Hebrews6;- The promise to Abraham

The epistle to the Hebrews was written to Jewish Christians, perhaps to a specific Jewish church.
The message of the letter is that Christ has brought “completeness”.
That is, God is making available, through him, a much greater and more decisive revelation than anything they have received from him previously

The writer’s motive appears to be an anxiety that his readers may be in danger of losing their commitment to Christian teaching and relapsing into pre-Christian Judaism.
Of course this resembles the problem which Paul was tackling in writing to the Galatians.
Not surprisingly, we can see him using much the same kind of approach.
When he calls them “children” and complains that they have become “dull of hearing” (ch5 vv11-14), that is the equivalent of “Foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you?” (Galatians ch3 v1).
When he gives them the severe warning that those who apostatize effectively re-crucify the Son of God (ch6 v6), that is the equivalent of “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace” (Galatians ch5 v4).
When he switches to a more encouraging tone, as in “Yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things that belong to salvation” (ch6 v9), that is the equivalent of Paul’s more personal appeal, beginning “Brethren, I beseech you, become as I am” (Galatians ch4 v12).

And he also, like Paul, claims for the church the blessing which God promised to Abraham.
Paul focussed on the promise of Genesis ch15, which was made just after the Lord had called himself “your shield”.
This writer brings in the further promise made in Genesis ch22, just after the non-sacrifice of Isaac.
The significance of the later promise is that it was re-enforced with an oath;
“For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no-one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself” (ch6 v13).
In human relations, an oath was thought to be more binding than an ordinary promise.
A man would “swear by” his god, or some other power greater than himself, and the understanding was that this power would hold him to the oath and punish him if he broke it.
So the oath made the promise more dependable, which increased the confidence of the person receiving it.
In Greek literature, gods might swear by the River Styx, in the absence of any other “greater power”.
Strictly speaking, of course, there is nothing greater than a true God.
So if God wanted to swear, he could not swear in any other way but “by myself”.

Therefore that is what he did when he wanted to show his unchangeable purpose “more convincingly”.
Thus we can find encouragement “through two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible that God should be proved false” (vv17-18)
The other “unchangeable thing” can only the first promise, the “shield” promise which Paul quotes.
The writer seems to assume that his readers will recognise the allusion even if he does not quote the reference himself.
In other words, I think, he takes it for granted that they know the argument of Galatians.

The moral is that we should follow Abraham’s example.
He received the promise with trust and patience.
Therefore once he had “patiently endured”, he received what he had been promised.
We are people who have “fled for refuge” (v18).
“From the wrath of God’s judgement” should be understood here, remembering the rhetorical question which was posed in a previous chapter;
“How shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation?” (ch2 v3)
This ought to remind us of the Old Testament image of the fugitive claiming refuge from justice by seizing hold of God’s altar.
Since we have received, through Abraham, the doubly unbreakable promise of God, that should encourage us to “seize hold” of the hope that he sets before us.

There is nothing diffident and uncertain about the New Testament understanding of “hope”. Hope is simply Faith as applied to the future.
The culture of the Sixties gave us the remarkable mixed metaphor of “We’re on our way to freedom, we shall not be moved”.
The absolutely immobile image of “the tree that’s standing by the waterside” was somehow combined with belief in travelling on a journey.
We get the same thing here.
On the one hand, our hope is like a “sure and steadfast anchor”, which prevents us “drifting away” from Christ.
On the other hand, hope itself moves beyond the altar into the inner shrine behind the curtain.
This hope is represented by Jesus, who has made the same journey on our behalf, as our fore-runner, and therefore, in a sense, carries us along with him (vv19-20).

He does this in his capacity as High Priest “after the order of Melchizedek”, which enables the writer to return to that interrupted theme in the next chapter.

It's a timely thread Dis, probably be lost on most people though
We as Christians are under the love of Christ not the law, we don't have to follow the law, we have to love God and love each other, love both Christian and non alike.
We are defined by our love not legalism, not the laws of the Old Testament, love doesn't hurt people

Christs message and Pauls message never changed, love at all costs
Love covers many sins

I don't know how many Christians I meet who believe that we are all still under the law, how many still judge people, who condemn people, who use the Old Testament to poison the new testaments teachings of love with religion, legalism and self righteousness

The answer to how we should live, don't get angry with others, love others, show compassion, read the fruit of the Spirit and live the fruit of the Spirit, make it a part of your life and you will grow in Christ, stop living off milk

The Christian must Consider every decision and ask themselves, are my actions loving

Jesus loved the outcasts, he loved sinners, the prostitutes, the tax collectors, yes Jesus would have loved the homosexuals
So should we

a reply to: Raggedyman

well said...

I like how James uses Abraham as a proof that faith without works is dead, which is directed at Paul who used it to say faith ALONE justifies "us."

I wonder how that got past the geniuses who compiled the "New Testament"?

I think Hebrews is a response to James.

a reply to: Raggedyman


James and Jesus were zealous for the Law of Moses and James accused (accurately) Paul of teaching against the Law of Moses, that it was dead and a curse.

Paul teaches that, you believe it, but Paul DENIED it, he LIED to James. Took a vow to prove he was "walking in the Law."

Your religion is confused. Jesus said the Law will never perish, declared that in order to get to heaven one must obey it, when asked, what was necessary to enter the Kingdom of God?

Maybe Jesus teachings are why they correctly obey the commandments which fulfills the Law or Torah.

