus paid it all.
All to Him I owe.
Sin had left a crimson stain.
He washed it white as snow.
“Come now, let’s settle this,” says the LORD. “Though your sins are like scarlet, I will make them as white as snow. Though they are red like crimson, I will make them as white as wool.” (Isaiah 1.18)
~ Then one of the elders asked me, “These in white robes–who are they, and where did they come from?” And I said to him, “My Lord, you know.” And he said to me, “These are those who came from great suffering and they have purified their garments and whitened them in the blood of The Lamb.”
(Revelation 7.13,14)
An excellent article Skip. You just pinned the tail on the donkey concerning replacement theology. It is impossible to assert George Guthrie’s analysis with out also implying that God’s nature is capricious and changable. If the Mosaic Covenant is over then what about it’s predecessors? Is marriage no longer a covenant simply because the Davidic Covenant bears fruit? Covenant is not simply an activity for God. God IS Covenant. Just as justice is commitment and obligation – recognizing that commitments must be given and obligations must be received – God is the person of Commitment and Obligation in its essential nature and truth. In the end the term trinity itself is fully contained in the hebrew term brit when one carefully examines the statement in Genesis Chapter 5 that Adam bears a son in his own image and likeness. Grammatically Bereshit in Gen 1:1 (which contains rosh/reish) only makes sense when Chapter 4:2 (toledot) is datively linked. The issue is simply ignored in favor of current novel interpretative approach (dynamic equivalence) which is a breeding ground for every malice and evil to which man can possibly fall. Truth is the victim of those who resent the nature of good – a willful, prideful and arrogant opposition to God’s continual intervention in creation that takes what is least noble and insignificant and turns it into what is priceless and most valuable. All of creation was fashioned by God to manifest His nature – the being of commitment and obligation which the term Covenant expresses and which YHWH names. The entire creation is made a perishable good to perpetuate this revelation of the Divine Nature. Not for the sake of loss, but rather to share in the divine nature of Covenant through commitment and obligation. Covenant is not a human invention. It is a divinely revealed truth about God’s nature. Apart from creation and time God is Covenant – a Father who begets is Word from all eternity and a snship that submits itself to the father’s life so completely He actually assumes the divine substance. And the Spirit of God – the gift of the Father’s Wisdom and Life which is also the fruit of the union. This is what marriage images in its divine original. The scriptures are full to bursting with this content and we ignore this because ignorant men like George Guthrie lack the capacity and openess to accept it.
Agreed, but perhaps Guthrie doesn’t see this because of paradigm blindness. His theology tells him what the text says BEFORE he reads the text. May we have the courage to not do the same.
Good morning Christopher, I haven’t seen your posts here for a while. I’ve always enjoyed your insights and comments, glad to see your still with us.
I’ve done some digging in regards to the concept of bereshit and find there is much more than originally meets the eye. There seems to be no end to it. 🙂 In that regards, could you please expand on this statement?
“Grammatically Bereshit in Gen 1:1 (which contains rosh/reish) only makes sense when Chapter 4:2 (toledot) is datively linked.”
I’m not sure that I’m understanding what your getting at and I always love to get other insights into this section of scripture. Thank you in advance.
YHWH bless you and keep you……….
I don’t have time for an in depth response. Suffice to say that this is an hebracism. The hebrew uses the numeral for each day instead of the words (i.e day one versus first day, day two versus second day … etc.) and I beliewve Skip has done an article on it somewhere. In hebrew thought what is happening is a literal rendering or counting of the toledot. The first story of creation is the counting of the seven generations as the descriptive accumulation of prehistory. This means, for example, that creation was formed by God in the state of covenant with Him by His sovereign action. It teaches us that one day of Torah observance is night followed by day. The absence of form and inhabitants in days 1 to 3 and the population of life in days 4-6 correspond to image and likeness as dative parallelism. Day seven (Sheva) is also the word for covenant in hebrew. What is lost by George Guthrie’s analysis and those who embrace it is the duality relationship between the old and new covenants which reveal the relationships of image and likeness. If the new covenant is the spirit then the old covenant is the body. This duality is the nature of the covenant double blessing. Taken in context the first and second creation stories form a unity that expresses a single hebraic thought that is retold in the second story and which encompasses the narrative basis in day seven. The first story uses the name Elohim which depicts creation as the temple of Adonai while the second story uses the name Yahweh which depicts the Holy of Holies with in the temple of creation. Adam then signifies the Adamic High priesthood which Paul references in Hebrews. There is a great deal more in the details but I lack time to polish my post. Forgive my haste.
New Piece Not Put on Old Garment (Luke 5:36)
New Wine Not Put in Old Bottles (vs. 37)
New Wine is Put in New Bottles (vs. 38)
Men Tend to Prefer the Old Wine (vs. 39)
Fruit of the vine a type of the blood of Christ (Matt. 26: 26-29)
The blood of Christ alone is now needed (Heb. 9:11-14)
Hebrews 8:6 But now the work Yeshua has been given to do is far superior to theirs, just as the covenant he mediates is better. For this covenant has been given as Torah on the basis of better promises.
Hmmm
According to Paul, what Yeshua has been given to do “is far superior to theirs” (the JEWs)
But I’m confused, is the way of Jesus superior to the way of Moses?
Is the Law Jesus mediates better than the 10 commandments?
According to Paul, in Hebrews 8:7
“if the first covenant had not given ground for faultfinding, there would have been no need for a second one.”
According to Paul, the first covenant LAID THE FOUNDATION for faultfinding or so it seems
But is not the second covenant optional for Jews and almost required for Gentiles?
And why do the Jews need the second covenant?
According to Paul, Hebrews 8:9
“‘The new covenant will not be like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by their hand and led them forth out of the land of Egypt; because they, for their part, did not remain faithful to my covenant; so I, for my part, stopped concerning myself with them,’ says ADONAI.
According to Paul, Hebrews 8:10
“‘For this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Isra’el after those days,’ says ADONAI: ‘I will put my Torah in their minds and write it on their hearts; I will be their God, and they will be my people.
According to Paul, Hebrews 13 By using the term, “new,” he has made the first covenant “old”; and something being made old, something in the process of aging, is on its way to vanishing altogether.
I don’t want to put words in Skip’s mouth,” but the first “real” question I ever asked Skip was
“Cant we just look into our “hearts” to find our way?”
And if I recall correctly, Skip said “No, we must validate what we consider to be the Good, the True
and the Beautiful against the Book”
So I’m not really sure what the “value add” for the Jews is in this new covenant
But Jesus and Paul do open the door to the Torah for us gentiles
As I understand it, for some Jews, Jesus was the Messiah ben David
But for the rest of us I think he is the Son of God/Man and a spiritual model for mankind
Hi Michael — and hi to Max 🙂
Jesus’ supremacy over ALL is developed primarily in Hebrews and Colossians.
A main theme of Hebrews is explaining the work of Jesus in the context of the O.T.
Jesus was the fulfillment of the O.T. Jewish traditions and roles. Jesus does not simply represent a new way of doing things. Rather, He is supreme. Because He is the actual fulfillment of the old way of doing things, He is therefore greater than those ways.
Concerning the temple system under the Mosaic Law, Heb. 8: 6 says, “ But now hath He obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also He is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.”
Jesus is greater than the O.T. system. He both encompasses and supersedes the old way of doing things. This is evident in the many comparisons of Jesus to O.T. roles and rituals.
We are told that because Jesus lives forever, He has a permanent priesthood. Therefore He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them (Heb. 7:24-25).
Jesus, therefore, encompasses the O.T. priesthood and is supreme over it.
Christ is called “the image of the invisible God” and “the firstborn over all creation” (Col 1:15). Firstborn refers to a position of authority.
This is an important point about Jesus’ priesthood—every priest is appointed from among men. Jesus, very God from eternity, no beginning, no end, became a man in order to suffer death and serve as our High Priest (Heb. 2:9).
Since Jesus is greater than any other priest, He is called our “Great High Priest” in Heb. 4:14, and that gives us the boldness to come “unto the throne of grace ….” Heb. 4:16 .
Hebrews provides a picture of Jesus, He is “better” than everything, better than the old covenant. He is best! Amen.
You have included in your comment more than I can touch in weeks!
I do want to say this about one more of your ‘wonderings’ above:
“So I’m not really sure what the “value add” for the Jews is in this new covenant”
My answer:
Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but by Me” (John 14:6).
The “no one” referred to includes Jews and Gentiles. Jews are not saved because they are God’s chosen people, but because they believe in Jesus Christ as their true Messiah. There are many Messianic Jews who have accepted Yeshua/Jesus as their Messiah.
No other door.
He is the door to the sheepfold.
He is the only door in the side of the ark.
Only ONE door to pass through to escape God’s terrible judgment.
By faith, Noah and his family entered . . . I have also entered.
“Jesus’ supremacy over ALL is developed primarily in Hebrews and Colossians.”