And maybe because it's part of your scripture, if it is scripture it is valid and the commandments and Laws of God SHOULD be obeyed.

Jesus did it. The whole purpose of being a disciple is to emulate Christ, not attempt to profit off his death like a pagan human sacrifice.

Paul was no disciple of Christ, never knew him.

I would listen to Christ before Paul.

a reply to: irenialilivenka

Did he, James, if so where?

Interesting, maybe James is teaching if you don't love you are not following the gospel of Jesus
Yes faith without works (love) is dead, but no doubt you believe James was demanding that people follow the old covenant, Moseses law, the old covenant
You do know there is an old covenant and a new covenant don't you?

Can you show me where James was demanding people follow the old covenant of Moses, that's would be great...

Is everyone sure Jesus was talking about the law of Moses in his teaching?

a reply to: Raggedyman

Acts 21:20

"You see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are ALL ZEALOUS FOR THE LAW.

21. They have been told about you that you teach all the Jews among the gentiles to forsake Moses, authorizing them not to circumcise their children or follow the customary practices.

23. So do as we suggest.

24. This will let everyone know there is no truth in the reports heard about you and that you still regularly observe THE LAW.


Paul concedes.

Then he is arrested for teaching against the Law by the Jews.

But he calls out to Roman soldiers who rescue him and give him permission to speak to the Jews.

Then he invoked Caesar (Nero) and dissapeared from history. Some SAY he was martyred, but there is no proof of that.

Regardless, his letters DO teach against the Law of Moses which is akin to forsaking Moses, he despises circumcision so much he wishes they would castrate themselves, and is guilty in his letters of every accusation.

He is a liar.

a reply to: Raggedyman

James WAS saying that the Law of Moses is valid. The New Covenant doesn't revoke the Law of Moses.

Jesus simplified it to two commandments, following those is following the Law according to the New Covenant.

Faith alone justifies us, says Paul and ONLY Paul.

Faith alone is dead says James.

It's not complicated, the New Testament is self contradictory.

originally posted by: Akragon
Is everyone sure Jesus was talking about the law of Moses in his teaching?

In the form of the two great commandments, yes.

He simplified it something proper.

originally posted by: irenialilivenka

originally posted by: Akragon
Is everyone sure Jesus was talking about the law of Moses in his teaching?

In the form of the two great commandments, yes.

He simplified it something proper.

except HE broke rules in moses' laws... So perhaps a jot or two passed?

Or again... he wasn't talking about those laws

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: irenialilivenka

originally posted by: Akragon
Is everyone sure Jesus was talking about the law of Moses in his teaching?

In the form of the two great commandments, yes.

He simplified it something proper.

except HE broke rules moses' laws... So perhaps a jot or two passed?

Or again... he wasn't talking about those laws

Except the two great commandments come from the Torah.

Love God with all your heart, love your neighbor as yourself. This is a summary of the Decalogue and quite genius, also it is in Rabbinical literature that the Torah is built on love.

Jesus didn't break any Law, he was falsley accused though.

You know he died without sin, he was a Jew, that means he "fulfilled the Law."

You can't violate AND fulfill something.

a reply to: Raggedyman


James concern was that Paul was teaching JEWS to forsake the Law.

Never mind that it violates their alleged agreement to divide into Jew and Gentile between Paul and the Apostles.

Which is a farce. All the Apostles preached to, as instructed, all nations.

James was a Jew, protecting the Jewish identity, didn't care if Romans or Greeks followed Mosaic Law, just that Paul was teaching JEWS to forsake their identity.

Can you blame him?

a reply to: Akragon

And the confirmation of the Law being Mosaic comes from Jesus himself and James, his brother.

a reply to: irenialilivenka

Jesus didn't break any Law, he was falsley accused though.

Well... aside from dietary law... those caught in adultry... sabbath rules... etc

Sure... i guess loop holes don't count

a reply to: Akragon

What dietary law did he violate?

He was empowered by God, he had authority to forgive sin and he didn't force anyone to NOT stone her, he gave them a conscience.

Love...

a reply to: Akragon

It is not a violation of Mosaic law to save a life on the Sabbath.

Not even in the Talmud.

a reply to: irenialilivenka

What dietary law did he violate?

HE advocated violation of dietary law

He was empowered by God, he had authority to forgive sin and he didn't force anyone to NOT stone her, he gave them a conscience.

right... but he didn't follow what was suggested by said law

It is not a violation of Mosaic law to save a life on the Sabbath.

Not even in the Talmud.

That would be considered work... so ya it is a violation

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: irenialilivenka

What dietary law did he violate?

HE advocated violation of dietary law

He was empowered by God, he had authority to forgive sin and he didn't force anyone to NOT stone her, he gave them a conscience.

right... but he didn't follow what was suggested by said law

It is not a violation of Mosaic law to save a life on the Sabbath.

Not even in the Talmud.

That would be considered work... so ya it is a violation

How is it work to save a life?

What was his fee?

You would be a literal scumbag if you didn't save a life because it was the Sabbath.

And like I said, Jews today will make an exception on the Sabbath if it is a matter of life and death without violating the law.

Why is Jesus guilty of something even Rabbinical authorities don't consider breaking the law?

What food did he advocate eating that is such a big deal to you that you judge him guilty?

Did he eat meat sacrificed to Idols?
Strangled carrion?
Blood?

Under the New Covenant he broke no law, and yes, I am aware this revelation was through the Holy Spirit after ascension.

But Jesus would know that ahead of time.

He was a Prophet.