Hi Dorothy,
My apologies for not responding sooner, my kids are coming over tomorrow
And with many things to do in preparation for them I got derailed
I don’t like to argue against ideas that inspire other people
For me arguing with other people is fun if it is an academic game
In the unlikely event that my son wanted to be a Catholic priest, I would support him
But the concept of a priest does not inspire me, and to see Jesus as a priest seems false
Because, in my favorite part of the NT, Jesus is fighting with priestly class
A prophet who stands alone in my view
What I like about Jesus and Paul is that they are exceptional academics
Who integrate the intellectual with the spiritual levels of experience
When I encountered the priesthood of Melchizedik in Hebrews many years ago
It sort of freaked me out
Why I don’t know, but now it just seems too artificial and false to be true
And I find it annoying
Michael, you have a kind heart, I never feel you are arguing with anyone.
I think probably someday, when the time is right, Jesus will reveal to you what is going on that you have trouble with the High Priest thing. Our Savior is everything we need, as I know you yourself can testify.
When I met Him, and realized I had a Heavenly Father — it arrived like precious, impossibly good news and immediately filled a bottomless void. It put such a spring in my step, sometimes I would shout out loud with perfect and pure joy!
He is able to deal with all things and save you to the uttermost and perfect you/us all.
May the Lord bless your time spent with your children.
I wish to leave a portion of the Lorica poem, or Patrick’s beautiful prayer with you, — I think you probably know all of it.
Christ with me, Christ before me, Christ behind me,
Christ in me, Christ beneath me, Christ above me,
Christ on my right, Christ on my left, Christ when I lie down,
Christ when I sit down, Christ when I arise . . .
Jesus will reveal to you what is going on that you have trouble with the High Priest thing.
Hi Dorothy,
Thank you for the kind words
You might be right, but my view is my view at this point 🙂
Regarding the High Priest, I wrote some things on my view of that topic late last night
But the logic and evidence was not there for me
And the point got too complicated to share
So I’ll get back to that topic ASAP
On a personal level, I don’t have a problem with a High Priest
For example, the new Pope seems like a great spiritual model, and a breath of fresh air
Whether he is a good or bad Pope remains to be seen
But, kind of like Presidents, as stupid as they often appear, they don’t get to the job
If they are not pretty smart, academically speaking
At the moment, I am waging war on the yellow jackets
Which have overtaken my back porch, and my kids are coming over later in the day
So please remind me if I forget; about the Pharisees and Sadducees
The Rabbis and the Priests, the Prince of Peace, Karl Marx
And the role of class struggle in the History of the Jews
Quick response. First, Paul probably is not the author of Hebrews. Second, check the Greek when it comes to phrases like “far superior.” Much of this is English translator revisionism. Third, remember that in Hebrew, being superior does NOT imply that the original is discarded, only that it has now been enhanced (seen more clearly, etc.). Read again my comments on Hebrews 8:13 which sets the stage for this difficult passage.
Covenant has been added, it is not in the Greek. it is the first and the second referring to the Earthly and the Heavenly temple’s. Hebrews is one of the least understood books of the Bible, because most of us think it was written after the Temple was destroyed. not so look up your history, most of the verbs in chapter 10 have been changed to past tense instead of present tense.
Nothing new under the sun-Eccl 1; 3: 14, 15
“….whatever Elohim does, it shall be forever: nothing can be added to it, nor anything taken from it. ”
“That which is, already has been; and that which is to be has already been: and only Elohim can find the fleeting moment.”
It is all but a paradigm shift of mindsets and perspectives. Hebraic mindset is cyclical; Greek mindset is a straight line-what is past is past, as being behind us. Not so in Hebraic mindset, what is past is before us, what is future is behind us-very interesting paradigm shift.
The “old” covenant is not obsolete, for the reason that the end is from the beginning-
YeshaYAHu 46:10
“Remember the former things of old: for I am Elohim, and there is none else; I am Elohim, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done.”
And we are encouraged to go back to the ancient well-trodden paths-YirmeYAHu 6:16
“Thus says YHWH, Stand on the highways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where the good way is,
and walk upon it, and you shall find rest for your spirit/nephesh”.
Yahushua was from the beginning, in the “Old” Covenant; and the Word is eternal!
Add nothing to it, nor subtract from it.
“In the beginning, was the Word, and the Word was with Elohim, and the Word was Elohim. Yohanan1:1, 2.
And the Word was made flesh v 14
There should be no page division between Old and Renewed Covenant, they are ONE continuous Book, each complimenting and fulfilling the other’s purposes.
If the Old is obsolete and done away with, should we not have to re-write the Bible, censoring, taking out the pages no longer applicable to us present day believers? Big question!
The vanishing away would be our fleshly corruptible ‘human’ nature! HalleluYAH!
Looking forward to the day when we the Living Stones are joined and knit together supplying the needs of one another causing growth, to build up in love as the kadosh Temple of YHWH! Amein!
Such a challenging verse to midrash, Skip.